AMD FirePro W5130M vs NVIDIA GeForce 930M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available in the database is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and it shows a narrow victory for the NVIDIA GeForce 930M. The 930M scores 5046, while the AMD FirePro W5130M posts 4904. That is a delta of 2.8% in NVIDIA's favor, which is close enough that real-world application differences will likely outweigh the raw compute gap. In this single metric, the 930M is the winner, but the margin is slim enough to call it a near-tie in synthetic compute workloads.

Looking at the broader database context, the FirePro W5130M sits at the 29th percentile of all GPUs, while the 930M is at the 26th percentile. Despite the lower percentile ranking, the 930M's average benchmark score across all its recorded tests is 4388, which is actually lower than the FirePro's single OpenCL score of 4904. This discrepancy is because the 930M has two benchmark entries in the database: a 5046 OpenCL result and a 3729 Vulkan result. The Vulkan score drags its average down significantly. If you compare only the OpenCL tests, the 930M leads; if you compare average scores, the FirePro leads by 516 points, which is roughly 11.8% higher.

The nearest rivals in the database help contextualize both parts. The FirePro W5130M's closest competitors include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 8 GB (average 4901, just 0.1% behind) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 (4893, 0.2% behind). It also sits near the AMD Radeon R7 M265 (4929) and R7 M360 (4931), both of which edge it out by 0.5%. This clustering suggests the FirePro sits in a performance tier where small architectural differences move the needle by fractions of a percent. The 930M's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GT 645M (4411, 0.5% ahead), the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 (4360, 0.7% behind), and the AMD FirePro W2100 (4295, 2.2% behind). Notably, the RTX 4070 GDDR6 appears at 4335, which is 1.2% behind the 930M's average, showing how far down the stack this mobile chip sits.

The practical takeaway from the head-to-head data is this: in pure OpenCL throughput, the two are nearly indistinguishable. The 2.8% delta is within run-to-run variance for most benchmark suites. However, the 930M's Vulkan result reveals a significant gap in that API, where it scores 3729, a full 26.1% below its own OpenCL score. The FirePro has no Vulkan entry in the database, so direct comparison is impossible, but the 930M's weak Vulkan showing suggests that API-specific workloads will favor whichever part has better driver support for that interface.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural families and are built on different process nodes. The AMD FirePro W5130M uses the Tropo chip based on GCN 1.0 architecture, fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process. It packs 1,500 million transistors into a die size of 123 mm², giving a transistor density of 12.2 million per square millimeter. The NVIDIA GeForce 930M uses the GM108S chip based on Maxwell architecture, also fabricated by TSMC on 28 nm, but with 1,020 million transistors on a much smaller 77 mm² die, yielding a higher density of 13.2 million per square millimeter.

Clock speeds show a major divergence. The FirePro runs at a base clock of 900 MHz and boosts to 925 MHz. The 930M runs at a flat 549 MHz with no boost, which is dramatically lower. This explains why the FirePro can achieve competitive OpenCL scores despite having fewer raw advantages elsewhere. The FirePro's memory clock is 1000 MHz with 4 Gbps effective, while the 930M's memory runs at 800 MHz with 1600 Mbps effective. The FirePro uses GDDR5 memory with a 128-bit bus, delivering 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The 930M uses DDR3 with a 64-bit bus, delivering only 12.80 GB/s. That is a fivefold bandwidth advantage for the AMD part.

Compute resources differ as well. The FirePro has 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 raster output units. The 930M has 384 shaders, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. Pixel fill rate on the FirePro is 14.80 GPixel/s versus 4.392 GPixel/s on the 930M. Texture fill rate is 29.60 GTexel/s versus 13.18 GTexel/s. Floating-point performance (FP32) is 947.2 GFLOPS for the FirePro versus 421.6 GFLOPS for the 930M. In every throughput metric, the AMD part is roughly double the NVIDIA part, yet the OpenCL scores are nearly identical, which points to driver efficiency and memory latency characteristics that are not captured in the raw specs.

The bus interfaces differ: the FirePro uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the 930M uses PCIe 3.0 x8. The 930M has a listed TDP of 33 W and is classified as an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no power connectors and portable-device-dependent display outputs. The FirePro has no TDP listed in the database. API support shows the FirePro supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The 930M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Vulkan version difference is notable, with NVIDIA supporting a much newer spec.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL compute?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 930M scores 5046 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the AMD FirePro W5130M scores 4904. That gives the 930M a 2.8% lead in this specific test.

Q: Why does the FirePro have much higher fill rates but lose the OpenCL test?

A: The FirePro has a pixel rate of 14.80 GPixel/s and texture rate of 29.60 GTexel/s, roughly double the 930M's 4.392 GPixel/s and 13.18 GTexel/s. However, the OpenCL score depends on compute shader execution and memory efficiency, not just fill rates. The 930M's Maxwell architecture appears to extract more useful work per clock from its lower clocked cores.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The FirePro uses GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus for 64.00 GB/s. The 930M uses DDR3 on a 64-bit bus for 12.80 GB/s. That is a 5x difference in theoretical bandwidth favoring the AMD part.

Q: Which GPU has better Vulkan support?

A: The 930M supports Vulkan 1.4, while the FirePro supports Vulkan 1.2.170. Additionally, the 930M has a recorded Vulkan benchmark score of 3729, while the FirePro has no Vulkan benchmark entry in the database.

Q: How do these chips compare to their closest rivals?

A: The FirePro sits within 0.5% of the AMD Radeon R7 M265 and R7 M360, and within 0.2% of the GTS 450. The 930M's average score sits 0.5% behind the GT 645M and 0.7% ahead of the Intel Iris Pro 5200.

Q: What are the transistor counts and die sizes?

A: The FirePro has 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die. The 930M has 1,020 million transistors on a 77 mm² die. Both are built on TSMC's 28 nm process.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear but narrow decision. If you are choosing purely on OpenCL compute performance, the NVIDIA GeForce 930M wins by 2.8%, which is a tangible but small margin. However, the FirePro W5130M has massive advantages in memory bandwidth (64.00 GB/s versus 12.80 GB/s), pixel fill rate (14.80 versus 4.392 GPixel/s), and FP32 throughput (947.2 versus 421.6 GFLOPS). These specs matter for specific workloads, particularly those that are bandwidth-bound or fill-rate-bound rather than compute-bound.

The 930M's average benchmark score of 4388 is dragged down by its Vulkan result of 3729. If you look at the OpenCL score alone, it is the stronger chip. But the database shows the 930M's overall percentile at 26 versus the FirePro's 29, meaning the FirePro sits higher in the global distribution of all GPUs. That percentile ranking suggests the FirePro is the more consistently capable part across varied workloads.

For a laptop buyer, the 930M's 33 W TDP and IGP classification indicate it is designed for low-power integration, while the FirePro's lack of a TDP listing and its x16 bus interface suggest it may be intended for more substantial mobile workstations. The FirePro's GDDR5 memory and double-precision-class compute resources (in terms of raw throughput) make it the better choice for professional applications that leverage those features. The 930M's Maxwell architecture and newer Vulkan support make it better for consumer workloads that favor NVIDIA's driver optimizations.

The verdict is conditional. The 930M wins the single head-to-head benchmark, but the FirePro wins the specification war on paper. The tiebreaker should be the actual application. If the workload is OpenCL compute, the 930M edges ahead. If the workload is memory-intensive or relies on fill rates, the FirePro is the safer pick.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every measurable specification. The FirePro uses GCN 1.0 architecture with 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The 930M uses Maxwell with 384 shaders, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. Base clock is 900 MHz versus 549 MHz, and boost clock is 925 MHz versus no boost at all. Memory type is GDDR5 versus DDR3, with bus widths of 128-bit versus 64-bit. Bandwidth is 64.00 GB/s versus 12.80 GB/s. Transistor count is 1,500 million versus 1,020 million, with die sizes of 123 mm² versus 77 mm². The FirePro has a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, while the 930M uses PCIe 3.0 x8. The FirePro supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170; the 930M supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.4. The 930M has a TDP of 33 W and is classified as IGP with no power connectors; the FirePro has no TDP or power connector data. Release dates differ as well: the FirePro launched on 2015-10-01, the 930M on 2015-03-12. Both are end-of-life products.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce 930M wins in the only recorded head-to-head benchmark, the Geekbench OpenCL test, by 2.8%. It also wins on Vulkan API support, offering version 1.4 versus the FirePro's 1.2.170, and it has a recorded Vulkan score of 3729. Its lower TDP of 33 W and IGP classification make it better suited for thin-and-light laptops where power draw is a primary concern. The 930M's nearest rivals are all within 2.2% of its average score, showing consistent performance in its tier.

The AMD FirePro W5130M wins on every raw throughput specification. It has 5x the memory bandwidth, 3.4x the pixel fill rate, 2.2x the texture fill rate, and 2.2x the FP32 throughput. Its transistor count is 47% higher, and its die is 60% larger. The FirePro supports PCIe 3.0 x16 versus x8, which matters for data transfer in compute workloads. Its percentile ranking is 29 versus 26, and its average benchmark score of 4904 is 11.8% higher than the 930M's average of 4388. For professional applications that are bandwidth-bound or fill-rate-bound, the FirePro's architecture delivers more headroom despite losing the single OpenCL test. It also launched later in 2015, which may mean newer driver support in the database's records.

The use-case split is straightforward: choose the 930M for OpenCL compute tasks and low-power integration, choose the FirePro for memory-heavy or fill-rate-heavy workloads where its GDDR5 and higher clock speeds provide a decisive advantage.