AMD FirePro W600 vs AMD Radeon R7 M440 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score in the database?

A: The AMD FirePro W600 records an average benchmark score of 6223, while the AMD Radeon R7 M440 averages 5483. The FirePro W600 sits at the 36th percentile of all GPUs, and the R7 M440 sits at the 32nd percentile.

Q: What is the difference in OpenCL performance between the two?

A: In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the FirePro W600 scores 6223 versus 5214 for the R7 M440. That gives the FirePro W600 a 19.4% lead in this workload.

Q: Does the Radeon R7 M440 have any benchmark win over the FirePro W600?

A: The recorded data shows one head-to-head benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, and the FirePro W600 wins it. The R7 M440 has no benchmark victories over the FirePro W600 in the database.

Q: How do the memory subsystems differ?

A: The FirePro W600 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The R7 M440 uses 4 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus with 14.40 GB/s of bandwidth. The FirePro W600 memory clock is 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective), while the R7 M440 memory clock is 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective).

Q: Which GPU has more shading units and texture mapping units?

A: The FirePro W600 has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The R7 M440 has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The FirePro W600 also achieves higher pixel and texture rates: 12.00 GPixel/s and 24.00 GTexel/s versus 7.128 GPixel/s and 17.82 GTexel/s.

Q: What are the nearest rivals for each GPU in the database?

A: For the FirePro W600, the closest rivals are the AMD Radeon HD 6950 (0.2% ahead), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 (0.7% behind), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti SUPER (0.7% behind), and the NVIDIA Quadro K620 (0.9% behind). For the R7 M440, the closest rivals are the AMD Radeon 610M (0.7% ahead), the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 (0.3% ahead), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M (0.3% behind), and the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 (0.5% behind).

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different points in AMD's architecture timeline, and the data shows clear generational and design splits. The FirePro W600 uses the Cape Verde chip built on GCN 1.0, while the R7 M440 uses the Meso chip built on GCN 3.0. Both are manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC, but the transistor counts and die sizes are very close: the FirePro W600 has 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, and the R7 M440 has 1,550 million transistors on a 125 mm² die. Transistor density is nearly identical as well, 12.2M / mm² versus 12.4M / mm².

The architectural changes between GCN 1.0 and GCN 3.0 are reflected in the compute resources. The FirePro W600 packs 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The R7 M440 cuts those counts down to 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. That is a reduction of 192 shading units, 12 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. Despite the newer architecture, the R7 M440 has fewer raw execution resources, which shows up directly in its lower pixel rate (7.128 GPixel/s versus 12.00 GPixel/s) and texture rate (17.82 GTexel/s versus 24.00 GTexel/s). FP32 output also favors the older card: 768.0 GFLOPS for the FirePro W600 versus 570.2 GFLOPS for the R7 M440. The R7 M440 does list an FP16 figure of 570.2 GFLOPS (1:1), while the FirePro W600 has no recorded FP16 value.

The memory architecture is another major difference. The FirePro W600 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 over a 128-bit bus, reaching 64.00 GB/s. The R7 M440 uses 4 GB of DDR3 over a 64-bit bus, reaching only 14.40 GB/s. That is a 49.6 GB/s gap in bandwidth, which matters for any memory-heavy workload. The R7 M440 does double the capacity to 4 GB, but the DDR3 type and narrow bus limit its effective throughput. The bus interface also differs: the FirePro W600 runs on PCIe 3.0 x16, while the R7 M440 runs on PCIe 3.0 x8. The FirePro W600 is a single-slot card with six mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, while the R7 M440 is an integrated GPU (IGP) with display outputs listed as portable device dependent.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains one head-to-head benchmark between these two GPUs, and it is Geekbench OpenCL. The FirePro W600 scores 6223, and the R7 M440 scores 5214. That gives the FirePro W600 a 19.4% advantage. This is a substantial lead, and it aligns with the compute resource gap: the FirePro W600 has more shading units, more TMUs, more ROPs, higher FP32 throughput, and over four times the memory bandwidth.

To put that score in context, the FirePro W600's nearest rivals in the database are tightly clustered around it. The AMD Radeon HD 6950 scores 6210 (0.2% behind), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 scores 6270 (0.7% ahead), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti SUPER scores 6270 (0.7% ahead), and the NVIDIA Quadro K620 scores 6282 (0.9% ahead). The FirePro W600 is essentially at parity with that group, within a very narrow band of less than one percent in either direction.

The R7 M440's nearest rivals sit in a similar range. The AMD Radeon 610M scores 5444 (0.7% behind the R7 M440), the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 scores 5467 (0.3% behind), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M scores 5501 (0.3% ahead), and the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 scores 5508 (0.5% ahead). The R7 M440 sits in the middle of that pack. The gap between the FirePro W600 and the R7 M440, 1009 points on the OpenCL test, is far larger than the gaps these GPUs have to their own nearest rivals. The FirePro W600's score puts it in a different performance tier entirely.

The R7 M440 does have a second recorded benchmark, Geekbench Vulkan, where it scores 5751. The FirePro W600 has no Vulkan benchmark recorded in the database, so there is no direct comparison available for that API. However, for the one workload where both are measured, the FirePro W600 wins decisively.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every specification field in the database. The FirePro W600 uses the Cape Verde chip on GCN 1.0, while the R7 M440 uses the Meso chip on GCN 3.0. The FirePro W600 belongs to the FirePro GCN (Wx000) generation and was released on 2012-06-12. The R7 M440 belongs to the Gem System (R7 M400) generation and was released on 2016-05-14. Both are marked end-of-life. The FirePro W600's predecessor is FirePro Terascale, and its successor is Radeon Pro Polaris. The R7 M440's predecessor is Solar System, and its successor is Polaris Mobile.

Transistor counts are close, 1,500 million versus 1,550 million, and die sizes are close too, 123 mm² versus 125 mm². The process node is the same, 28 nm at TSMC. Everything else diverges. The FirePro W600 has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The R7 M440 has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The FirePro W600's pixel rate is 12.00 GPixel/s versus 7.128 GPixel/s, and its texture rate is 24.00 GTexel/s versus 17.82 GTexel/s. FP32 is 768.0 GFLOPS versus 570.2 GFLOPS. The R7 M440 lists FP16 at 570.2 GFLOPS (1:1), while the FirePro W600 has no FP16 entry.

Memory differs in every respect: size (2 GB versus 4 GB), type (GDDR5 versus DDR3), bus width (128 bit versus 64 bit), bandwidth (64.00 GB/s versus 14.40 GB/s), and memory clock (1000 MHz, 4 Gbps effective versus 900 MHz, 1800 Mbps effective). The FirePro W600 has a TDP of 75 W, a suggested PSU of 250 W, single-slot width, and no power connectors. The R7 M440 has no TDP, no suggested PSU, and is listed as IGP slot width. The bus interface is PCIe 3.0 x16 for the FirePro W600 and PCIe 3.0 x8 for the R7 M440. Display outputs are six mini-DisplayPort 1.2 on the FirePro W600 versus portable device dependent on the R7 M440. The FirePro W600 has dimensions of 168 mm length, 111 mm height, and 20 mm width. The R7 M440 has no recorded dimensions. Both support DirectX 12, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170, though the DirectX feature level differs: 12 (11_1) for the FirePro W600 and 12 (12_0) for the R7 M440.

The FirePro W600 has a launch MSRP of 599 USD. The R7 M440 has no launch MSRP recorded.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data gives the FirePro W600 a clear win in raw compute performance. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 6223 is 19.4% higher than the R7 M440's 5214. The FirePro W600 also wins on every compute resource metric in the database: shading units, TMUs, ROPs, FP32, pixel rate, texture rate, memory bandwidth, and bus width. For workloads that rely on OpenCL compute, general GPU processing, or memory throughput, the FirePro W600 is the stronger option.

The R7 M440 does have some advantages, but not in performance. It offers 4 GB of memory versus 2 GB, which matters for workloads that need larger working sets even if the bandwidth is much lower. It also has a newer architecture (GCN 3.0 versus GCN 1.0) and a higher DirectX feature level (12_0 versus 11_1), which could matter for software that requires newer API features. The R7 M440 is an integrated GPU with no separate power connectors, no suggested PSU, and no physical dimensions recorded, which makes it suitable for portable or low-footprint systems. The FirePro W600, by contrast, is a single-slot card with six mini-DisplayPort outputs, a 75 W TDP, and a 250 W suggested PSU, which positions it as a workstation or multi-display card.

The R7 M440 also has a Vulkan benchmark score of 5751 in the database, while the FirePro W600 has no Vulkan score recorded. That does not mean the FirePro W600 is faster or slower in Vulkan, only that no data exists for comparison. For users targeting Vulkan specifically, the R7 M440 has recorded evidence of capability.

The Verdict

The data points to a straightforward conclusion for OpenCL and compute-oriented tasks: the AMD FirePro W600 is the stronger GPU. Its 19.4% lead over the R7 M440 in Geekbench OpenCL is backed by consistent wins in shading units, TMUs, ROPs, FP32 throughput, pixel rate, texture rate, and memory bandwidth. The FirePro W600 also sits at the 36th percentile of all GPUs, four points above the R7 M440's 32nd percentile, and its nearest rivals are all within 0.9% of its score, confirming it holds its own against a tight cluster of competitors.

The R7 M440 is not without reasons to exist. It doubles the memory capacity to 4 GB, uses a newer GCN 3.0 architecture, supports a higher DirectX feature level, and consumes no dedicated power connectors as an IGP. It also has a recorded Vulkan score, something the FirePro W600 lacks. For a portable system where low overhead and integrated design matter more than raw throughput, the R7 M440 is the only one of the two that fits.

But for pure performance per the benchmark record, the FirePro W600 wins the only direct comparison available. Anyone selecting between these two should weigh the FirePro W600's substantial compute and memory bandwidth advantage against the R7 M440's larger memory pool, newer feature set, and integrated form factor. The FirePro W600 is the pick for compute-heavy or multi-display workstation use. The R7 M440 is the pick for compact, low-power portable systems where the integrated design is a requirement.