AMD FirePro M4000 vs AMD Radeon 610M Comparison

AMD FirePro M4000 and AMD Radeon 610M represent two very different eras of mobile graphics, yet both land in the same performance percentile. The FirePro M4000, a 2012-era discrete workstation part, and the Radeon 610M, a 2022 integrated graphics processor, are separated by a decade of architectural evolution. Benchmark results show the older FirePro M4000 holds a commanding lead in OpenCL compute, while the Radeon 610M counters with superior API support and efficiency metrics. The data reveals that raw compute performance and modern feature support do not always align, making the choice between them dependent on specific workload priorities rather than simple generational assumptions.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single available head-to-head benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, delivers a decisive result in favor of the AMD FirePro M4000. The FirePro M4000 scores 5537 points, while the Radeon 610M manages 4535 points. This translates to a 22.1% advantage for the older discrete GPU, a substantial margin that underscores the difference between dedicated graphics memory and system-shared memory. The FirePro M4000’s 1024 MB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus delivers 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth, whereas the Radeon 610M relies on system memory with bandwidth described as "System Dependent." In compute-heavy OpenCL workloads, this memory bandwidth advantage proves decisive, allowing the FirePro M4000 to outperform its newer rival by nearly a quarter.

Interestingly, the Radeon 610M does not compete in OpenCL alone. Its benchmark suite includes a Geekbench Vulkan score of 6353 points, a test the FirePro M4000 does not have data for. This Vulkan result is significantly higher than the Radeon 610M’s own OpenCL score, suggesting the architecture is far more efficient in modern graphics APIs. However, since the FirePro M4000 lacks a Vulkan benchmark entry in the data, a direct head-to-head comparison in this API is impossible. The absence of a Vulkan score for the FirePro M4000 is notable given its API support listing includes Vulkan 1.2.170, but the benchmark data does not confirm its real-world Vulkan performance.

When placed against their respective nearest rivals, both GPUs occupy a similar competitive tier. The FirePro M4000’s 5537 average sits 0.5% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 (5508) and 0.7% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M (5501). It trails the NVIDIA Quadro M500M (5604) by 1.2%. The Radeon 610M, with an average benchmark score of 5444, sits 0.5% ahead of the AMD Radeon R7 M365X (5416) but falls 0.4% behind the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 (5467) and 0.7% behind the AMD Radeon R7 M440 (5483). The Radeon 610M also trails the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M (5501) by 1%. Both GPUs land at the 32nd percentile among all GPUs, indicating they are mid-to-low tier performers, but the FirePro M4000’s OpenCL edge is real and measurable.

The Verdict

The data makes a clear case for the AMD FirePro M4000 if compute performance is the primary criterion. Its 22.1% OpenCL lead over the Radeon 610M is the largest margin in any direct comparison, and its dedicated 64.00 GB/s memory bandwidth provides a structural advantage that system-shared memory cannot match. Anyone running OpenCL-based workloads, such as professional compute tasks or legacy applications, should choose the FirePro M4000 based on this benchmark evidence alone.

The AMD Radeon 610M, however, is not without its merits. Its Vulkan score of 6353 points indicates strong modern API performance, and its support for DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) versus the FirePro M4000’s DirectX 12 (11_1) means it is better equipped for contemporary gaming and graphics applications. The Radeon 610M also operates at a 15 W TDP compared to the FirePro M4000’s 33 W, making it dramatically more power-efficient. For users prioritizing modern feature support, lower power consumption, and Vulkan performance, the Radeon 610M is the logical pick despite losing the OpenCL head-to-head.

Neutral analysis suggests neither GPU is a universal winner. The FirePro M4000 wins on raw compute and memory bandwidth; the Radeon 610M wins on API modernity and efficiency. The choice hinges on whether the workload is compute-bound or feature-bound. If the task requires maximum OpenCL throughput, the FirePro M4000 delivers. If the task demands modern graphics API support or runs in a power-constrained environment, the Radeon 610M is superior. Both sit at the same 32nd percentile, confirming they are comparable in overall tier, but their strengths are distinctly different.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The AMD FirePro M4000 scores 5537 points, which is 22.1% higher than the AMD Radeon 610M’s 4535 points in the same test.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon 610M have any benchmark advantage over the FirePro M4000?

A: The Radeon 610M has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 6353 points, but the FirePro M4000 has no Vulkan benchmark entry, so no direct comparison exists in that API.

Q: How do these GPUs compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The FirePro M4000 is 0.5% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 and 0.7% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M, but 1.2% behind the NVIDIA Quadro M500M. The Radeon 610M is 0.5% ahead of the AMD Radeon R7 M365X, but 0.4% behind the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 and 0.7% behind the AMD Radeon R7 M440.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The FirePro M4000 uses 1024 MB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth. The Radeon 610M uses system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU supports a newer DirectX version?

A: The AMD Radeon 610M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the AMD FirePro M4000 supports DirectX 12 (11_1).

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The FirePro M4000 has a TDP of 33 W, while the Radeon 610M has a TDP of 15 W.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every core specification. The AMD FirePro M4000 features 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 raster output pipelines. The AMD Radeon 610M is configured with 128 shading units, 8 texture mapping units, and 4 raster output pipelines. This four-fold difference in shading units and TMUs explains the FirePro M4000’s compute advantage, though the Radeon 610M compensates with higher clock speeds: its base clock is 1500 MHz with a boost of 1900 MHz, while the FirePro M4000 lists no base or boost clock in the data.

Pixel and texture rates reflect these core differences. The FirePro M4000 achieves 10.80 GPixel/s and 21.60 GTexel/s, while the Radeon 610M reaches 7.600 GPixel/s and 15.20 GTexel/s. In floating-point performance, the FirePro M4000 delivers 691.2 GFLOPS of FP32 compute, surpassing the Radeon 610M’s 486.4 GFLOPS. The Radeon 610M, however, offers FP16 performance of 972.8 GFLOPS (2:1), a feature the FirePro M4000 lacks entirely. Memory clocks also differ: the FirePro M4000 runs at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective), while the Radeon 610M uses system-shared memory.

The Radeon 610M includes 2 ray tracing cores, a feature absent from the FirePro M4000. The FirePro M4000 uses an MXM Module slot width with an MXM-A (3.0) bus interface, while the Radeon 610M is an IGP with a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface. The FirePro M4000 has a 28 nm process node and a die size of 123 mm² with 1,500 million transistors, whereas the Radeon 610M uses a 6 nm process node and a die size of 100 mm² with no transistor count listed. The FirePro M4000’s transistor density is 12.2M / mm², but no density figure exists for the Radeon 610M.

Architecture Differences

Architecturally, these GPUs are generations apart. The AMD FirePro M4000 is built on GCN 1.0 architecture with the Chelsea chip, part of the FirePro Mobile (Mx000) generation. The AMD Radeon 610M uses RDNA 2.0 architecture with the Mendocino chip, part of the Navi II IGP (Mendocino Mobile) generation. This architectural shift explains the feature divergence: GCN 1.0 was designed for compute efficiency in a discrete form factor, while RDNA 2.0 emphasizes power efficiency and modern graphics features in an integrated package.

The process node difference is stark: 28 nm for the FirePro M4000 versus 6 nm for the Radeon 610M, both manufactured by TSMC. The smaller node enables the Radeon 610M to operate at a 15 W TDP despite being an integrated part, whereas the FirePro M4000 requires 33 W as a discrete MXM module. The Radeon 610M’s 2 ray tracing cores represent a hardware feature completely absent from GCN 1.0, and its FP16 capability (972.8 GFLOPS) indicates a modern shader design that the FirePro M4000 does not support.

API support further separates them. The Radeon 610M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while the FirePro M4000 supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The Radeon 610M’s release in 2022, a decade after the FirePro M4000’s 2012 debut, is reflected in its modern feature set. Both are now end-of-life, with the FirePro M4000 succeeding FirePro Mobility and preceding Radeon Pro Mobile, while the Radeon 610M succeeds Vega II IGP and precedes Navi III IGP.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD FirePro M4000 wins decisively in OpenCL compute workloads. Its 22.1% benchmark advantage over the Radeon 610M, combined with 691.2 GFLOPS FP32 performance and 64.00 GB/s of dedicated memory bandwidth, makes it the superior choice for any application that leverages OpenCL for general-purpose GPU computing. The FirePro M4000 also wins in raw pixel throughput (10.80 GPixel/s vs 7.600 GPixel/s) and texture rate (21.60 GTexel/s vs 15.20 GTexel/s), making it better suited for fill-rate-bound tasks. Its MXM module form factor means it can be installed in compatible laptops as a discrete upgrade, offering dedicated memory that does not compete with system RAM.

The AMD Radeon 610M wins in modern graphics API support and efficiency. Its DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) certification and Vulkan 1.4 support make it the better choice for contemporary games and applications that leverage these advanced APIs. Its Vulkan benchmark score of 6353 points suggests strong performance in Vulkan-based workloads, even though no direct comparison exists. The Radeon 610M’s 15 W TDP is less than half the FirePro M4000’s 33 W, making it ideal for power-constrained ultraportable devices. Its 2 ray tracing cores provide hardware acceleration for ray-traced effects, a capability entirely absent from the FirePro M4000. Additionally, the Radeon 610M’s FP16 performance (972.8 GFLOPS) enables accelerated half-precision compute, which the FirePro M4000 cannot do.

For users running legacy OpenCL applications, the FirePro M4000 is the clear winner based on the 22.1% benchmark margin. For users prioritizing modern gaming features, ray tracing support, or battery life, the Radeon 610M is the better fit. The data does not support a single recommendation for all use cases; instead, it shows two GPUs optimized for different eras and priorities. The FirePro M4000 maximizes compute throughput with dedicated memory, while the Radeon 610M maximizes efficiency and modern feature support in a compact IGP package.