AMD FirePro W4170M vs AMD Radeon R7 240 Comparison

The AMD Radeon R7 240 and the AMD FirePro W4170M are both end-of-life mobile and desktop GPU parts built on the same 28 nm process and GCN 1.0 architecture, yet they target different form factors and memory configurations. Benchmark data shows they are extremely close in raw compute performance, with the R7 240 edging ahead in the single available OpenCL test. However, their architectural specifications reveal distinct design priorities that matter for specific workloads.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, where the AMD Radeon R7 240 scores 5063 points versus the AMD FirePro W4170M’s 5034 points. This gives the R7 240 a narrow 0.6% lead, a margin that is effectively within run-to-run variance for most real-world applications. The R7 240 also wins the head-to-head tally by 1 win to 0, but the delta is so small that neither card can be called decisively faster in general compute tasks.

Placing these scores in context, both GPUs sit at the 30th percentile among all GPUs in the database. The nearest rivals confirm the tight grouping: the AMD Radeon R7 M340 matches the R7 240 exactly at 5063 points (0% delta), while the AMD Radeon R5 M430 trails by 0.9% at 5018 points. The AMD Radeon R7 Graphics integrated solution scores 4998, which is 1.3% behind the R7 240. From the FirePro W4170M’s perspective, it is 0.3% ahead of the R5 M430, 0.7% ahead of the R7 Graphics, and 0.6% behind both the R7 240 and the R7 M340.

What these numbers indicate is that all four or five GPUs in this performance tier are essentially interchangeable in raw OpenCL throughput. The 0.6% separating the two reviewed cards translates to less than 30 points on a 5000-point scale, which is noise-level difference. For any workload that is compute-bound and not memory-bandwidth-limited, users should expect nearly identical frame times or task completion times. The data does not support claiming one is “better” than the other in general-purpose compute.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 240 has an average benchmark score of 5063, while the AMD FirePro W4170M scores 5034. The R7 240 leads by 0.6% in the Geekbench OpenCL test.

Q: Are these two GPUs in the same performance percentile?

A: Yes, both are listed at the 30th percentile among all GPUs. Their nearest rivals also cluster tightly, with the R7 M340 at 5063, the R5 M430 at 5018, and the R7 Graphics at 4998.

Q: Do they use the same memory type?

A: No. The Radeon R7 240 uses 2 GB of DDR3 with a 128-bit bus and 28.80 GB/s bandwidth, while the FirePro W4170M uses 2 GB of GDDR5 with the same 128-bit bus but a much higher 64.00 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card has higher clock speeds?

A: The FirePro W4170M runs at a base clock of 825 MHz and a boost clock of 900 MHz, whereas the Radeon R7 240 has a 730 MHz base and 780 MHz boost. The FirePro also has faster memory at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) versus the R7 240’s 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective).

Q: Do they have the same shading unit count?

A: No. The Radeon R7 240 has 320 shading units, 20 texture mapping units, and 8 ROPs. The FirePro W4170M has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs.

Q: Are both cards still in production?

A: No, both are marked as end-of-life. The R7 240 was released on 2013-10-07, while the FirePro W4170M came later on 2015-04-22.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear picture for compute workloads: pick the AMD Radeon R7 240 if you want a desktop card with a slightly higher OpenCL score and a lower power draw of 30 W. It also has a defined launch MSRP of 69 USD, which can be stated once for reference. The R7 240’s advantage is marginal—0.6% in the only benchmark—but it does win the head-to-head comparison.

Choose the AMD FirePro W4170M if your priority is memory bandwidth. Its GDDR5 memory delivers 64.00 GB/s, which is more than double the R7 240’s 28.80 GB/s. This makes the FirePro the better choice for workloads that are sensitive to memory throughput, even though its raw compute score is slightly lower. It also has higher clock speeds (825 MHz base, 900 MHz boost) and more shading units (384 vs. 320), which could translate to better performance in tasks that scale with shader count rather than pure OpenCL integer or floating-point throughput.

However, neither card is suitable for modern high-end gaming or professional 3D rendering based on the percentile data. At the 30th percentile, both are entry-level parts. The FirePro’s MXM module form factor and portable-device-dependent display outputs make it a laptop or small-form-factor solution, whereas the R7 240 is a single-slot desktop card with DVI, HDMI 1.4a, and VGA outputs. If you have a choice between the two for a fixed system, the R7 240’s slightly higher benchmark score and lower power requirement (30 W vs. no TDP listed for the FirePro) make it the safer default, unless memory bandwidth is the bottleneck.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in several key fields beyond their benchmark scores. The Radeon R7 240 uses the Oland chip, while the FirePro W4170M uses Opal, though both are built on GCN 1.0 at 28 nm by TSMC with 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die. The R7 240’s base clock is 730 MHz with a 780 MHz boost, while the FirePro runs at 825 MHz base and 900 MHz boost. Memory clocks also diverge: the R7 240 uses 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) DDR3, whereas the FirePro uses 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) GDDR5.

Memory bandwidth is the largest spec gap: 28.80 GB/s for the R7 240 versus 64.00 GB/s for the FirePro, despite both having 2 GB and a 128-bit bus. The shading units differ as well—320 on the R7 240 versus 384 on the FirePro—along with TMUs (20 vs. 24) and ROPs (same at 8). Compute rates reflect these differences: the R7 240 achieves 499.2 GFLOPS FP32, 15.60 GTexel/s texture rate, and 6.240 GPixel/s pixel rate, while the FirePro reaches 691.2 GFLOPS, 21.60 GTexel/s, and 7.200 GPixel/s.

Power and physical specs also differ. The R7 240 has a 30 W TDP, a single-slot design, no power connectors, and a suggested PSU of 200 W. The FirePro has no listed TDP, uses an MXM module, and has no power connectors. The R7 240 measures 168 mm in length and 69 mm in height, while the FirePro’s dimensions are not provided. Both use PCIe 3.0 x8, but the R7 240 offers 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x VGA outputs, whereas the FirePro’s displays are portable-device dependent.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs share the same GCN 1.0 architecture, 28 nm process node from TSMC, and identical transistor count of 950 million on a 77 mm² die. However, they belong to different product generations: the R7 240 is part of the Volcanic Islands (R7 200) generation, while the FirePro W4170M is from the FirePro Mobile (Wx100M) line. Their predecessors and successors also differ—the R7 240’s predecessor is Sea Islands and its successor is Pirate Islands, while the FirePro’s predecessor is FirePro Mobility and its successor is Radeon Pro Mobile.

The core configuration is where the architecture manifests differently. The FirePro W4170M packs 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs, while the R7 240 has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. This 20% increase in shader count and TMUs gives the FirePro a theoretical compute advantage of 691.2 GFLOPS versus 499.2 GFLOPS for the R7 240. The FirePro also has higher pixel and texture rates, at 7.200 GPixel/s and 21.60 GTexel/s respectively, compared to 6.240 GPixel/s and 15.60 GTexel/s for the R7 240.

Memory architecture is another major split. The R7 240 employs DDR3 with 28.80 GB/s bandwidth, while the FirePro uses GDDR5 with 64.00 GB/s. This more than doubles the memory throughput for the FirePro, which can significantly impact bandwidth-bound workloads such as texture-heavy scenes or large data transfers. Both support the same API levels—DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170—so software compatibility is identical. The release dates are about 18 months apart, with the R7 240 debuting in October 2013 and the FirePro in April 2015, but both are now end-of-life. The R7 240 has a 30 W TDP and a 200 W suggested PSU, while the FirePro’s power draw is not specified, reflecting its mobile-oriented MXM design.