AMD FirePro M4000 vs AMD Radeon R7 M350 Comparison

The AMD Radeon R7 M350 and the AMD FirePro M4000 are both end-of-life mobile graphics solutions from AMD, but they target different eras and design philosophies. The database records a single head-to-head benchmark between them, Geekbench OpenCL, where the R7 M350 scores 6991 against the FirePro M4000’s 5537. That is a 26.3% advantage for the newer part. Beyond that single result, the surrounding data reveals distinct architectural generations, memory configurations, and performance profiles that shape where each GPU is the sensible pick.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison in the database is Geekbench OpenCL, and it is a decisive win for the AMD Radeon R7 M350. The R7 M350 posts 6991 points, while the AMD FirePro M4000 manages 5537 points. The delta of 26.3% is substantial, placing the R7 M350 clearly ahead in this compute-oriented workload. OpenCL performance often correlates with general GPU compute tasks, so this gap suggests the R7 M350 handles raw data-parallel workloads with noticeably more headroom.

Context from the nearest rivals reinforces the R7 M350’s position. Its average benchmark score is 6327, placing it just behind the AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100, which averages 6330, a negligible 0% difference. The R7 M350 also sits marginally above the NVIDIA Quadro K620 (6282, 0.7% behind) and ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti SUPER (6270, 0.9% behind). These comparisons show that, despite its modest mobile pedigree, the R7 M350 lands in a competitive band with several professional and desktop-class parts, at least in aggregate scoring.

The FirePro M4000’s average benchmark score is 5537, with a percentile ranking of 32 versus the R7 M350’s 36. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Quadro M500M, which scores 5604 and is 1.2% ahead, meaning the FirePro M4000 trails that particular competitor. Meanwhile, it leads the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 (5508, 0.5% ahead of that rival), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M (5501, 0.7% ahead), and the AMD Radeon R7 M440 (5483, 1% ahead). The picture is one of a mid-pack mobile GPU: the FirePro M4000 is not at the bottom of its peer group, but it has no claim to the top either.

Looking at the raw specifications, the R7 M350’s win in OpenCL is not surprising given its higher FP32 throughput. The R7 M350 delivers 779.5 GFLOPS, while the FirePro M4000 delivers 691.2 GFLOPS. That is a roughly 12.8% advantage in theoretical floating-point capacity, yet the benchmark delta is larger at 26.3%. This suggests the R7 M350 also benefits from architectural efficiency, not just raw shader count. The FirePro M4000 does have more shading units (512 versus 384) and more texture mapping units (32 versus 24), but it runs at a lower effective clock and belongs to an older GCN iteration, which may explain the performance deficit.

The single benchmark result is the only head-to-head data point, so the verdict leans heavily on it. The R7 M350 wins the only recorded contest, and the supporting metrics align with that outcome.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different GCN generations. The AMD Radeon R7 M350 uses GCN 3.0 with the Meso chip, while the AMD FirePro M4000 uses GCN 1.0 with the Chelsea chip. Both are fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC, so process technology is not a differentiator. The transistor counts are nearly identical: the R7 M350 has 1,550 million transistors on a 125 mm² die, and the FirePro M4000 has 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die. Transistor density is also close, at 12.4 million per mm² for the R7 M350 and 12.2 million per mm² for the FirePro M4000.

The memory subsystems diverge sharply. The R7 M350 pairs 4 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, yielding 16.00 GB/s of bandwidth and a memory clock of 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective). The FirePro M4000 uses 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth, also at a 1000 MHz memory clock but with 4 Gbps effective. That is a fourfold bandwidth advantage for the FirePro M4000, which matters for texture-heavy or bandwidth-bound workloads. The R7 M350 compensates with a higher clock speed: its base is 1000 MHz and boost is 1015 MHz, while the FirePro M4000’s base and boost clocks are not recorded in the database.

The shader and render output configurations also differ. The R7 M350 has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs, producing a pixel rate of 8.120 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 24.36 GTexel/s. The FirePro M4000 has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, with a pixel rate of 10.80 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 21.60 GTexel/s. So the FirePro M4000 wins on pixel throughput and ROP count, while the R7 M350 wins on texture rate despite having fewer TMUs, because its higher clock rate and newer architecture push more texture work per unit.

The FP16 capability is another distinction: the R7 M350 lists FP16 at 779.5 GFLOPS (1:1 ratio with FP32), while the FirePro M4000 has no recorded FP16 value. API support is similar on the surface, with both offering DirectX 12, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170, but the DirectX feature level differs: the R7 M350 supports 12_0, while the FirePro M4000 supports 11_1. That means the newer part has a higher feature level for modern DirectX titles.

The FirePro M4000 is built as an MXM module (MXM-A 3.0) with no power connectors and a 33 W TDP, while the R7 M350’s TDP and slot width are not recorded. The bus interface also differs: the R7 M350 uses PCIe 3.0 x8, whereas the FirePro M4000 uses the MXM-A (3.0) interface. Display outputs for the FirePro M4000 are listed as portable device dependent, and the R7 M350 has no display output data.

Where Each One Wins

The R7 M350 wins in compute-heavy scenarios. Its FP32 throughput of 779.5 GFLOPS is higher, and its Geekbench OpenCL score of 6991 versus 5537 confirms that advantage in practice. Workloads like general-purpose GPU compute, OpenCL acceleration, and tasks that scale with shader efficiency will favor the R7 M350. Its 4 GB memory capacity is also four times larger than the FirePro M4000’s 1024 MB, which helps when datasets exceed 1 GB or when multiple large buffers are resident in memory.

The FirePro M4000 wins in bandwidth-bound situations. Its 64.00 GB/s of memory bandwidth is four times the R7 M350’s 16.00 GB/s. Applications that stream large textures, perform heavy framebuffer reads, or rely on frequent memory access will see a benefit from the FirePro M4000’s GDDR5 and 128-bit bus. Its higher pixel rate (10.80 GPixel/s versus 8.120 GPixel/s) and double the ROP count (16 versus 8) also make it stronger for fill-rate-limited rendering, such as high-resolution pixel shading or multiple render targets.

The FirePro M4000 also has a lower TDP at 33 W, which is relevant for thermally constrained mobile chassis, though the R7 M350’s power draw is not recorded, so a direct comparison is not possible. The FirePro M4000’s MXM form factor and portable device dependent display outputs indicate it was designed for specific laptop implementations, while the R7 M350’s PCIe 3.0 x8 interface suggests a more flexible integration path.

For users prioritizing raw compute and modern API feature levels, the R7 M350 is the choice. For users dealing with memory-intensive workloads or fill-rate-limited tasks, the FirePro M4000 holds an edge despite its older architecture and lower aggregate benchmark score.

The Verdict

The data points in one direction: the AMD Radeon R7 M350 is the faster GPU overall. It wins the only recorded head-to-head benchmark by 26.3%, has a higher average benchmark score (6327 versus 5537), a higher percentile ranking (36 versus 32), and a newer architecture with better FP32 throughput and a higher DirectX feature level. Anyone choosing between the two for general compute or modern application support should select the R7 M350.

The AMD FirePro M4000 is not without merit, but its strengths are narrower. It offers four times the memory bandwidth (64.00 GB/s versus 16.00 GB/s), double the ROPs (16 versus 8), and a higher pixel rate (10.80 GPixel/s versus 8.120 GPixel/s). In specific bandwidth-bound or fill-rate-bound scenarios, it could outperform the R7 M350, but those scenarios are not captured in the recorded benchmark, which favors the R7 M350.

The FirePro M4000 is also an older part, released in 2012, while the R7 M350 came later, in 2015. Both are end-of-life, so longevity is not a deciding factor. The R7 M350’s predecessor is listed as Solar System and its successor as Polaris Mobile, while the FirePro M4000’s predecessor is FirePro Mobility and its successor is Radeon Pro Mobile, indicating different product line trajectories.

The verdict is straightforward: the R7 M350 is the superior performer according to the database, with a 26.3% win in the head-to-head test and a higher standing among its peers. The FirePro M4000 should only be chosen when its specific memory bandwidth or fill-rate characteristics are more important than overall compute performance, a rare use case given the recorded data.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the recorded head-to-head benchmark?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M350 wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 6991, compared to the AMD FirePro M4000’s 5537, a 26.3% difference.

Q: How do their memory configurations compare?

A: The R7 M350 has 4 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus with 16.00 GB/s bandwidth. The FirePro M4000 has 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What are the FP32 performance figures for each?

A: The R7 M350 delivers 779.5 GFLOPS FP32, while the FirePro M4000 delivers 691.2 GFLOPS FP32.

Q: Do they support the same DirectX version?

A: Both support DirectX 12, but the R7 M350 supports feature level 12_0, while the FirePro M4000 supports feature level 11_1.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The FirePro M4000 has 512 shading units, while the R7 M350 has 384 shading units.

Q: What is the process node for both chips?

A: Both are fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The R7 M350 uses the Meso chip, and the FirePro M4000 uses the Chelsea chip.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon R7 M350 | AMD FirePro M4000 |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | GCN 3.0 | GCN 1.0 |

| Chip | Meso | Chelsea |

| Generation | Gem System (R7 M300) | FirePro Mobile (Mx000) |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 28 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | TSMC |

| Transistors | 1,550 million | 1,500 million |

| Die Size | 125 mm² | 123 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.4M / mm² | 12.2M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1000 MHz | Not recorded |

| Boost Clock | 1015 MHz | Not recorded |

| Memory Clock | 1000 MHz, 2 Gbps effective | 1000 MHz, 4 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 1024 MB |

| Memory Type | DDR3 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | 64 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 16.00 GB/s | 64.00 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 384 | 512 |

| TMUs | 24 | 32 |

| ROPs | 8 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 8.120 GPixel/s | 10.80 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 24.36 GTexel/s | 21.60 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 779.5 GFLOPS | 691.2 GFLOPS |

| FP16 | 779.5 GFLOPS (1:1) | Not recorded |

| TDP | Not recorded | 33 W |

| Slot Width | Not recorded | MXM Module |

| Power Connectors | Not recorded | None |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | MXM-A (3.0) |

| Display Outputs | Not recorded | Portable Device Dependent |

| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 (11_1) |

| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |

| Vulkan | 1.2.170 | 1.2.170 |

| Production Status | End-of-life | End-of-life |

| Release Date | 2015-05-04 | 2012-06-26 |

| Predecessor | Solar System | FirePro Mobility |

| Successor | Polaris Mobile | Radeon Pro Mobile |

| Avg Benchmark Score | 6327 | 5537 |

| Percentile vs All GPUs | 36 | 32 |