AMD FirePro W4100 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains one direct head-to-head benchmark between these two mobile and workstation class GPUs: Geekbench OpenCL. In that test, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670M scores 6513 against the AMD FirePro W4100's 5478, a decisive 18.9% victory for the NVIDIA part. This is the only shared benchmark in the database, so the comparison rests on that single measurement plus the surrounding average scores and rival positioning.

The GTX 670M's OpenCL result puts it at the 38th percentile among all GPUs, while the FirePro W4100 sits at the 34th percentile. That percentile gap is modest, but the raw score margin is substantial. In the nearest rival tables, the GTX 670M is bracketed by the NVIDIA GeForce GT 555M at 6493 (0.3% behind), the NVIDIA Quadro M5000M at 6481 (0.5% behind), the AMD Radeon Vega 10 Mobile at 6476 (0.6% behind), and the Intel UHD Graphics P750 at 6554 (0.6% ahead). So the GTX 670M lands in a tight cluster where a 0.6% swing separates it from the Intel integrated solution on one side and the GT 555M on the other. Its 6513 score is effectively at the center of this pack, showing that it trades blows with a wide range of mobile and professional parts within a narrow performance band.

The FirePro W4100's average benchmark score, which combines its OpenCL and Vulkan results, is 5987. Its nearest rivals are the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M at 5986 (0% delta), the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 at 5982 (0.1% ahead of the W4100), the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server at 5996 (0.2% behind the W4100), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M at 6000 (0.2% behind). That grouping is even tighter than the GTX 670M's, with all four rivals within a 0.2% window. The W4100's single OpenCL score of 5478 is notably lower than its average, pulled up by a Vulkan score of 6496, which is actually higher than the GTX 670M's OpenCL result. This suggests the FirePro's compute performance is API dependent, while the GTX 670M only has an OpenCL measurement recorded.

The 18.9% OpenCL delta is the largest gap in the head-to-head data. No other benchmark shows the two cards closer together, because no other test was run on both. The GTX 670M wins the only direct comparison, and it also holds a higher average score across its recorded benchmarks (6513 versus 5987, an 8.8% advantage). However, the W4100's Vulkan score of 6496 nearly matches the GTX 670M's OpenCL score, which means the AMD card is capable of similar absolute performance in a different workload. The database does not include a Vulkan result for the GTX 670M, so a direct cross-API comparison is not possible.

The Verdict

From the recorded data, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670M is the stronger OpenCL performer by a wide margin. Its 6513 score beats the FirePro W4100's 5478 by 18.9%, and its percentile ranking (38th versus 34th) reflects that advantage. Anyone whose workload relies on OpenCL compute should choose the GTX 670M based on these measurements. The card also has a higher average benchmark score overall, 6513 versus 5987, which reinforces its position as the faster GPU in the database's tests.

The AMD FirePro W4100 is not without merits. Its Vulkan score of 6496 is within 0.3% of the GTX 670M's OpenCL score, so in Vulkan workloads the W4100 is likely competitive or superior, given that the GTX 670M has no recorded Vulkan result at all. The W4100 also draws less power (50 W versus 75 W) and comes in a single-slot form factor with four mini-DisplayPort outputs, making it a better fit for compact professional systems. The database shows no Vulkan test for the GTX 670M, so the W4100 is the only card of the two with proven Vulkan capability.

Strictly from the data, the GTX 670M wins the compute comparison. The W4100 wins on API coverage and practical workstation features, but in raw OpenCL and average score, the NVIDIA card is ahead. Users who need OpenCL performance should pick the GTX 670M. Users who need Vulkan support or low-profile multi-display output should pick the FirePro W4100, accepting a 18.9% OpenCL deficit.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations entirely. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670M uses the GF114 chip built on Fermi 2.0 architecture, manufactured on a 40 nm process at TSMC. The AMD FirePro W4100 uses the Cape Verde chip with GCN 1.0 architecture, also from TSMC but on a newer 28 nm process. This node difference is significant: the W4100 packs 1,500 million transistors into a 123 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.2M per mm². The GTX 670M has 1,950 million transistors across a much larger 332 mm² die, giving it a density of only 5.9M per mm². The AMD chip is more than twice as dense per square millimeter.

Core counts differ sharply. The GTX 670M has 336 shading units, 56 texture mapping units, and 24 ROPs. The W4100 has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The AMD card has 52% more shaders but fewer TMUs and ROPs. This configuration explains the fill rate numbers: the GTX 670M delivers 33.49 GTexel/s of texture rate and 8.372 GPixel/s of pixel rate, while the W4100 manages only 20.16 GTexel/s but a higher 10.08 GPixel/s. The NVIDIA card excels at texturing, the AMD card at pixel throughput. FP32 compute also favors NVIDIA: 803.7 GFLOPS for the GTX 670M versus 645.1 GFLOPS for the W4100, an 24.6% advantage for the Fermi part despite its older architecture.

Memory subsystems differ as well. The GTX 670M has 1536 MB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus, reaching 72.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The W4100 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, with 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 670M has 12.5% more bandwidth, while the W4100 has 33% more capacity. Memory clocks are 750 MHz (3 Gbps effective) for the NVIDIA card and 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) for the AMD card, but the wider bus on the GTX 670M overcomes the lower clock.

API support differs in important ways. The GTX 670M supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, with no Vulkan listing. The W4100 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The AMD card has a clear API advantage, particularly for modern compute workloads. Power draw also favors AMD: the W4100 is rated at 50 W TDP versus 75 W for the GTX 670M. The W4100 is a single-slot card measuring 171 mm by 69 mm, while the GTX 670M comes as an MXM Module with the bus interface MXM-B (3.0) and no power connectors. The W4100 uses PCIe 3.0 x16 and has four mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, while the GTX 670M's display outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent," meaning its connectors depend on the laptop implementation.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher OpenCL score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670M scores 6513 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 18.9% higher than the AMD FirePro W4100's 5478.

Q: Does the AMD FirePro W4100 support Vulkan?

A: Yes, the W4100 has a recorded Geekbench Vulkan score of 6496 and lists Vulkan 1.2.170 in its API support. The GTX 670M has no Vulkan score or API listing in the database.

Q: How do the two cards compare in power consumption?

A: The AMD FirePro W4100 is rated at 50 W TDP, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670M is rated at 75 W TDP. The W4100 also lists a suggested PSU of 250 W, while the GTX 670M has no suggested PSU listed.

Q: What are the memory specifications of each card?

A: The GTX 670M has 1536 MB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus with 72.00 GB/s bandwidth. The W4100 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The AMD FirePro W4100 has 512 shading units, compared to 336 for the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670M. Despite this, the GTX 670M has higher FP32 compute at 803.7 GFLOPS versus 645.1 GFLOPS.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each GPU?

A: The GTX 670M has an average benchmark score of 6513, while the W4100 has an average of 5987, a difference of 8.8% in favor of NVIDIA.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670M wins in OpenCL compute workloads. Its 6513 score beats the W4100 by 18.9%, and its FP32 throughput of 803.7 GFLOPS exceeds the AMD card's 645.1 GFLOPS by 24.6%. The GTX 670M also has higher texture fill rate at 33.49 GTexel/s versus 20.16 GTexel/s, making it the better choice for texture-heavy workloads. Its 72.00 GB/s of memory bandwidth outpaces the W4100's 64.00 GB/s by 12.5%, which helps in bandwidth-sensitive compute tasks. The GTX 670M also has the higher average benchmark score at 6513 versus 5987, so in the database's overall measurements, it is the faster GPU.

The AMD FirePro W4100 wins in pixel throughput, with 10.08 GPixel/s versus 8.372 GPixel/s for the GTX 670M, a 20.4% advantage. This makes it better suited for fill-rate-bound rendering tasks. The W4100 also has more memory capacity at 2 GB versus 1536 MB, which helps with larger datasets that exceed the NVIDIA card's frame buffer. Vulkan workloads favor the W4100, since it has a recorded Vulkan score of 6496 and the GTX 670M has none. The W4100's four mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs make it the obvious choice for multi-monitor professional setups, while the GTX 670M's display outputs depend on the host device. The W4100's lower 50 W TDP and single-slot design also make it the better pick for power-constrained or space-constrained systems.

For use cases, the data points to a split: compute and texturing go to the GTX 670M, while pixel rate, Vulkan, memory capacity, and display flexibility go to the W4100. The GTX 670M is the stronger all-around performer in the database's benchmarks, but the W4100 wins in enough specific categories to justify its existence in workstation environments where its features matter more than raw OpenCL speed.