AMD FirePro W4170M vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M and AMD FirePro W4170M represent two very different philosophies in mobile graphics, and the benchmark data reflects that chasm. The GTX 980M is a high-end gaming-class chip built on NVIDIA’s Maxwell 2.0 architecture, while the FirePro W4170M is a professional-oriented part based on AMD’s older GCN 1.0 design. In the single head-to-head benchmark available, the GTX 980M delivers a crushing victory, but the two cards also occupy distinct positions in the broader performance hierarchy. The data shows the GTX 980M sits at the 31st percentile of all GPUs, while the FirePro W4170M lands just one point lower at the 30th percentile, making them near-neighbors in overall standings despite the massive gap in raw compute.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable benchmark between the two is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the result is not close. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M scores 23,832 points, while the AMD FirePro W4170M manages just 5,034 points. That translates to a delta of 373.4% in favor of the GTX 980M — meaning the NVIDIA part delivers nearly four times the OpenCL performance of the AMD part. This is a decisive, one-sided result, and it underscores the fundamental difference in class between these two mobile GPUs. The GTX 980M’s score is more than double the FirePro’s score even before considering the margin; it is a generational and architectural leap in one number.

Looking beyond the head-to-head, the GTX 980M’s other benchmark results show a well-rounded profile. In Passmark G3D, it scores 7,338, which is a strong showing for a mobile part from its era. Its Passmark G2D score of 490 indicates solid 2D capability as well. The GTX 980M also posts a Passmark GPU Compute score of 2,816, and its DirectX results range from 125 in DirectX 9 to 57 in DirectX 11, 35 in DirectX 10, and 31 in DirectX 12. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 649 further confirms its ability to handle modern workloads at the time. Meanwhile, the FirePro W4170M has only the Geekbench OpenCL result in its benchmark list, which severely limits direct comparison but also highlights its narrower testing footprint.

The average benchmark score tells a similar story. The GTX 980M averages 5,308 points across its suite, while the FirePro W4170M averages 5,034 points — a difference of roughly 5.4%. This is far smaller than the OpenCL delta, which reflects the fact that the GTX 980M’s average is dragged down by its lower DirectX and 2D scores, while its OpenCL and G3D results are outliers on the high side. The FirePro W4170M, with only one data point, holds a consistent but modest profile. In terms of nearest rivals, the GTX 980M trades blows with the NVIDIA GeForce 930A (deltaPct -0.2%), GeForce 840M (-0.3%), and GeForce 940M (+0.5%), while the AMD Radeon R7 M445 sits 0.9% higher. The FirePro W4170M’s rivals are similarly close: the AMD Radeon R5 M430 is 0.3% higher, the R7 M340 and R7 240 are both 0.6% lower, and the R7 Graphics is 0.7% higher. Neither card dominates its immediate competition, but the GTX 980M’s ceiling is far higher.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M than the AMD FirePro W4170M in OpenCL?

A: The GTX 980M scores 23,832 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the FirePro W4170M scores 5,034. This results in a 373.4% delta in favor of the NVIDIA card.

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The GTX 980M has an average benchmark score of 5,308, compared to the FirePro W4170M’s 5,034. The GTX 980M is higher, though the margin is only about 5.4%.

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

A: The GTX 980M is within 0.9% of its nearest rivals, including the NVIDIA GeForce 930A (-0.2%), GeForce 840M (-0.3%), and GeForce 940M (+0.5%). The FirePro W4170M is similarly close to its rivals, with the AMD Radeon R5 M430 at +0.3% and the R7 M340 at -0.6%.

Q: What is the percentile ranking for each GPU?

A: The GTX 980M sits at the 31st percentile of all GPUs, while the FirePro W4170M sits at the 30th percentile. They are adjacent in overall standing.

Q: Does the FirePro W4170M have any benchmark where it beats the GTX 980M?

A: No. In the only head-to-head benchmark (Geekbench OpenCL), the GTX 980M wins outright. The FirePro W4170M has no recorded wins in the head-to-head data.

Q: What is the production status of both cards?

A: Both the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M and the AMD FirePro W4170M are listed as end-of-life products.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures, which explains much of the performance gap. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M uses the GM204 chip based on the Maxwell 2.0 architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 5,200 million transistors into a die size of 398 mm², giving it a transistor density of 13.1M per mm². In contrast, the AMD FirePro W4170M uses the Opal chip based on the older GCN 1.0 architecture, also on a 28 nm process at TSMC, but with only 950 million transistors and a die size of 77 mm², resulting in a density of 12.3M per mm². The GTX 980M’s die is over five times larger in area and holds more than five times the transistors.

The compute resources differ dramatically. The GTX 980M features 1,536 shading units, 96 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs, while the FirePro W4170M has just 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. This four-fold difference in shading units and TMUs, and an eight-fold difference in ROPs, directly impacts pixel and texture throughput. The GTX 980M achieves a pixel rate of 72.13 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 108.2 GTexel/s, whereas the FirePro W4170M manages only 7.200 GPixel/s and 21.60 GTexel/s. Floating-point performance follows suit: the GTX 980M delivers 3.462 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the FirePro W4170M delivers 691.2 GFLOPS — a five-fold advantage for the NVIDIA part.

Clock speeds also differ, with the GTX 980M running at a base of 1038 MHz and a boost of 1127 MHz, while the FirePro W4170M runs lower at 825 MHz base and 900 MHz boost. Memory configurations highlight another major split. The GTX 980M comes with 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 160.4 GB/s of bandwidth, while the FirePro W4170M has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 64.00 GB/s. Both use MXM modules with no power connectors, and both are marked as end-of-life. The bus interface differs as well: the GTX 980M uses MXM-B (3.0), while the FirePro W4170M uses PCIe 3.0 x8.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M is the far more capable GPU in raw performance terms. Its 373.4% lead in Geekbench OpenCL over the FirePro W4170M is a dominant result, and its higher shading unit count, memory bandwidth, and compute throughput make it the obvious choice for any workload that leverages these resources. The GTX 980M’s average benchmark score of 5,308 also edges out the FirePro W4170M’s 5,034, reinforcing its overall superiority.

However, the FirePro W4170M is not without a rationale for certain buyers. Its smaller die (77 mm² vs. 398 mm²) and lower transistor count (950 million vs. 5,200 million) suggest lower power consumption, though no TDP figures are available in the data. It is also a professional-series card, which historically implies different driver optimizations and certifications, though the benchmark data does not capture those aspects. For users whose primary concern is raw compute or gaming performance, the GTX 980M is the clear winner. For those focused on professional applications where the FirePro branding matters, the W4170M may still be relevant, but the performance gap is so large that it is hard to recommend on any performance basis.

Given the head-to-head results and the architectural disparity, the GTX 980M should be the pick for anyone needing maximum mobile graphics performance. The FirePro W4170M’s only advantage lies in its professional positioning, which the benchmarks do not quantify. The percentile standings (31st vs. 30th) suggest they are close in the broader market, but that is misleading in isolation — the GTX 980M’s high-end results pull its average up, while the FirePro’s single score keeps it flat. In practice, the GTX 980M is in a different league.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every major specification. The GTX 980M uses the GM204 chip with Maxwell 2.0 architecture, while the W4170M uses the Opal chip with GCN 1.0. The GTX 980M has 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die, versus 950 million on a 77 mm² die for the W4170M. Clock speeds favor the GTX 980M at 1038 MHz base and 1127 MHz boost, compared to 825 MHz base and 900 MHz boost for the W4170M. Memory is another divergence: the GTX 980M offers 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 160.4 GB/s bandwidth, while the W4170M has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 64.00 GB/s.

Core counts are heavily skewed toward the GTX 980M, with 1,536 shading units, 96 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, versus the W4170M’s 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. Pixel rate is 72.13 GPixel/s for the GTX 980M and 7.200 GPixel/s for the W4170M; texture rate is 108.2 GTexel/s versus 21.60 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 3.462 TFLOPS for the GTX 980M and 691.2 GFLOPS for the W4170M. The bus interface also differs: MXM-B (3.0) for the GTX 980M versus PCIe 3.0 x8 for the W4170M. Both support DirectX 12, but the GTX 980M lists 12 (12_1) while the W4170M lists 12 (11_1). OpenGL is the same at 4.6, but Vulkan support differs: the GTX 980M supports version 1.4, while the W4170M supports 1.2.170. The GTX 980M was released on 2014-10-06, while the W4170M followed on 2015-04-22. Neither card has a launch MSRP listed.