FirePro W4000 vs Radeon RX Vega M GH

VS

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking317not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency11.82no data
ArchitectureGCN 4.0 (2016−2020)GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)
GPU code namePolaris 22Pitcairn
Market segmentLaptopWorkstation
Release date1 February 2018 (6 years ago)7 August 2012 (12 years ago)

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores1536768
Core clock speed1063 MHz825 MHz
Boost clock speed1190 MHzno data
Number of transistors5,000 million2,800 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)100 Watt75 Watt
Texture fill rate114.239.60
Floating-point processing power3.656 TFLOPS1.267 TFLOPS
ROPs6432
TMUs9648

Form factor & compatibility

Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).

Laptop sizemedium sizedno data
InterfaceIGPPCIe 3.0 x16
Lengthno data183 mm
Widthno data1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

VRAM capacity and type

Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.

Memory typeHBM2GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount4 GB2 GB
Memory bus width1024 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed800 MHz800 MHz
Memory bandwidth204.8 GB/s102.4 GB/s
Shared memory--

Connectivity and outputs

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display ConnectorsNo outputs1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 (12_0)12 (11_1)
Shader Model6.45.1
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.01.2
Vulkan1.2.1311.2.131

Pros & cons summary


Recency 1 February 2018 7 August 2012
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 2 GB
Chip lithography 14 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 100 Watt 75 Watt

RX Vega M GH has an age advantage of 5 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.

FirePro W4000, on the other hand, has 33.3% lower power consumption.

We couldn't decide between Radeon RX Vega M GH and FirePro W4000. We've got no test results to judge.

Be aware that Radeon RX Vega M GH is a notebook card while FirePro W4000 is a workstation one.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH
Radeon RX Vega M GH
AMD FirePro W4000
FirePro W4000

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


4.6 45 votes

Rate Radeon RX Vega M GH on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

No user ratings yet.

Rate FirePro W4000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.