AMD FirePro W4100 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670M

Comparative analysis of AMD FirePro W4100 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670M videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory, Technologies. Benchmark videocards performance analysis: PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark, Geekbench - OpenCL, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps), 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score.

 

Differences

Reasons to consider the AMD FirePro W4100

• Videocard is newer: launch date 2 year(s) 4 month(s) later
• Around 5% higher core clock speed: 630 MHz vs 598 MHz
• Around 52% higher pipelines: 512 vs 336
• A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 28 nm vs 40 nm
• Around 50% lower typical power consumption: 50 Watt vs 75 Watt
• Around 34% higher maximum memory size: 2 GB vs 1526 MB
• 2.7x more memory clock speed: 4000 MHz vs 1500 MHz
• Around 49% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 456 vs 307
• Around 4% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 15.65 vs 15.053
• Around 42% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 75.309 vs 52.899

Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670M

• Around 66% higher texture fill rate: 33.5 billion / sec vs 20.16 GTexel / s
• Around 25% better floating-point performance: 803.7 gflops vs 645.1 gflops
• Around 16% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 1757 vs 1516
• Around 17% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 6448 vs 5489
• Around 9% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 588.645 vs 538.848
• Around 5% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 1.72 vs 1.631
• Around 14% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 35.916 vs 31.533
• Around 40% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 2731 vs 1951
• Around 7% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3627 vs 3399
• 2.1x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3346 vs 1620
• Around 40% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 2731 vs 1951
• Around 7% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3627 vs 3399
• 2.1x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3346 vs 1620

Compare benchmarks

GPU 1: AMD FirePro W4100
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670M

PassMark - G3D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	1516 1757
PassMark - G2D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	456 307
Geekbench - OpenCL	GPU 1 GPU 2	5489 6448
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	15.65 15.053
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	538.848 588.645
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1.631 1.72
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	31.533 35.916
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	75.309 52.899
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1951 2731
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3399 3627
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1620 3346
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1951 2731
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3399 3627
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1620 3346

Compare specifications (specs)