FirePro M5950 vs M4000
Aggregated performance score
M4000 outperforms M5950 by 22% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
General info
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 646 | 691 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Value for money | 0.39 | 0.29 |
| Architecture | GCN (2011−2017) | Terascale 2 (2009−2015) |
| GPU code name | Cape Verde GLM | Whistler-XT |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 1 July 2012 (11 years old) | 13 April 2011 (13 years old) |
| Current price | $433 | $386 |
Value for money
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
FirePro M4000 has 34% better value for money than FirePro M5950.
Technical specs
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 512 | 480 |
| Core clock speed | 600 MHz | 725 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,500 million | 716 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 33 Watt | 35 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 21.60 | 17.40 |
| Floating-point performance | 691.2 gflops | 696.0 gflops |
Size and compatibility
Information on FirePro M4000 and FirePro M5950 compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.
| Laptop size | medium sized | medium sized |
| Bus support | n/a | n/a |
| Interface | MXM-A (3.0) | MXM-A (3.0) |
| Form factor | MXM-A | MXM-A |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | no data |
Memory
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 type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 4500 MHz | 900 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 72 GB/s | 57 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Video outputs and ports
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 Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
| StereoOutput3D | 1 | no data |
API support
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 11.2 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.4 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | N/A |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
M4000 outperforms M5950 by 22% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.
Benchmark coverage: 25%
M4000 outperforms M5950 by 22% in Passmark.
3DMark Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
Benchmark coverage: 17%
M4000 outperforms M5950 by 38% in 3DMark Vantage Performance.
3DMark 11 Performance GPU
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
Benchmark coverage: 17%
M4000 outperforms M5950 by 47% in 3DMark 11 Performance GPU.
GeekBench 5 OpenCL
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.
Benchmark coverage: 9%
M4000 outperforms M5950 by 383% in GeekBench 5 OpenCL.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| 900p | 27−30
+12.5%
| 24
−12.5%
|
| Full HD | 27
+3.8%
| 26
−3.8%
|
Performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 7−8
+40%
|
5−6
−40%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 10−12
+37.5%
|
8−9
−37.5%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 14−16
+7.7%
|
12−14
−7.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
+33.3%
|
6−7
−33.3%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 8−9
+33.3%
|
6−7
−33.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+33.3%
|
9−10
−33.3%
|
| Hitman 3 | 9−10
+28.6%
|
7−8
−28.6%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 10−12
+10%
|
10−11
−10%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 7−8
+40%
|
5−6
−40%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 10−12
+37.5%
|
8−9
−37.5%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 14−16
+7.7%
|
12−14
−7.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
+33.3%
|
6−7
−33.3%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 8−9
+33.3%
|
6−7
−33.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+33.3%
|
9−10
−33.3%
|
| Hitman 3 | 9−10
+28.6%
|
7−8
−28.6%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 10−12
+10%
|
10−11
−10%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
+12.5%
|
8−9
−12.5%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 7−8
+40%
|
5−6
−40%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 10−12
+37.5%
|
8−9
−37.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
+33.3%
|
6−7
−33.3%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 8−9
+33.3%
|
6−7
−33.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+33.3%
|
9−10
−33.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
+12.5%
|
8−9
−12.5%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| Hitman 3 | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 10−12
+10%
|
10−11
−10%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
4K
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 0−1 | 0−1 |
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
This is how FirePro M4000 and FirePro M5950 compete in popular games:
900p resolution:
- FirePro M4000 is 12.5% faster than FirePro M5950
1080p resolution:
- FirePro M4000 is 3.8% faster than FirePro M5950
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Assassin's Creed Valhalla, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the FirePro M4000 is 200% faster than the FirePro M5950.
All in all, in popular games:
- FirePro M4000 is ahead in 49 tests (86%)
- there's a draw in 8 tests (14%)
Advantages and disadvantages
| Performance score | 4.14 | 3.39 |
| Recency | 1 July 2012 | 13 April 2011 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 33 Watt | 35 Watt |
The FirePro M4000 is our recommended choice as it beats the FirePro M5950 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar GPU comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
