Radeon HD 8550M vs FirePro M4100
Aggregate performance score
We've compared FirePro M4100 with Radeon HD 8550M, including specs and performance data.
M4100 outperforms HD 8550M by an impressive 87% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 868 | 1050 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) |
| GPU code name | Mars | Sun |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 16 October 2013 (12 years ago) | 13 July 2014 (11 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 cores | 384 | 320 |
| Core clock speed | 670 MHz | 650 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 850 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 950 million | 690 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Texture fill rate | 16.08 | 17.00 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.5146 TFLOPS | 0.544 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 8 |
| TMUs | 24 | 20 |
| L1 Cache | 96 KB | 80 KB |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 128 KB |
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 size | medium sized | medium sized |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
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 type | GDDR5 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1000 MHz | 900 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 64 GB/s | 14.4 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 12 (11_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.2.131 |
Synthetic benchmarks
Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark score.
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.
Unigine Heaven 3.0
This is an old DirectX 11 benchmark using Unigine, a 3D game engine by eponymous Russian company. It displays a fantasy medieval town sprawling over several flying islands. Version 3.0 was released in 2012, and in 2013 it was superseded by Heaven 4.0, which introduced several slight improvements, including a newer version of Unigine.
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:
| Full HD | 11
+120%
| 5−6
−120%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| Fortnite | 12−14
+225%
|
4−5
−225%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+62.5%
|
8−9
−62.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+30%
|
10−11
−30%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
+26.5%
|
30−35
−26.5%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 45−50
+58.1%
|
30−35
−58.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Dota 2 | 24−27
+52.9%
|
16−18
−52.9%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| Fortnite | 12−14
+225%
|
4−5
−225%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+62.5%
|
8−9
−62.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+30%
|
10−11
−30%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
+28.6%
|
7−8
−28.6%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
+26.5%
|
30−35
−26.5%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Dota 2 | 24−27
+52.9%
|
16−18
−52.9%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+62.5%
|
8−9
−62.5%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+30%
|
10−11
−30%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
+28.6%
|
7−8
−28.6%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
+26.5%
|
30−35
−26.5%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 12−14
+225%
|
4−5
−225%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 18−20
+111%
|
9−10
−111%
|
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
+71.4%
|
14−16
−71.4%
|
| Valorant | 21−24
+340%
|
5−6
−340%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+7.1%
|
14−16
−7.1%
|
| Valorant | 12−14
+85.7%
|
7−8
−85.7%
|
4K
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
This is how FirePro M4100 and HD 8550M compete in popular games:
- FirePro M4100 is 120% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Dota 2, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the FirePro M4100 is 600% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, FirePro M4100 surpassed HD 8550M in all 50 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.53 | 1.35 |
| Recency | 16 October 2013 | 13 July 2014 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 1 GB |
FirePro M4100 has a 87.4% higher aggregate performance score, and a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.
HD 8550M, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 8 months.
The FirePro M4100 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 8550M in performance tests.
Be aware that FirePro M4100 is a mobile workstation graphics card while Radeon HD 8550M is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
