GeForce 920M vs FirePro M4170

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared FirePro M4170 with GeForce 920M, including specs and performance data.

FirePro M4170
2015
1 GB GDDR5
3.06
+63.6%

M4170 outperforms 920M by an impressive 64% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking759907
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiencyno data3.94
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2011−2020)Kepler 2.0 (2013−2015)
GPU code nameOpalGK208B
Market segmentMobile workstationLaptop
Release date23 April 2015 (9 years ago)13 March 2015 (9 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 cores384384
Core clock speed825 MHz954 MHz
Boost clock speed900 MHzno data
Number of transistors950 million915 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)no data33 Watt
Texture fill rate21.6030.53
Floating-point processing power0.6912 TFLOPS0.7327 TFLOPS
ROPs88
TMUs2432

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).

Bus supportno dataPCI Express 3.0
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x8PCIe 3.0 x8
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno data

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 typeGDDR5DDR3
Maximum RAM amount1 GB4 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed1000 MHz900 MHz
Memory bandwidth64 GB/s14.4 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 ConnectorsPortable Device DependentNo outputs

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

GPU Boostno data2.0
Optimus-+
GameWorks-+

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_1)12 (11_0)
Shader Model6.5 (5.1)5.1
OpenGL4.64.5
OpenCL2.1 (1.2)1.2
Vulkan1.2.1701.1.126
CUDA-+

Synthetic benchmark performance

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. 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.

FirePro M4170 3.06
+63.6%
GeForce 920M 1.87

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. 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.

FirePro M4170 1181
+64%
GeForce 920M 720

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.

FirePro M4170 6347
+71.7%
GeForce 920M 3697

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 HD24−27
+60%
15
−60%
4K14−16
+55.6%
9
−55.6%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Battlefield 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Hitman 3 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 15
+0%
15
+0%
Battlefield 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Hitman 3 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 17
+0%
17
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Hitman 3 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4
+0%
4
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Hitman 3 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 0−1 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

This is how FirePro M4170 and GeForce 920M compete in popular games:

  • FirePro M4170 is 60% faster in 1080p
  • FirePro M4170 is 56% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 53 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 3.06 1.87
Recency 23 April 2015 13 March 2015
Maximum RAM amount 1 GB 4 GB

FirePro M4170 has a 63.6% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 1 month.

GeForce 920M, on the other hand, has a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount.

The FirePro M4170 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 920M in performance tests.

Be aware that FirePro M4170 is a mobile workstation card while GeForce 920M is a mobile 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 FirePro M4170
FirePro M4170
NVIDIA GeForce 920M
GeForce 920M

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.


3.5 2 votes

Rate FirePro M4170 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.1 1276 votes

Rate GeForce 920M 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.