Radeon Vega 7 vs FirePro W4190M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared FirePro W4190M with Radeon Vega 7, including specs and performance data.
Vega 7 outperforms W4190M by a whopping 137% 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 | 834 | 606 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 14 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 11.52 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) | GCN 5.1 (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | Opal | Cezanne |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 12 November 2015 (10 years ago) | 13 April 2021 (4 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 | 448 |
| Core clock speed | 825 MHz | 300 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 900 MHz | 1900 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 950 million | 9,800 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 45 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 21.60 | 53.20 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.6912 TFLOPS | 1.702 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 8 |
| TMUs | 24 | 28 |
| L1 Cache | 96 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | no data |
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 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | IGP |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | None |
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 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 1000 MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 64 GB/s | no data |
| 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 |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| AppAcceleration | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.2 |
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.
3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.
3DMark Cloud Gate GPU
Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.
SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 maya-04
SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 snx-02
SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 catia-04
SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 sw-03
SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 mediacal-01
SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 showcase-01
SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 energy-01
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
−100%
| 22
+100%
|
| 1440p | 10−12
−180%
| 28
+180%
|
| 4K | 7−8
−157%
| 18
+157%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−278%
|
30−35
+278%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−200%
|
18
+200%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 3−4
−300%
|
12−14
+300%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11
−180%
|
28
+180%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−278%
|
30−35
+278%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−133%
|
14
+133%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
−150%
|
20
+150%
|
| Fortnite | 14−16
−320%
|
63
+320%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
−164%
|
37
+164%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 7−8
−243%
|
24
+243%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−92.3%
|
24−27
+92.3%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
−60.9%
|
70−75
+60.9%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11
−130%
|
23
+130%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−278%
|
30−35
+278%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 50−55
−7.4%
|
58
+7.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−66.7%
|
10
+66.7%
|
| Dota 2 | 27−30
−132%
|
65−70
+132%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
−125%
|
18
+125%
|
| Fortnite | 14−16
−80%
|
27
+80%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
−150%
|
35
+150%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 7−8
−200%
|
21
+200%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 12
−41.7%
|
17
+41.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
−160%
|
13
+160%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−76.9%
|
23
+76.9%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10
−80%
|
18
+80%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
−58.7%
|
73
+58.7%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11
−110%
|
21
+110%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−50%
|
9
+50%
|
| Dota 2 | 27−30
−132%
|
65−70
+132%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
−125%
|
18
+125%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
−92.9%
|
27
+92.9%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−92.3%
|
24−27
+92.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6
−117%
|
13
+117%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+84%
|
25
−84%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 14−16
+7.1%
|
14
−7.1%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
−117%
|
12−14
+117%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 21−24
−148%
|
50−55
+148%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
−500%
|
6−7
+500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
−53.8%
|
40−45
+53.8%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−84.6%
|
48
+84.6%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
−180%
|
14−16
+180%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−129%
|
16−18
+129%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−125%
|
9−10
+125%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 5−6
−180%
|
14−16
+180%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−13.3%
|
16−18
+13.3%
|
| Valorant | 14−16
−78.6%
|
25
+78.6%
|
4K
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 2−3 |
| Dota 2 | 8−9
−125%
|
18−20
+125%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−500%
|
6−7
+500%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−450%
|
10−12
+450%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
−133%
|
7−8
+133%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4
−133%
|
7−8
+133%
|
1440p
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
This is how W4190M and Vega 7 compete in popular games:
- Vega 7 is 100% faster in 1080p
- Vega 7 is 180% faster in 1440p
- Vega 7 is 157% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Valorant, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the W4190M is 84% faster.
- in Metro Exodus, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the Vega 7 is 500% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- W4190M performs better in 2 tests (4%)
- Vega 7 performs better in 47 tests (87%)
- there's a draw in 5 tests (9%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.84 | 6.73 |
| Recency | 12 November 2015 | 13 April 2021 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 7 nm |
Vega 7 has a 137% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, and a 300% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon Vega 7 is our recommended choice as it beats the FirePro W4190M in performance tests.
Be aware that FirePro W4190M is a mobile workstation graphics card while Radeon Vega 7 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.
