FirePro W4100 vs GeForce GTX 850M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 850M with FirePro W4100, including specs and performance data.
GTX 850M outperforms W4100 by an impressive 66% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 582 | 707 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 9.97 | 5.42 |
| Architecture | Maxwell (2014−2017) | GCN 1.0 (2011−2020) |
| GPU code name | GM107 | Cape Verde |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 12 March 2014 (10 years ago) | 13 August 2014 (10 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 | 640 | 512 |
| Core clock speed | Up to 936 MHz | 630 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,870 million | 1,500 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 45 Watt | 50 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 36.08 | 20.16 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.155 TFLOPS | 0.6451 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 16 |
| TMUs | 40 | 32 |
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 |
| Bus support | PCI Express 2.0, PCI Express 3.0 | PCIe 3.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 171 mm |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Form factor | no data | low profile / half length |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
| SLI options | + | - |
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 | DDR3 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 2 GB |
| Standard memory configuration | DDR3 or GDDR5 | no data |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | Up to 2500 MHz | 1000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 80.0 GB/s | 72 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 Connectors | No outputs | 4x mini-DisplayPort |
| eDP 1.2 signal support | Up to 3840x2160 | no data |
| LVDS signal support | Up to 1920x1200 | no data |
| VGA аnalog display support | Up to 2048x1536 | no data |
| DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) support | Up to 3840x2160 | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
| HDCP content protection | + | - |
| Dual-link DVI support | - | + |
| 7.1 channel HD audio on HDMI | + | - |
| TrueHD and DTS-HD audio bitstreaming | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| AppAcceleration | - | + |
| H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder | + | - |
| Optimus | + | - |
| Ansel | + | - |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (11_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | 1.2.131 |
| 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.
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.
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.
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.
GeekBench 5 Vulkan
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 Vulkan API by AMD & Khronos Group.
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:
| 900p | 84
+68%
| 50−55
−68%
|
| Full HD | 32
+100%
| 16
−100%
|
| 4K | 10
+233%
| 3
−233%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 14−16
+66.7%
|
9−10
−66.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+30%
|
10−11
−30%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+50%
|
8−9
−50%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 14−16
+66.7%
|
9−10
−66.7%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
+85.7%
|
14−16
−85.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+30%
|
10−11
−30%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+50%
|
8−9
−50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18−20
+111%
|
9−10
−111%
|
| Fortnite | 35−40
+76.2%
|
21−24
−76.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
+64.7%
|
16−18
−64.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 14−16
+100%
|
7−8
−100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
+53.3%
|
14−16
−53.3%
|
| Valorant | 65−70
+32.7%
|
50−55
−32.7%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 14−16
+66.7%
|
9−10
−66.7%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
+85.7%
|
14−16
−85.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+30%
|
10−11
−30%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 99
+47.8%
|
65−70
−47.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+50%
|
8−9
−50%
|
| Dota 2 | 45−50
+44.1%
|
30−35
−44.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18−20
+111%
|
9−10
−111%
|
| Fortnite | 35−40
+76.2%
|
21−24
−76.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
+64.7%
|
16−18
−64.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 14−16
+100%
|
7−8
−100%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 20
+66.7%
|
12−14
−66.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12−14
+71.4%
|
7−8
−71.4%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
+53.3%
|
14−16
−53.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21
+200%
|
7
−200%
|
| Valorant | 65−70
+32.7%
|
50−55
−32.7%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
+85.7%
|
14−16
−85.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+30%
|
10−11
−30%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+50%
|
8−9
−50%
|
| Dota 2 | 45−50
+44.1%
|
30−35
−44.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18−20
+111%
|
9−10
−111%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
+64.7%
|
16−18
−64.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 14−16
+100%
|
7−8
−100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
+53.3%
|
14−16
−53.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 11
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Valorant | 65−70
+32.7%
|
50−55
−32.7%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 35−40
+76.2%
|
21−24
−76.2%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+60%
|
5−6
−60%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 45−50
+67.9%
|
27−30
−67.9%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
+35.7%
|
27−30
−35.7%
|
| Valorant | 70−75
+79.5%
|
35−40
−79.5%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11
+66.7%
|
6−7
−66.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+71.4%
|
7−8
−71.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+66.7%
|
9−10
−66.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−11
+100%
|
5−6
−100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
+66.7%
|
6−7
−66.7%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 12−14
+71.4%
|
7−8
−71.4%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+6.3%
|
16−18
−6.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+63.2%
|
18−20
−63.2%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Dota 2 | 21−24
+83.3%
|
12−14
−83.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
+125%
|
4−5
−125%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
This is how GTX 850M and FirePro W4100 compete in popular games:
- GTX 850M is 68% faster in 900p
- GTX 850M is 100% faster in 1080p
- GTX 850M is 233% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Forza Horizon 5, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 850M is 300% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- GTX 850M is ahead in 60 tests (98%)
- there's a draw in 1 test (2%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 6.54 | 3.95 |
| Recency | 12 March 2014 | 13 August 2014 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 45 Watt | 50 Watt |
GTX 850M has a 65.6% higher aggregate performance score, and 11.1% lower power consumption.
FirePro W4100, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 5 months.
The GeForce GTX 850M is our recommended choice as it beats the FirePro W4100 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 850M is a notebook card while FirePro W4100 is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
