FirePro M4170 vs Radeon 680M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon 680M with FirePro M4170, including specs and performance data.

Radeon 680M
2022
45 Watt
17.37
+499%

Radeon 680M outperforms FirePro M4170 by a whopping 499% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in performance ranking294749
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data0.18
ArchitectureRDNA 2 (2020−2022)GCN 1.0 (2012−2020)
GPU code nameRDNA 2 RembrandtOpal
Market segmentLaptopMobile workstation
Release date4 January 2022 (2 years ago)23 April 2015 (9 years ago)
Current priceno data$474

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

Detailed specifications

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 cores768384
Boost clock speed2400 MHz900 MHz
Number of transistors13,100 million950 million
Manufacturing process technology6 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)45 Wattno data
Texture fill rate115.221.60

Form factor & compatibility

Information on Radeon 680M and FirePro M4170 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.

InterfacePCIe 4.0 x8PCIe 3.0 x8
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone

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 typeSystem SharedGDDR5
Maximum RAM amountSystem Shared1 GB
Memory bus widthSystem Shared128 Bit
Memory clock speedSystem Shared4 GB/s
Memory bandwidthno data64 GB/s
Shared memory-no data

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 ConnectorsNo outputsPortable Device Dependent

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)12 (11_1)
Shader Model6.56.5 (5.1)
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.02.1 (1.2)
Vulkan1.21.2.170

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.

Radeon 680M 17.37
+499%
FirePro M4170 2.90

Radeon 680M outperforms FirePro M4170 by 499% based on our aggregate 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%

Radeon 680M 6166
+451%
FirePro M4170 1119

Radeon 680M outperforms FirePro M4170 by 451% in Passmark.

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 HD38
+533%
6−7
−533%
1440p18
+500%
3−4
−500%
4K9
+800%
1−2
−800%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 230−240
+490%
39
−490%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 200−210
+471%
35−40
−471%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 220−230
+479%
38
−479%
Battlefield 5 300−310
+426%
55−60
−426%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 200−210
+471%
35−40
−471%
Cyberpunk 2077 170−180
+486%
29
−486%
Far Cry 5 240−250
+485%
40−45
−485%
Far Cry New Dawn 280−290
+496%
45−50
−496%
Forza Horizon 4 450−500
+456%
80−85
−456%
Hitman 3 190−200
+494%
32
−494%
Horizon Zero Dawn 450−500
+470%
79
−470%
Metro Exodus 300−310
+417%
55−60
−417%
Red Dead Redemption 2 280−290
+483%
45−50
−483%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 300−310
+436%
56
−436%
Watch Dogs: Legion 230−240
+490%
39
−490%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 200−210
+471%
35−40
−471%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 180−190
+481%
31
−481%
Battlefield 5 300−310
+426%
55−60
−426%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 200−210
+471%
35−40
−471%
Cyberpunk 2077 120−130
+471%
21
−471%
Far Cry 5 240−250
+485%
40−45
−485%
Far Cry New Dawn 280−290
+496%
45−50
−496%
Forza Horizon 4 450−500
+456%
80−85
−456%
Hitman 3 85−90
+467%
15
−467%
Horizon Zero Dawn 400−450
+480%
65−70
−480%
Metro Exodus 100−105
+456%
18
−456%
Red Dead Redemption 2 280−290
+483%
45−50
−483%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 280−290
+496%
47
−496%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 230−240
+475%
40
−475%
Watch Dogs: Legion 300−310
+456%
50−55
−456%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 200−210
+471%
35−40
−471%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 160−170
+493%
27
−493%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 200−210
+471%
35−40
−471%
Cyberpunk 2077 100−105
+488%
17
−488%
Far Cry 5 240−250
+485%
40−45
−485%
Forza Horizon 4 450−500
+456%
80−85
−456%
Horizon Zero Dawn 250−260
+481%
43
−481%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 230−240
+475%
40
−475%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 140−150
+483%
24
−483%
Watch Dogs: Legion 100−105
+456%
18
−456%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 280−290
+483%
45−50
−483%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 190−200
+476%
30−35
−476%
Far Cry New Dawn 190−200
+476%
30−35
−476%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 100−105
+456%
18−20
−456%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 85−90
+467%
14−16
−467%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 130−140
+491%
21−24
−491%
Cyberpunk 2077 65−70
+491%
11
−491%
Far Cry 5 120−130
+471%
21
−471%
Forza Horizon 4 200−210
+488%
30−35
−488%
Hitman 3 110−120
+450%
20−22
−450%
Horizon Zero Dawn 200−210
+471%
35−40
−471%
Metro Exodus 190−200
+494%
30−35
−494%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 160−170
+493%
27
−493%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 100−105
+488%
17
−488%
Watch Dogs: Legion 65−70
+491%
10−12
−491%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 170−180
+486%
27−30
−486%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 100−105
+488%
16−18
−488%
Far Cry New Dawn 75−80
+477%
12−14
−477%
Hitman 3 75−80
+477%
12−14
−477%
Horizon Zero Dawn 110−120
+479%
18−20
−479%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 65−70
+491%
10−12
−491%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 75−80
+477%
13
−477%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 55−60
+450%
10−11
−450%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 50−55
+456%
9−10
−456%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 50−55
+456%
9−10
−456%
Cyberpunk 2077 21−24
+425%
4
−425%
Far Cry 5 50−55
+456%
9−10
−456%
Forza Horizon 4 140−150
+483%
24−27
−483%
Horizon Zero Dawn 110−120
+479%
18−20
−479%
Metro Exodus 95−100
+494%
16−18
−494%
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
+471%
7−8
−471%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 85−90
+467%
14−16
−467%

This is how Radeon 680M and FirePro M4170 compete in popular games:

  • Radeon 680M is 533% faster in 1080p
  • Radeon 680M is 500% faster in 1440p
  • Radeon 680M is 800% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 17.37 2.90
Recency 4 January 2022 23 April 2015
Chip lithography 6 nm 28 nm

The Radeon 680M is our recommended choice as it beats the FirePro M4170 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon 680M is a notebook graphics card while FirePro M4170 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 Radeon 680M
Radeon 680M
AMD FirePro M4170
FirePro M4170

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.


4.2 867 votes

Rate Radeon 680M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5 2 votes

Rate FirePro M4170 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.