FirePro W4300 vs Radeon 840M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon 840M with FirePro W4300, including specs and performance data.

Radeon 840M
2024
9.18
+32.7%

840M outperforms W4300 by a substantial 33% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking517594
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiencyno data10.64
ArchitectureRDNA 3+ (2024)GCN 2.0 (2013−2017)
GPU code nameKrackan PointBonaire
Market segmentLaptopWorkstation
Release date2 June 2024 (1 year ago)1 December 2015 (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 cores256768
Core clock speedno data930 MHz
Boost clock speed2900 MHzno data
Number of transistorsno data2,080 million
Manufacturing process technology4 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)no data50 Watt
Texture fill rateno data44.64
Floating-point processing powerno data1.428 TFLOPS
ROPsno data16
TMUsno data48
L1 Cacheno data192 KB
L2 Cacheno data256 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 sizemedium sizedno data
Interfaceno dataPCIe 3.0 x16
Lengthno data171 mm
Widthno data1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 typeno dataGDDR5
Maximum RAM amountno data4 GB
Memory bus widthno data128 Bit
Memory clock speed7500 MHz1500 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data96 GB/s
Shared memory+-
Resizable BAR+-

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 Connectorsno data4x mini-DisplayPort

API and SDK support

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

DirectXno data12 (12_0)
Shader Modelno data6.3
OpenGLno data4.6
OpenCLno data2.0
Vulkan-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.

Radeon 840M 9.18
+32.7%
FirePro W4300 6.92

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.

Radeon 840M 3840
+32.7%
Samples: 408
FirePro W4300 2894
Samples: 63

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 HD25
+38.9%
18−20
−38.9%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 84
+40%
60−65
−40%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
+35.7%
14−16
−35.7%
Hogwarts Legacy 16−18
+41.7%
12−14
−41.7%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 40−45
+36.7%
30−33
−36.7%
Counter-Strike 2 68
+36%
50−55
−36%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
+35.7%
14−16
−35.7%
Far Cry 5 30−33
+42.9%
21−24
−42.9%
Fortnite 55−60
+40%
40−45
−40%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+36.7%
30−33
−36.7%
Forza Horizon 5 27−30
+33.3%
21−24
−33.3%
Hogwarts Legacy 16−18
+41.7%
12−14
−41.7%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
+37.5%
24−27
−37.5%
Valorant 90−95
+38.5%
65−70
−38.5%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 40−45
+36.7%
30−33
−36.7%
Counter-Strike 2 15
+50%
10−11
−50%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 140−150
+42%
100−105
−42%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
+35.7%
14−16
−35.7%
Far Cry 5 30−33
+42.9%
21−24
−42.9%
Fortnite 55−60
+40%
40−45
−40%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+36.7%
30−33
−36.7%
Forza Horizon 5 27−30
+33.3%
21−24
−33.3%
Grand Theft Auto V 32
+33.3%
24−27
−33.3%
Hogwarts Legacy 16−18
+41.7%
12−14
−41.7%
Metro Exodus 18−20
+35.7%
14−16
−35.7%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
+37.5%
24−27
−37.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
+33.3%
18−20
−33.3%
Valorant 90−95
+38.5%
65−70
−38.5%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 40−45
+36.7%
30−33
−36.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
+35.7%
14−16
−35.7%
Far Cry 5 30−33
+42.9%
21−24
−42.9%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+36.7%
30−33
−36.7%
Hogwarts Legacy 16−18
+41.7%
12−14
−41.7%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
+37.5%
24−27
−37.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
+33.3%
18−20
−33.3%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 55−60
+40%
40−45
−40%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 16−18
+41.7%
12−14
−41.7%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 70−75
+42%
50−55
−42%
Grand Theft Auto V 12−14
+33.3%
9−10
−33.3%
Metro Exodus 10−11
+42.9%
7−8
−42.9%
Valorant 100−110
+37.3%
75−80
−37.3%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 21−24
+37.5%
16−18
−37.5%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+33.3%
6−7
−33.3%
Far Cry 5 18−20
+35.7%
14−16
−35.7%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+37.5%
16−18
−37.5%
Hogwarts Legacy 10−11
+42.9%
7−8
−42.9%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
+44.4%
9−10
−44.4%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 20−22
+42.9%
14−16
−42.9%

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Grand Theft Auto V 20−22
+42.9%
14−16
−42.9%
Hogwarts Legacy 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Metro Exodus 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
+42.9%
7−8
−42.9%
Valorant 45−50
+37.1%
35−40
−37.1%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 10−12
+37.5%
8−9
−37.5%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Far Cry 5 9−10
+50%
6−7
−50%
Forza Horizon 4 16−18
+33.3%
12−14
−33.3%
Hogwarts Legacy 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
+50%
6−7
−50%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 9−10
+50%
6−7
−50%

This is how Radeon 840M and FirePro W4300 compete in popular games:

  • Radeon 840M is 39% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 9.18 6.92
Recency 2 June 2024 1 December 2015
Chip lithography 4 nm 28 nm

Radeon 840M has a 32.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, and a 600% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon 840M is our recommended choice as it beats the FirePro W4300 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon 840M is a notebook graphics card while FirePro W4300 is a workstation one.

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 840M
Radeon 840M
AMD FirePro W4300
FirePro W4300

Other comparisons

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 19 votes

Rate Radeon 840M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 41 votes

Rate FirePro W4300 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon 840M or FirePro W4300, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.