FirePro W4190M vs Radeon HD 6730M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 6730M with FirePro W4190M, including specs and performance data.
W4190M outperforms HD 6730M by a whopping 128% 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 | 1088 | 835 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 2.73 | no data |
| Architecture | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) |
| GPU code name | Whistler | Opal |
| Market segment | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 4 January 2011 (15 years ago) | 12 November 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 cores | 480 | 384 |
| Core clock speed | 725 MHz | 825 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 900 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 716 million | 950 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 17.40 | 21.60 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.696 TFLOPS | 0.6912 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 8 |
| TMUs | 24 | 24 |
| L1 Cache | 48 KB | 96 KB |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 256 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 size | medium sized | medium sized |
| Interface | MXM-A (3.0) | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 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 | GDDR3 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 800 MHz | 1000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 25.6 GB/s | 64 GB/s |
| 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 | 11.2 (11_0) | 12 (11_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 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.
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.
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 | 17
−106%
| 35−40
+106%
|
| Full HD | 23
+109%
| 11
−109%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−100%
|
6−7
+100%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 6−7
−33.3%
|
8−9
+33.3%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−900%
|
10−11
+900%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−100%
|
6−7
+100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−300%
|
8−9
+300%
|
| Fortnite | 3−4
−400%
|
14−16
+400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
−75%
|
14−16
+75%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
−600%
|
7−8
+600%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 6−7
−33.3%
|
8−9
+33.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−44.4%
|
12−14
+44.4%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−39.4%
|
45−50
+39.4%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−900%
|
10−11
+900%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 27−30
−86.2%
|
50−55
+86.2%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−100%
|
6−7
+100%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−75%
|
27−30
+75%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−300%
|
8−9
+300%
|
| Fortnite | 3−4
−400%
|
14−16
+400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
−75%
|
14−16
+75%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
−600%
|
7−8
+600%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 0−1 | 12 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 6−7
−33.3%
|
8−9
+33.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−44.4%
|
12−14
+44.4%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−42.9%
|
10
+42.9%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−39.4%
|
45−50
+39.4%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−900%
|
10−11
+900%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−100%
|
6−7
+100%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−75%
|
27−30
+75%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−300%
|
8−9
+300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
−75%
|
14−16
+75%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 6−7
−33.3%
|
8−9
+33.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−44.4%
|
12−14
+44.4%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6
−16.7%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−39.4%
|
45−50
+39.4%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4
−400%
|
14−16
+400%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
−50%
|
6−7
+50%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 8−9
−163%
|
21−24
+163%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−100%
|
24−27
+100%
|
| Valorant | 3−4
−767%
|
24−27
+767%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 2−3 |
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−400%
|
5−6
+400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−133%
|
7−8
+133%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 1−2
−200%
|
3−4
+200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−7.1%
|
14−16
+7.1%
|
| Valorant | 6−7
−133%
|
14−16
+133%
|
4K
Ultra
| Dota 2 | 1−2
−700%
|
8−9
+700%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 0−1 |
4K
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
This is how HD 6730M and W4190M compete in popular games:
- W4190M is 106% faster in 900p
- HD 6730M is 109% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the HD 6730M is 17% faster.
- in Battlefield 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the W4190M is 900% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- HD 6730M performs better in 1 test (2%)
- W4190M performs better in 47 tests (89%)
- there's a draw in 5 tests (9%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.24 | 2.83 |
| Recency | 4 January 2011 | 12 November 2015 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 2 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 28 nm |
W4190M has a 128.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.
The FirePro W4190M is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 6730M in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon HD 6730M is a notebook graphics card while FirePro W4190M 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.
