FirePro M4000 vs Radeon R9 M375X
In this comparison between FirePro M4000 and Radeon R9 M375X you will find out which graphics card performs better in today's games. Bear in mind that third-party versions may have more efficient cooling and higher clock speeds. This will increase cards' performance, though not by much. In addition to raw power you should also take into account the dimensions. Thicker models simply will not fit into a small mini-ITX case. The resolution of your monitor also affects the choice, since 4K gameplay requires a more powerful GPU. And don't overspend on the graphics card. Other parts of your build may also need to be upgraded, save some money for the CPU or power supply. For some people FirePro M4000 will be the best choice, for others Radeon R9 M375X will be their preference. Study the comparison tables below and make your choice.
Radeon R9 M375X
FirePro M4000 is a Laptop Graphics Card
Note: FirePro M4000 is only used in laptop graphics. It has lower GPU clock speed compared to the desktop variant, which results in lower power consumption, but also 10-30% lower gaming performance. Check available laptop models with FirePro M4000 here:
Main Specs
| FirePro M4000 | Radeon R9 M375X | |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 33 Watt | |
| Interface | MXM-A (3.0) | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | |
| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 4 GB |
| Display Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
| Check Price |
- FirePro M4000 is connected by MXM-A (3.0), and Radeon R9 M375X uses PCIe 3.0 x16 interface.
- Radeon R9 M375X has 3 GB more memory, than FirePro M4000.
- FirePro M4000 is used in Mobile workstations, and Radeon R9 M375X - in Desktops.
- FirePro M4000 is build with GCN architecture, and Radeon R9 M375X - with GCN 1.0.
- Core clock speed of Radeon R9 M375X is 325 MHz higher, than FirePro M4000.
- FirePro M4000 and Radeon R9 M375X are manufactured by 28 nm process technology.
- Memory clock speed of FirePro M4000 is 3375 MHz higher, than Radeon R9 M375X.
Game benchmarks
| high / 1080p | 7−8 | 9−10 |
| ultra / 1080p | 4−5 | 5−6 |
| QHD / 1440p | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| low / 720p | 18−20 | 21−24 |
| medium / 1080p | 9−10 | 12−14 |
| The average gaming FPS of Radeon R9 M375X in Assassin's Creed Odyssey is 20% more, than FirePro M4000. | ||
| high / 1080p | 12−14 | 16−18 |
| ultra / 1080p | 10−12 | 12−14 |
| QHD / 1440p | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| low / 720p | 27−30 | 30−35 |
| medium / 1080p | 14−16 | 16−18 |
| The average gaming FPS of Radeon R9 M375X in Battlefield 5 is 18% more, than FirePro M4000. | ||
| low / 768p | 45−50 | 45−50 |
| high / 1080p | 45−50 | − |
| QHD / 1440p | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| FirePro M4000 and Radeon R9 M375X have the same average FPS in Call of Duty: Warzone. | ||
| low / 768p | 140−150 | 160−170 |
| medium / 768p | 120−130 | 130−140 |
| ultra / 1080p | 55−60 | 65−70 |
| QHD / 1440p | 30−35 | 40−45 |
| 4K / 2160p | 27−30 | 27−30 |
| high / 768p | 90−95 | 100−110 |
| The average gaming FPS of Radeon R9 M375X in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive is 12% more, than FirePro M4000. | ||
| low / 768p | 55−60 | 55−60 |
| ultra / 1080p | 21−24 | 24−27 |
| medium / 1080p | 45−50 | 45−50 |
| The average gaming FPS of Radeon R9 M375X in Cyberpunk 2077 is 2% more, than FirePro M4000. | ||
| low / 768p | 85−90 | 90−95 |
| medium / 768p | 65−70 | 70−75 |
| ultra / 1080p | 35−40 | 45−50 |
| The average gaming FPS of Radeon R9 M375X in Dota 2 is 9% more, than FirePro M4000. | ||
| high / 1080p | 9−10 | 10−12 |
| ultra / 1080p | 8−9 | 10−11 |
| 4K / 2160p | 4−5 | 4−5 |
| low / 720p | 21−24 | 24−27 |
| medium / 1080p | 10−11 | 12−14 |
| The average gaming FPS of Radeon R9 M375X in Far Cry 5 is 9% more, than FirePro M4000. | ||
| high / 1080p | 16−18 | 18−20 |
| ultra / 1080p | 10−12 | 12−14 |
| low / 720p | 65−70 | 70−75 |
| medium / 1080p | 27−30 | 30−35 |
| The average gaming FPS of Radeon R9 M375X in Fortnite is 9% more, than FirePro M4000. | ||
| high / 1080p | 14−16 | 16−18 |
| ultra / 1080p | 12−14 | 14−16 |
| QHD / 1440p | 2−3 | 4−5 |
| low / 720p | 27−30 | 35−40 |
| medium / 1080p | 16−18 | 18−20 |
| The average gaming FPS of Radeon R9 M375X in Forza Horizon 4 is 20% more, than FirePro M4000. | ||
| low / 768p | 55−60 | 65−70 |
| medium / 768p | 50−55 | 55−60 |
| high / 1080p | 14−16 | 18−20 |
| ultra / 1080p | 7−8 | 8−9 |
| QHD / 1440p | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| The average gaming FPS of Radeon R9 M375X in Grand Theft Auto V is 15% more, than FirePro M4000. | ||
| high / 1080p | 5−6 | 6−7 |
| ultra / 1080p | 3−4 | 4−5 |
| 4K / 2160p | 0−1 | 1−2 |
| low / 720p | 14−16 | 18−20 |
| medium / 1080p | 7−8 | 8−9 |
| The average gaming FPS of Radeon R9 M375X in Metro Exodus is 28% more, than FirePro M4000. | ||
| low / 768p | 95−100 | 100−110 |
| high / 1080p | 90−95 | − |
| ultra / 1080p | 80−85 | 90−95 |
| medium / 1080p | 95−100 | 95−100 |
| The average gaming FPS of Radeon R9 M375X in Minecraft is 6% more, than FirePro M4000. | ||
| high / 1080p | 16−18 | 18−20 |
| ultra / 1080p | 14−16 | 14−16 |
| low / 720p | 35−40 | 40−45 |
| medium / 1080p | 18−20 | 20−22 |
| The average gaming FPS of Radeon R9 M375X in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS is 9% more, than FirePro M4000. | ||
| high / 1080p | − | 12−14 |
| ultra / 1080p | 8−9 | 8−9 |
| QHD / 1440p | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| low / 720p | 14−16 | 18−20 |
| medium / 1080p | 10−12 | 12−14 |
| The average gaming FPS of Radeon R9 M375X in Red Dead Redemption 2 is 18% more, than FirePro M4000. | ||
| low / 768p | 27−30 | 35−40 |
| medium / 768p | 18−20 | 21−24 |
| high / 1080p | 10−11 | 12−14 |
| ultra / 1080p | 7−8 | 8−9 |
| 4K / 2160p | 6−7 | 7−8 |
| The average gaming FPS of Radeon R9 M375X in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt is 21% more, than FirePro M4000. | ||
| low / 768p | 85−90 | 90−95 |
| medium / 768p | 45−50 | 50−55 |
| ultra / 1080p | 21−24 | 24−27 |
| high / 768p | 35−40 | 40−45 |
| The average gaming FPS of Radeon R9 M375X in World of Tanks is 10% more, than FirePro M4000. | ||
Full Specs
| FirePro M4000 | Radeon R9 M375X | |
| Architecture | GCN | GCN 1.0 |
| Code name | Cape Verde GLM | Tropo |
| Type | Mobile workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 1 July 2012 | 5 May 2015 |
| Pipelines | 512 | 640 |
| Core clock speed | 600 MHz | 925 MHz |
| Boost Clock | 1015 MHz | |
| Transistor count | 1,500 million | 1,500 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Texture fill rate | 21.60 | 40.60 |
| Floating-point performance | 691.2 gflops | 1,299 gflops |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 4500 MHz | 1125 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 72 GB/s | 72 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | |
| DirectX | 12 (11_1) | |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.4 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | Not Listed |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | |
| FreeSync | + | |
| Bus support | n/a | PCIe 3.0 |
| Bitcoin / BTC (SHA256) | 79 Mh/s | |
| Laptop size | medium sized | |
| Eyefinity | + | |
| HD3D | + | |
| PowerTune | + | |
| DualGraphics | + | |
| ZeroCore | + | |
| Switchable graphics | + | |
| Mantle | + | |
| Compute units | 10 | |
| Form factor | MXM-A | |
| StereoOutput3D | + | |
| Check Price |