FirePro M4100 vs FireStream 9250
In this comparison between FirePro M4100 and FireStream 9250 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 M4100 will be the best choice, for others FireStream 9250 will be their preference. Study the comparison tables below and make your choice.
FireStream 9250
FirePro M4100 is a Laptop Graphics Card
Note: FirePro M4100 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 M4100 here:
Main Specs
| FirePro M4100 | FireStream 9250 | |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin | |
| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 1 GB |
| Display Connectors | No outputs | 1x DVI |
| Check Price |
- FirePro M4100 is connected by PCIe 3.0 x8, and FireStream 9250 uses PCIe 2.0 x16 interface.
- FirePro M4100 has 1 GB more memory, than FireStream 9250.
- FirePro M4100 is used in Mobile workstations, and FireStream 9250 - in Desktops.
- FirePro M4100 is build with GCN architecture, and FireStream 9250 - with TeraScale.
- Core clock speed of FirePro M4100 is 45 MHz higher, than FireStream 9250.
- FirePro M4100 is manufactured by 28 nm process technology, and FireStream 9250 - by 55 nm process technology.
- Memory clock speed of FirePro M4100 is 2014 MHz higher, than FireStream 9250.
Game benchmarks
| high / 1080p | 1−2 | 2−3 |
| ultra / 1080p | 0−1 | 1−2 |
| QHD / 1440p | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| low / 720p | 12−14 | 12−14 |
| medium / 1080p | 3−4 | 5−6 |
| The average gaming FPS of FireStream 9250 in Assassin's Creed Odyssey is 16% more, than FirePro M4100. | ||
| high / 1080p | − | 7−8 |
| ultra / 1080p | 4−5 | 5−6 |
| QHD / 1440p | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| low / 720p | 16−18 | 18−20 |
| medium / 1080p | 6−7 | 7−8 |
| The average gaming FPS of FireStream 9250 in Battlefield 5 is 11% more, than FirePro M4100. | ||
| low / 768p | 45−50 | 50−55 |
| high / 1080p | 40−45 | 35−40 |
| QHD / 1440p | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| FirePro M4100 and FireStream 9250 have the same average FPS in Call of Duty: Warzone. | ||
| low / 768p | 120−130 | 120−130 |
| medium / 768p | 95−100 | 95−100 |
| ultra / 1080p | 40−45 | 45−50 |
| QHD / 1440p | 24−27 | 35−40 |
| 4K / 2160p | 18−20 | 18−20 |
| high / 768p | 65−70 | 70−75 |
| The average gaming FPS of FireStream 9250 in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive is 6% more, than FirePro M4100. | ||
| low / 768p | 85−90 | 80−85 |
| ultra / 1080p | 16−18 | 18−20 |
| medium / 1080p | 40−45 | 50−55 |
| The average gaming FPS of FireStream 9250 in Cyberpunk 2077 is 4% more, than FirePro M4100. | ||
| low / 768p | 75−80 | 75−80 |
| medium / 768p | 50−55 | 50−55 |
| ultra / 1080p | 24−27 | 27−30 |
| The average gaming FPS of FireStream 9250 in Dota 2 is 1% more, than FirePro M4100. | ||
| high / 1080p | 2−3 | 3−4 |
| ultra / 1080p | 2−3 | 3−4 |
| 4K / 2160p | 1−2 | 1−2 |
| low / 720p | 12−14 | 12−14 |
| medium / 1080p | 3−4 | 4−5 |
| The average gaming FPS of FireStream 9250 in Far Cry 5 is 25% more, than FirePro M4100. | ||
| high / 1080p | 10−11 | 10−12 |
| ultra / 1080p | 5−6 | 6−7 |
| QHD / 1440p | 2−3 | 3−4 |
| low / 720p | 50−55 | 50−55 |
| medium / 1080p | 12−14 | 14−16 |
| The average gaming FPS of FireStream 9250 in Fortnite is 6% more, than FirePro M4100. | ||
| high / 1080p | 4−5 | 8−9 |
| ultra / 1080p | − | 6−7 |
| QHD / 1440p | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| low / 720p | 18−20 | 20−22 |
| medium / 1080p | 7−8 | 10−11 |
| The average gaming FPS of FireStream 9250 in Forza Horizon 4 is 30% more, than FirePro M4100. | ||
| low / 768p | 45−50 | 50−55 |
| high / 1080p | 5−6 | 8−9 |
| ultra / 1080p | 2−3 | 3−4 |
| QHD / 1440p | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| medium / 720p | 35−40 | 40−45 |
| The average gaming FPS of FireStream 9250 in Grand Theft Auto V is 13% more, than FirePro M4100. | ||
| high / 1080p | 1−2 | 2−3 |
| ultra / 1080p | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| 4K / 2160p | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| low / 720p | 5−6 | 7−8 |
| medium / 1080p | 3−4 | 4−5 |
| The average gaming FPS of FireStream 9250 in Metro Exodus is 33% more, than FirePro M4100. | ||
| low / 768p | 90−95 | 85−90 |
| high / 1080p | 85−90 | 85−90 |
| ultra / 1080p | 70−75 | 85−90 |
| 4K / 2160p | − | 75−80 |
| medium / 1080p | 90−95 | − |
| The average gaming FPS of FireStream 9250 in Minecraft is 3% more, than FirePro M4100. | ||
| high / 1080p | − | 14−16 |
| ultra / 1080p | 12−14 | 12−14 |
| low / 720p | 27−30 | 27−30 |
| medium / 1080p | 14−16 | 14−16 |
| FirePro M4100 and FireStream 9250 have the same average FPS in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS. | ||
| high / 1080p | − | 6−7 |
| ultra / 1080p | 4−5 | 4−5 |
| QHD / 1440p | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| 4K / 2160p | − | 0−1 |
| low / 720p | 6−7 | 7−8 |
| medium / 1080p | − | 7−8 |
| The average gaming FPS of FireStream 9250 in Red Dead Redemption 2 is 20% more, than FirePro M4100. | ||
| low / 768p | 12−14 | 16−18 |
| medium / 768p | 9−10 | 12−14 |
| high / 1080p | 4−5 | 6−7 |
| ultra / 1080p | 3−4 | 4−5 |
| 4K / 2160p | 0−1 | 2−3 |
| The average gaming FPS of FireStream 9250 in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt is 42% more, than FirePro M4100. | ||
| low / 768p | 75−80 | 80−85 |
| medium / 768p | 35−40 | 40−45 |
| ultra / 1080p | 16−18 | 16−18 |
| high / 768p | 30−35 | 30−35 |
| The average gaming FPS of FireStream 9250 in World of Tanks is 4% more, than FirePro M4100. | ||
Full Specs
| FirePro M4100 | FireStream 9250 | |
| Architecture | GCN | TeraScale |
| Code name | Mars | RV770 |
| Type | Mobile workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 1 October 2013 | 16 June 2008 |
| Pipelines | 384 | 800 |
| Core clock speed | 670 MHz | 625 MHz |
| Transistor count | 950 million | 956 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 55 nm |
| Texture fill rate | 16.08 | 25.00 |
| Floating-point performance | 514.6 gflops | 1,000.0 gflops |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 4000 MHz | 1986 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 64 GB/s | 63.55 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | |
| DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 10.1 (10_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 4.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 3.3 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | N/A |
| Bitcoin / BTC (SHA256) | 74 Mh/s | |
| Laptop size | medium sized | |
| Check Price |