FirePro W4170M vs Radeon 530

G3D Mark is a standard benchmark that measures graphics performance in real-world gaming scenarios. It simplifies comparing cards from different brands, where higher scores directly correlate with better fps and smoother gaming experiences.

Value Upgrade Path

This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (G3D Mark) per dollar. The FirePro W4170M is positioned at rank #56 in our cost-efficiency ranking, representing a Balanced cost-benefit for your build. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money.

MSRP is the manufacturer's suggested retail price.•
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.

Performance Per Dollar FirePro W4170M

#26

Radeon Pro Vega 48

MSRP: $450|Avg: $450

95%

#27

Radeon Pro 5700 XT

MSRP: $500|Avg: $280

95%

#28

Quadro P5200

MSRP: $500|Avg: $240

89%

#29

Radeon PRO W7700

MSRP: $999|Avg: $999

88%

#30

Radeon PRO W6600

MSRP: $649|Avg: $649

87%

#32

Radeon AI PRO R9700

MSRP: $1299|Avg: $1450

84%

#41

Tesla K20m

MSRP: $3199|Avg: $55

562%

#56

FirePro W4170M

MSRP: N/A|Avg: N/A

100%

#58

Quadro K2000M

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $30

95%

#60

Intel Arc Pro A60

MSRP: $380|Avg: $380

95%

#63

T400 4GB

MSRP: $159|Avg: $99

91%

#64

Radeon Pro 5300

MSRP: $300|Avg: $150

90%

#69

Radeon Pro W5500

MSRP: $399|Avg: $300

85%

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Per Dollar

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Comparison

About G3D Mark

🏆 Chipversus Verdict

🚀 Performance Leadership

The FirePro W4170M is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 1.4% higher G3D Mark score and 700% more VRAM (4 GB vs 512 MB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Radeon 530.

Insight	FirePro W4170M	Radeon 530
Performance	✅Leading raw performance (+1.4%)	❌Lower raw frame rates (-1.4%)
Longevity	🛑Obsolete Architecture (2015 / GCN 1.0 (2012−2020))	🛑Obsolete Architecture (2017 / GCN 3.0 (2014−2019))
Ecosystem	Supports FSR Upscaling	Supports FSR Upscaling
VRAM	✅ More VRAM (+700%)	❌ Less VRAM capacity
Efficiency	⚡ Higher Power Consumption	💡 Excellent Perf/Watt
Case Fit	—	—

💎 Value Proposition

While current pricing data is unavailable, the FirePro W4170M remains the clear technical winner. Check real-time availability to determine if the performance gap justifies the market price.

Performance Check

Real-world benchmarks and performance projections based on comprehensive hardware analysis and comparative metrics. Values represent expected performance on High/Ultra settings at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. Modeled using a Ryzen 7 7800X3D reference profile to minimize specific CPU bottlenecks.

Note: Performance behavior can vary per game. Specific architectures may perform better or worse depending on game engine optimizations and API implementation.

FirePro W4170M Benchmark Check

Radeon 530 Benchmark Check

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of FirePro W4170M and Radeon 530

FirePro W4170M

The FirePro W4170M is manufactured by AMD. It was released in April 23 2015. It features the GCN 1.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 825 MHz to 900 MHz. It has 384 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 150W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 1,052 points.

Radeon 530

The Radeon 530 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in April 18 2017. It features the GCN 3.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 730 MHz to 1024 MHz. It has 384 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 50W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 1,037 points.

⚡

Graphics Performance

The FirePro W4170M scores 1,052 and the Radeon 530 reaches 1,037 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 1.4% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The FirePro W4170M is built on GCN 1.0 while the Radeon 530 uses GCN 3.0, both on a 28 nm process. Shader units: 384 (FirePro W4170M) vs 384 (Radeon 530). Raw compute: 0.6912 TFLOPS (FirePro W4170M) vs 0.7864 TFLOPS (Radeon 530). Boost clocks: 900 MHz vs 1024 MHz.

Feature	FirePro W4170M	Radeon 530
G3D Mark Score	1,052+1%	1,037
Architecture	GCN 1.0	GCN 3.0
Process Node	28 nm	28 nm
Shading Units	384	384
Compute (TFLOPS)	0.6912 TFLOPS	0.7864 TFLOPS+14%
Boost Clock	900 MHz	1024 MHz+14%
ROPs	8	8
TMUs	24	24
L1 Cache	96 KB	96 KB
L2 Cache	256 KB+100%	128 KB

✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

Feature	FirePro W4170M	Radeon 530
Upscaling Tech	FSR 1.0 (Software)	FSR 1.0 (Software)
Frame Generation	Not Supported	Not Supported
Ray Reconstruction	No	No
Low Latency	Standard	AMD Anti-Lag

💾

Video Memory (VRAM)

The FirePro W4170M comes with 4 GB of VRAM, while the Radeon 530 has 512 MB. The FirePro W4170M offers 700% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 64-bit vs 64-bit. L2 Cache: 256 KB (FirePro W4170M) vs 128 KB (Radeon 530) — the FirePro W4170M has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

Feature	FirePro W4170M	Radeon 530
VRAM Capacity	4 GB+700%	0.5 GB
Memory Type	GDDR5	GDDR5
Bus Width	64-bit	64-bit
L2 Cache	256 KB+100%	128 KB

🖥️

Display & API Support

DirectX support: 12 (11_1) (FirePro W4170M) vs 12 (12_0) (Radeon 530). Vulkan: 1.2 vs 1.2. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 2 vs 3.

Feature	FirePro W4170M	Radeon 530
DirectX	12 (11_1)	12 (12_0)
Vulkan	1.2	1.2
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
Max Displays	2	3+50%

🎬

Media & Encoding

Hardware encoder: VCE 1.0 (FirePro W4170M) vs VCE 3.0 (Radeon 530). Decoder: UVD 4.0 vs UVD 6.0. Supported codecs: H.264,MPEG-4,VC-1,MPEG-2 (FirePro W4170M) vs H.264,H.265 (Decode),VC-1,MPEG-4 (Radeon 530).

Feature	FirePro W4170M	Radeon 530
Encoder	VCE 1.0	VCE 3.0
Decoder	UVD 4.0	UVD 6.0
Codecs	H.264,MPEG-4,VC-1,MPEG-2	H.264,H.265 (Decode),VC-1,MPEG-4

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The FirePro W4170M draws 150W versus the Radeon 530's 50W — a 100% difference. The Radeon 530 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (FirePro W4170M) vs 350W (Radeon 530). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 0mm vs 0mm, occupying 0 vs 0 slots. Typical load temperature: 75 vs 75.