AMD FirePro D500 vs AMD Radeon Pro W5500 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher Geekbench Vulkan score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro W5500 scores 42,021 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the AMD FirePro D500 scores 18,533. The W5500 leads by 55.9% in this test.

Q: How does the FirePro D500 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The FirePro D500 sits within a very tight cluster. It is 0.5% behind the AMD Radeon RX 560X, 0.8% behind the AMD Radeon Pro 5700 XT, 0.8% ahead of the Intel Arc A770M, and 0.9% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 460. Its average benchmark score is 18,533, placing it in the 62nd percentile of all GPUs.

Q: What are the closest competitors to the Radeon Pro W5500?

A: The W5500's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti, which it leads by 0.8%, and the AMD Radeon R9 M380, which it also leads by 1%. The AMD Radeon RX 7700 is 1.1% ahead, and the AMD Radeon R9 370X is 1.2% ahead. The W5500's average benchmark score is 15,679, placing it in the 58th percentile.

Q: What is the process node difference between the two cards?

A: The FirePro D500 uses a 28 nm process from TSMC, while the Radeon Pro W5500 uses a 7 nm process, also from TSMC. The W5500 packs 6,400 million transistors into a 158 mm² die, whereas the D500 fits 4,313 million transistors into a 352 mm² die.

Q: Which card has more memory bandwidth?

A: The FirePro D500 has a 384-bit bus and GDDR5 memory, delivering 243.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The Radeon Pro W5500 uses a 128-bit bus with GDDR6 memory, providing 224.0 GB/s. Despite the narrower bus, the W5500 comes within 8% of the older card's bandwidth.

Q: What is the TDP of each card?

A: The FirePro D500 has a 274 W TDP and requires a 600 W suggested power supply. The Radeon Pro W5500 has a 125 W TDP and only needs a 300 W suggested power supply.

Architecture Differences

The AMD FirePro D500 is built on the Tahiti chip using the GCN 1.0 architecture, a design that dates back to the 28 nm era. It contains 4,313 million transistors on a 352 mm² die, which yields a transistor density of 12.3 million per square millimeter. The card uses GDDR5 memory with a 384-bit interface. Its shading array consists of 1,536 shading units, 96 texture mapping units, and 32 raster operation pipelines. The D500 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. It connects via PCIe 3.0 x16 and offers six mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs plus one SDI output.

The AMD Radeon Pro W5500, by contrast, uses the Navi 14 chip with the RDNA 1.0 architecture. This is a 7 nm part from the same foundry, TSMC, but with a much denser layout: 6,400 million transistors on a 158 mm² die, or 40.5 million per square millimeter. That is over three times the transistor density of the D500. The W5500 has 1,408 shading units, 88 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, slightly fewer shading units and TMUs than the D500, but with much higher clock speeds. Its memory subsystem uses GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus. API support includes DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, a newer Vulkan revision than the D500's 1.2.170.

The clock behavior differs significantly. The FirePro D500 has no listed base or boost clock, only a memory clock of 1270 MHz (5.1 Gbps effective). The W5500 lists a base clock of 1744 MHz and a boost clock of 1855 MHz, with memory at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective). The W5500's FP32 throughput is 5.224 TFLOPS versus 2.227 TFLOPS for the D500, a 2.35x advantage. The W5500 also supports FP16 at 10.45 TFLOPS (2:1), while the D500 has no listed FP16 capability.

Power and physical design also separate the two. The D500 is a dual-slot card with a 274 W TDP and a 600 W suggested PSU. The W5500 is a single-slot card with a 125 W TDP, a 300 W suggested PSU, and a single 6-pin power connector. The W5500 supports PCIe 4.0 x8, while the D500 uses PCIe 3.0 x16. The D500 is 279 mm long (11 inches), while the W5500 is 241 mm long (9.5 inches) and 111 mm tall (4.4 inches).

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct head-to-head benchmark recorded in the database is Geekbench Vulkan. The AMD Radeon Pro W5500 scores 42,021, and the AMD FirePro D500 scores 18,533. The delta is 55.9% in favor of the W5500. This is a decisive margin, more than doubling the older card's score.

The D500's Vulkan result of 18,533 places it near several mid-range cards from different generations. Its nearest rivals are separated by less than one percent in either direction. The AMD Radeon RX 560X scores 18,626, just 0.5% higher. The AMD Radeon Pro 5700 XT scores 18,685, 0.8% higher. The Intel Arc A770M scores 18,383, which is 0.8% lower, and the AMD Radeon RX 460 scores 18,373, 0.9% lower. The D500 sits almost exactly in the middle of this group, suggesting its Vulkan performance is consistent with a specific performance tier rather than an outlier.

The W5500's average benchmark score of 15,679 is lower than its Vulkan score because it includes several other tests. Its nearest rivals span a narrow band: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti averages 15,548 (0.8% behind), the AMD Radeon R9 M380 averages 15,521 (1% behind), the AMD Radeon RX 7700 averages 15,852 (1.1% ahead), and the AMD Radeon R9 370X averages 15,862 (1.2% ahead). The W5500's 58th percentile ranking means it outperforms 58% of all GPUs in the database, while the D500's 62nd percentile ranking is higher despite its lower Vulkan score, reflecting the different benchmark distributions.

Beyond Vulkan, the W5500 has multiple recorded benchmarks that give a fuller picture. Its Geekbench Metal score is 54,302, and its OpenCL score is 45,615. In PassMark tests, it scores 8,978 in G3D, 4,804 in GPU compute, 806 in G2D, 126 in DirectX 9, 56 in DirectX 11, 47 in DirectX 10, and 39 in DirectX 12. The D500 only has the single Vulkan benchmark in the database, so cross-API comparisons are limited to what the data provides.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear generational shift. The Radeon Pro W5500 leads the FirePro D500 by 55.9% in Vulkan, the only benchmark where both have recorded scores. That is not a marginal improvement; it is a categorical step forward in raw compute performance. The W5500 also delivers that performance at less than half the power draw, 125 W versus 274 W, and in a single-slot form factor versus dual-slot.

The FirePro D500's strengths are narrower but real. Its 384-bit memory bus and 243.8 GB/s bandwidth slightly exceed the W5500's 224.0 GB/s. It also has a higher percentile ranking among all GPUs, 62nd versus 58th, although this is based on different benchmark sets. For legacy workloads that rely on GCN 1.0 behavior or the specific API support of DirectX 12 (11_1), the D500 remains a functional option, but the newer card's DirectX 12 (12_1) support and Vulkan 1.4 compatibility make it the more future-proof choice.

For professional users deciding between these two, the W5500 is the stronger pick based on the recorded data. It wins the only direct comparison decisively, has a broader benchmark profile, supports newer API revisions, and consumes far less power. The D500's advantages are limited to memory bandwidth and a slightly higher overall percentile, neither of which compensates for the 55.9% Vulkan deficit. The W5500 also has a launch MSRP of 399 USD, while the D500 has no listed launch price.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD FirePro D500 | AMD Radeon Pro W5500 |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | RDNA 1.0 |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 7 nm |

| Transistors | 4,313 million | 6,400 million |

| Die Size | 352 mm² | 158 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.3M / mm² | 40.5M / mm² |

| Base Clock | Not listed | 1744 MHz |

| Boost Clock | Not listed | 1855 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1270 MHz (5.1 Gbps effective) | 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 3 GB | 8 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus Width | 384 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 243.8 GB/s | 224.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1536 | 1408 |

| TMUs | 96 | 88 |

| ROPs | 32 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 23.20 GPixel/s | 59.36 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 69.60 GTexel/s | 163.2 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 2.227 TFLOPS | 5.224 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | Not listed | 10.45 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 274 W | 125 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | Single-slot |

| Power Connectors | Not listed | 1x 6-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 600 W | 300 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |

| Display Outputs | 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.2, 1x SDI | 4x DisplayPort 1.4a |

| DirectX Support | 12 (11_1) | 12 (12_1) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.2.170 | 1.4 |

| Length | 279 mm (11 inches) | 241 mm (9.5 inches) |

| Height | Not listed | 111 mm (4.4 inches) |

| Release Date | 2014-01-17 | 2020-02-09 |

Where Each One Wins

The Radeon Pro W5500 wins in raw compute performance. Its FP32 throughput of 5.224 TFLOPS is more than double the D500's 2.227 TFLOPS. Its pixel rate of 59.36 GPixel/s and texture rate of 163.2 GTexel/s dwarf the D500's 23.20 GPixel/s and 69.60 GTexel/s. In Vulkan, the W5500's 42,021 score against 18,533 confirms this advantage in a real-world graphics API.

The W5500 also wins on efficiency and physical footprint. It draws 125 W versus 274 W, requires a 300 W PSU instead of 600 W, and fits in a single slot rather than dual. Its 8 GB of GDDR6 memory doubles the D500's 3 GB, and its 14 Gbps effective memory clock is nearly triple the D500's 5.1 Gbps. The newer Vulkan 1.4 support and DirectX 12 (12_1) give it an API advantage for modern applications.

The FirePro D500 retains two specific advantages in the recorded data. First, memory bandwidth: 243.8 GB/s versus 224.0 GB/s, a 8.8% edge despite the older memory type. Second, the 384-bit bus width (versus 128-bit) may matter for workloads that are sensitive to bus width rather than raw clock speed, though the benchmark data does not directly test this. The D500 also has more shading units (1,536 versus 1,408) and more TMUs (96 versus 88), though the W5500's higher clocks overwhelm these counts in practice. The D500's 62nd percentile ranking versus the W5500's 58th is a statistical distinction, not a performance one, given the different benchmark distributions. For users with legacy GCN-optimized workflows or a need for six display outputs plus SDI, the D500 still has a place. For everyone else, the W5500 is the superior card in every measured comparison.