AMD FirePro D500 vs AMD Radeon R9 M380 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data splits these two AMD GPUs into different workloads, and the split is not subtle. The AMD FirePro D500 is built for sustained compute throughput, with a single Geekbench Vulkan score of 18,533 that places it at the 62nd percentile of all GPUs. That score puts it nearly neck-and-neck with the AMD Radeon RX 560X (18,626, a 0.5% advantage for the rival) and the AMD Radeon Pro 5700 XT (18,685, 0.8% ahead), while edging out the Intel Arc A770M (18,383, 0.8% behind) and the AMD Radeon RX 460 (18,373, 0.9% behind). In short, the FirePro D500 slots into a competitive middle tier for modern API workloads despite its older architecture.

The AMD Radeon R9 M380 takes a different path. Its benchmark results are split across two APIs: a Geekbench Metal score of 18,476 and a Geekbench OpenCL score of 12,565. The average of those two, 15,521, lands it at the 58th percentile. That average is remarkably close to the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti (15,548, a 0.2% delta) and the AMD Radeon Pro W5500 (15,679, 1% behind), while the R9 M380 sits slightly ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 (15,290, 1.5% ahead) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580 (15,283, 1.6% ahead). The key insight: the R9 M380 wins on Apple-centric Metal performance, where it nearly matches the FirePro D500's Vulkan score, but it loses heavily in OpenCL, where it drops by roughly a third of its Metal result.

For use-case selection, the FirePro D500 is the choice for Vulkan-based compute or rendering pipelines, while the R9 M380 is the better fit for Metal-centric environments. The FirePro D500 also carries professional workstation credentials with six mini-DisplayPort outputs and an SDI output, whereas the R9 M380 has no recorded display output information, suggesting it was aimed at mobile or embedded integration rather than multi-monitor professional setups. The R9 M380 has no recorded TDP, slot width, or PSU recommendation, which aligns with a mobile-oriented design, while the FirePro D500 is a dual-slot, 274 W card with a 600 W suggested PSU, clearly a desktop workstation part.

Architecture Differences

Both chips come from TSMC's 28 nm process, but they are two generations apart in graphics core design. The FirePro D500 uses the Tahiti chip with GCN 1.0 architecture, while the R9 M380 uses the Strato chip with GCN 2.0. The transistor counts tell the story of their different roles: the Tahiti die packs 4,313 million transistors across 352 mm², giving a density of 12.3 million transistors per square millimeter. The Strato die is far smaller at 160 mm², holding 2,080 million transistors at a slightly higher density of 13.0 million per square millimeter. This means the FirePro D500's die is more than twice the physical size, with more than double the transistor budget, dedicated to compute-heavy shader arrays.

The compute resources diverge sharply. The FirePro D500 has 1,536 shading units, 96 texture mapping units, and 32 render output units. The R9 M380 has exactly half the shading units at 768, half the TMUs at 48, and half the ROPs at 16. That halving pattern is consistent across the board, which is why the FirePro D500's theoretical pixel rate is 23.20 GPixel/s versus 16.00 GPixel/s for the R9 M380, and its texture rate is 69.60 GTexel/s versus 48.00 GTexel/s. The FP32 throughput also reflects the gap: 2.227 TFLOPS for the FirePro D500 versus 1.536 TFLOPS for the R9 M380.

Memory architecture is another major divergence. The FirePro D500 uses a 384-bit bus with 3 GB of GDDR5, running at 1270 MHz (5.1 Gbps effective), yielding 243.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The R9 M380 uses a 128-bit bus with 4 GB of GDDR5, running at 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective), yielding only 96.00 GB/s. The FirePro D500 has 2.5 times the memory bandwidth, which is critical for large dataset workloads, while the R9 M380 has 33% more capacity, which helps with texture-heavy scenes that fit within 4 GB but not 3 GB.

API support differs as well. The FirePro D500 lists DirectX 12 (11_1), meaning it only supports the earlier feature level of DirectX 12, while the R9 M380 lists DirectX 12 (12_0), the full feature level. Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.170. The R9 M380 also has a recorded Metal benchmark, while the FirePro D500 has none, which aligns with the R9 M380's presence in systems that use Apple's Metal API. The FirePro D500's architecture is older, but its raw compute resources are substantially larger, making it a brute-force performer rather than a feature-forward one.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Direct head-to-head benchmark data between these two cards is not recorded in the database, so the comparison relies on their individual benchmark results across shared and distinct APIs. The FirePro D500's only recorded benchmark is Geekbench Vulkan at 18,533. The R9 M380 has no Vulkan score, so that comparison is impossible. The R9 M380's Metal score of 18,476 is the closest apples-to-apples comparison available, and it is within 57 points of the FirePro D500's Vulkan score, a 0.3% difference. This suggests that in their respective preferred APIs, the two cards perform at nearly identical levels, despite the FirePro D500 having double the shading units, TMUs, and ROPs.

The big win for the R9 M380 is in OpenCL, where it scores 12,565. That is the lowest recorded result among all benchmarks listed for both cards. The FirePro D500 has no OpenCL score, so we cannot directly compare, but the R9 M380's OpenCL result is 32% below its own Metal score. This indicates that the R9 M380 is heavily optimized for Metal and significantly weaker in OpenCL, a common pattern for AMD GPUs in Apple systems during that era.

The FirePro D500's Vulkan score of 18,533 is higher than the R9 M380's OpenCL score by 5,968 points, a 47.5% advantage. Even against the R9 M380's average benchmark score of 15,521, the FirePro D500's Vulkan score is 3,012 points higher, a 19.4% lead. This makes the FirePro D500 the clear winner for compute workloads that use Vulkan, while the R9 M380's Metal performance keeps it competitive only in that specific API. The R9 M380's average score of 15,521 is dragged down by its weak OpenCL result, while the FirePro D500's average equals its Vulkan score at 18,533, since that is its only recorded benchmark.

The nearest rival data reinforces this split. The FirePro D500's closest rival, the AMD Radeon RX 560X, beats it by only 0.5%, while the R9 M380's closest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti, beats it by only 0.2%. Both cards sit in a tight performance band around their respective scores, meaning neither has a decisive edge over its immediate competitors. The practical takeaway is that the FirePro D500 is a compute-oriented card that shines in Vulkan, while the R9 M380 is a Metal-first card with a noticeable OpenCL weakness.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher raw compute throughput?

A: The AMD FirePro D500. It has 1,536 shading units, 96 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, with an FP32 throughput of 2.227 TFLOPS. The AMD Radeon R9 M380 has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, with an FP32 throughput of 1.536 TFLOPS.

Q: How do their memory bandwidths compare?

A: The FirePro D500 has 243.8 GB/s of bandwidth over a 384-bit bus with 3 GB of GDDR5. The R9 M380 has 96.00 GB/s over a 128-bit bus with 4 GB of GDDR5. The FirePro D500 has 2.5 times the bandwidth, but the R9 M380 has 33% more memory capacity.

Q: Which card supports the newer DirectX feature level?

A: The R9 M380 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the FirePro D500 only supports DirectX 12 (11_1). Both cards support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.170.

Q: Is the R9 M380 competitive with the FirePro D500 in any benchmark?

A: Yes. The R9 M380's Geekbench Metal score is 18,476, which is within 57 points of the FirePro D500's Geekbench Vulkan score of 18,533. However, the R9 M380's OpenCL score drops to 12,565, a 32% decline from its Metal result.

Q: What do the percentile rankings indicate?

A: The FirePro D500 sits at the 62nd percentile of all GPUs, while the R9 M380 sits at the 58th percentile based on its average score of 15,521. The FirePro D500 ranks higher overall, despite having an older architecture.

Q: Which card is more suitable for professional multi-display setups?

A: The FirePro D500, which has 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs and 1x SDI output. The R9 M380 has no recorded display outputs, suggesting it was designed for mobile integration rather than workstation display arrays.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every recorded specification except for manufacturer, process node, foundry, bus interface, OpenGL version, and Vulkan version. The key differences are listed below.

• Chip: Tahiti (FirePro D500) versus Strato (R9 M380)
• Architecture: GCN 1.0 versus GCN 2.0
• Transistors: 4,313 million versus 2,080 million
• Die Size: 352 mm² versus 160 mm²
• Transistor Density: 12.3M / mm² versus 13.0M / mm²
• Base Clock: Not recorded versus 900 MHz
• Boost Clock: Not recorded versus 1000 MHz
• Memory Clock: 1270 MHz (5.1 Gbps effective) versus 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective)
• Memory Size: 3 GB versus 4 GB
• Memory Bus Width: 384 bit versus 128 bit
• Memory Bandwidth: 243.8 GB/s versus 96.00 GB/s
• Shading Units: 1536 versus 768
• TMUs: 96 versus 48
• ROPs: 32 versus 16
• Pixel Rate: 23.20 GPixel/s versus 16.00 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 69.60 GTexel/s versus 48.00 GTexel/s
• FP32: 2.227 TFLOPS versus 1.536 TFLOPS
• TDP: 274 W versus not recorded
• Slot Width: Dual-slot versus not recorded
• Suggested PSU: 600 W versus not recorded
• Display Outputs: 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.2, 1x SDI versus not recorded
• DirectX Support: 12 (11_1) versus 12 (12_0)
• Dimensions: 279 mm (11 inches) length versus not recorded
• Release Date: 2014-01-17 versus 2015-05-04
• Predecessor: FirePro Terascale versus Solar System
• Successor: Radeon Instinct versus Polaris Mobile
• Generation: FirePro Data Center (Dx00) versus Gem System (R9 M300)

The Verdict

Choose the AMD FirePro D500 if your workload is built on Vulkan or if you need professional workstation features. Its 2.227 TFLOPS FP32 throughput, 243.8 GB/s memory bandwidth, and 62nd percentile ranking make it the stronger compute card. The 6x mini-DisplayPort and SDI outputs are designed for multi-monitor professional environments. The dual-slot form factor and 600 W suggested PSU indicate a desktop workstation card that expects a robust power supply. Its 3 GB memory is the limiting factor for very large textures, but the 384-bit bus compensates with high bandwidth.

Choose the AMD Radeon R9 M380 if your environment is Metal-centric and you need more memory capacity. Its Metal score of 18,476 nearly matches the FirePro D500's Vulkan score, and its 4 GB frame buffer is useful for texture-heavy scenes. The lack of a recorded TDP, slot width, and display outputs suggests this is a mobile part, so it is likely already integrated into a laptop or compact system. The DirectX 12 (12_0) support gives it a feature-level advantage over the FirePro D500's 11_1, which matters for newer Windows games. However, its OpenCL performance is weak at 12,565, so avoid it for OpenCL compute tasks.

The data does not show a universal winner. The FirePro D500 wins on raw compute resources, memory bandwidth, pixel rate, texture rate, and overall percentile. The R9 M380 wins on memory capacity, DirectX feature level, and Metal API performance. The FirePro D500 is the better choice for professional, Vulkan-driven workloads, while the R9 M380 is the better choice for Metal-based systems or when 4 GB of memory is essential. Both cards are end-of-life, so availability is the practical constraint. The FirePro D500 is the higher-performing part overall, but the R9 M380 is not without its specific advantages.