AMD FirePro D500 vs AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains one direct head-to-head comparison between the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL and the AMD FirePro D500, and it is a decisive victory for the newer part. In the Geekbench Vulkan test, the RX Vega M GL scores 22,757 points against the FirePro D500's 18,533 points. That is a 22.8% lead, a substantial margin that places the two GPUs in clearly different performance tiers despite their shared AMD heritage.

Looking at the broader database context, the RX Vega M GL's average benchmark score of 21,153 places it at the 66th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals in the database include the AMD Radeon HD 8970M (21,237, a 0.4% difference), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5050 (21,035, a 0.6% difference), the NVIDIA RTX A4000 Mobile (21,379, a 1.1% difference), and the AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT (20,713, a 2.1% difference). This clustering shows the Vega M GL sits in a competitive mid-range band where a few points either way separate it from comparable parts. The FirePro D500, by contrast, has an average benchmark score of 18,533, landing at the 62nd percentile. Its nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon RX 560X (18,626, a 0.5% difference), the Intel Arc A770M (18,383, a 0.8% difference), the AMD Radeon Pro 5700 XT (18,685, a 0.8% difference), and the AMD Radeon RX 460 (18,373, a 0.9% difference). The FirePro's rival group is consistently lower-scoring, confirming that its performance class sits below the Vega M GL's.

The head-to-head Vulkan result is the only benchmark both parts share, and it tells a clear story. The RX Vega M GL is not merely faster; it is faster by a margin large enough to be meaningful in real workloads. A 22.8% delta in a single API test suggests the architectural and process advantages of the newer GPU translate directly into measurable performance gains. The FirePro D500, despite having more shading units and a wider memory bus, cannot overcome the Vega M GL's efficiency and feature set.

It is importantly the FirePro D500's database entry lacks a Geekbench OpenCL score, while the RX Vega M GL records 19,549 in that test. The absence of a comparable OpenCL result for the FirePro limits direct cross-referencing, but the Vulkan comparison alone provides sufficient evidence of the performance hierarchy. The Vega M GL also holds a 66th versus 62nd percentile advantage, reinforcing the same conclusion from a different angle.

Where Each One Wins

The RX Vega M GL wins the only direct benchmark comparison, and it also wins on the broader measure of average benchmark score. Its 21,153 average versus the FirePro D500's 18,533 represents a difference of roughly 2,620 points, or about 14% higher. In the Vulkan API specifically, the Vega M GL leads by 22.8%, which is its largest recorded advantage. For workloads that rely on Vulkan, whether gaming, compute, or professional visualization, the data points squarely to the Vega M GL.

The FirePro D500 does not win any recorded benchmark against the Vega M GL. Its wins, if they exist, would have to come from characteristics not captured in the benchmark suite. The FirePro does have a higher memory bandwidth at 243.8 GB/s versus 179.2 GB/s, and a wider 384-bit memory bus versus 1024-bit on the Vega M GL, but those specifications do not translate into a benchmark victory in the available data. The FirePro also has more shading units (1,536 versus 1,280) and more texture mapping units (96 versus 80), yet its pixel rate is lower at 23.20 GPixel/s versus 32.35 GPixel/s, and its texture rate is lower at 69.60 GTexel/s versus 80.88 GTexel/s. The Vega M GL is simply more efficient at converting its resources into output.

For use cases like gaming on portable devices, the Vega M GL is the clear choice based on the data. Its IGP form factor and 65 W TDP make it suitable for integrated deployments, while still delivering a Vulkan score above 22,000. The FirePro D500, with its dual-slot form factor, 274 W TDP, and 600 W suggested PSU, is a workstation card from a different era. Its 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 and 1x SDI outputs suggest it was designed for multi-display professional setups, but benchmark results do not favor it in raw compute or graphics performance.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different generations of AMD's graphics architecture, and that gap explains much of the performance delta. The AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL uses the Polaris 22 chip built on GCN 4.0 architecture, fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The AMD FirePro D500 uses the Tahiti chip built on GCN 1.0 architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The process node difference alone, 14 nm versus 28 nm, gives the Vega M GL a significant efficiency and density advantage. The Vega M GL packs 5,000 million transistors into a 208 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 24.0M per mm². The FirePro D500 contains 4,313 million transistors on a much larger 352 mm² die, resulting in a density of just 12.3M per mm². The Vega M GL effectively crams more transistors into less space, which translates into higher clock-for-clock performance and lower power draw.

The Vega M GL has a base clock of 931 MHz and a boost clock of 1011 MHz, while the FirePro D500's clock speeds are not recorded in the database. The memory subsystems differ radically as well. The Vega M GL uses 4 GB of HBM2 on a 1024-bit bus, with memory running at 700 MHz (1400 Mbps effective) and bandwidth of 179.2 GB/s. The FirePro D500 uses 3 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, with memory at 1270 MHz (5.1 Gbps effective) and bandwidth of 243.8 GB/s. The FirePro has higher raw bandwidth, but the Vega M GL's HBM2 implementation offers other advantages in latency and efficiency.

Compute capabilities also diverge. The Vega M GL delivers 2.588 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and matches that with 2.588 TFLOPS of FP16 (1:1 ratio). The FirePro D500 delivers 2.227 TFLOPS of FP32 and has no recorded FP16 capability. The Vega M GL's FP16 support at full rate is a modern feature absent from the older FirePro. API support follows the same pattern: the Vega M GL supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3, while the FirePro D500 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The Vega M GL's newer DirectX and Vulkan versions reflect its more recent release.

The Vega M GL is an integrated graphics processor with an IGP bus interface and no power connectors, designed for portable devices. The FirePro D500 is a dual-slot, 279 mm (11 inch) card using PCIe 3.0 x16, with a 600 W suggested PSU. The FirePro's display outputs are extensive at 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 and 1x SDI, while the Vega M GL's outputs are listed as portable device dependent. The FirePro D500's predecessor is noted as FirePro Terascale and its successor as Radeon Instinct, placing it in a professional product lineage. The Vega M GL has no recorded predecessor or successor, marking it as a more isolated product in the database.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL is the superior GPU in every recorded benchmark and metric. Its 22.8% Vulkan lead over the FirePro D500, its higher average benchmark score of 21,153 versus 18,533, and its 66th versus 62nd percentile ranking all point in the same direction. Any user choosing between these two based on the available measurements should select the Vega M GL.

The Vega M GL is the pick for workloads that leverage Vulkan, for FP16 compute tasks, and for scenarios where power efficiency matters. Its 65 W TDP versus the FirePro's 274 W, its IGP form factor versus dual-slot, and its 14 nm process versus 28 nm all reinforce the same narrative: newer architecture, better performance, lower power. The FirePro D500 retains advantages in memory bandwidth (243.8 GB/s versus 179.2 GB/s) and shading unit count (1,536 versus 1,280), but those specifications do not produce a benchmark victory.

The FirePro D500 might still appeal to users needing its specific display output configuration: 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 and 1x SDI, which the Vega M GL cannot offer due to its portable device dependent outputs. However, that is a niche connectivity consideration, not a performance one. The FirePro's 3 GB GDDR5 memory is also smaller than the Vega M GL's 4 GB HBM2, further narrowing its appeal.

For most buyers, the choice is straightforward. The Vega M GL wins on raw performance, efficiency, API support, and modern features. The FirePro D500 wins only on memory bandwidth and multi-display connectivity, neither of which offsets a 22.8% benchmark deficit. The database recommends the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL has an average benchmark score of 21,153, compared to 18,533 for the AMD FirePro D500.

Q: How much faster is the Vega M GL in Vulkan?

A: In the Geekbench Vulkan test, the Vega M GL scores 22,757 versus 18,533 for the FirePro D500, a 22.8% lead.

Q: Do the two GPUs have the same memory type?

A: No, the Vega M GL uses 4 GB of HBM2 on a 1024-bit bus, while the FirePro D500 uses 3 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus.

Q: Which GPU supports FP16 compute?

A: Only the Vega M GL has recorded FP16 support, delivering 2.588 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio to FP32. The FirePro D500 has no recorded FP16 capability.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The Vega M GL has a 65 W TDP, while the FirePro D500 has a 274 W TDP and a 600 W suggested PSU.

Q: Are there any benchmarks where the FirePro D500 wins?

A: In the recorded head-to-head data, the FirePro D500 does not win any benchmark against the Vega M GL.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL | AMD FirePro D500 |

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

| Chip | Polaris 22 | Tahiti |

| Architecture | GCN 4.0 | GCN 1.0 |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 28 nm |

| Foundry | GlobalFoundries | TSMC |

| Transistors | 5,000 million | 4,313 million |

| Die Size | 208 mm² | 352 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 24.0M / mm² | 12.3M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 931 MHz | Not recorded |

| Boost Clock | 1011 MHz | Not recorded |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 3 GB |

| Memory Type | HBM2 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | 1024 bit | 384 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 179.2 GB/s | 243.8 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1280 | 1536 |

| TMUs | 80 | 96 |

| ROPs | 32 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 32.35 GPixel/s | 23.20 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 80.88 GTexel/s | 69.60 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 2.588 TFLOPS | 2.227 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 2.588 TFLOPS (1:1) | Not recorded |

| TDP | 65 W | 274 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | Dual-slot |

| Suggested PSU | Not recorded | 600 W |

| Bus Interface | IGP | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.2, 1x SDI |

| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 (11_1) |

| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.2.170 |

| Length | Not recorded | 279 mm (11 inches) |

| Release Date | 2018-01-31 | 2014-01-17 |

| Predecessor | Not recorded | FirePro Terascale |

| Successor | Not recorded | Radeon Instinct |