AMD FirePro M4000 vs AMD Radeon R5 M255 Comparison

The Verdict

The benchmark data places the AMD FirePro M4000 and the AMD Radeon R5 M255 in different tiers of mobile graphics performance, despite both being end-of-life products. The FirePro M4000 is the clear winner in raw compute throughput, posting a Geekbench OpenCL score of 5537 against the R5 M255's 4650, a 19.1% advantage. This translates to a 32nd percentile ranking among all GPUs for the FirePro, compared to the R5 M255's 28th percentile. The FirePro M4000 is the choice for users whose workloads are compute-heavy and rely on OpenCL acceleration, such as professional 3D rendering or scientific simulation. The Radeon R5 M255, with its newer GCN 3.0 architecture and support for DirectX 12 (12_0), is the more logical option for users prioritizing hardware feature support in modern game titles, even if its raw score is lower. It also offers a Vulkan score of 4925, which the FirePro M4000 cannot match, indicating that it may be better suited for newer APIs. In short, the data suggests: pick the FirePro M4000 for raw compute throughput, pick the R5 M255 for API compatibility with modern graphics workloads.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct head-to-head comparison recorded in the database is the Geekbench OpenCL test. Here, the AMD FirePro M4000 wins decisively with a score of 5537 compared to the AMD Radeon R5 M255's 4650. This represents a 19.1% performance gap in favor of the FirePro. This is a significant margin, suggesting the FirePro's architecture is more efficient at general purpose compute tasks.

Looking at the nearest rivals for each card provides context, but also some surprising data points. The FirePro M4000 sits in a tight cluster of similar performers. It is a mere 0.5% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 (which scores 5508) and 0.7% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M (which scores 5501). It is also just 1% ahead of the AMD Radeon R7 M440 (which scores 5483). Its closest competitor is the NVIDIA Quadro M500M, which scores 5604, placing the FirePro 1.2% behind that part. This shows that the FirePro's performance is competitively positioned within its immediate class.

The R5 M255's rival list reveals a different story. Its average benchmark score of 4788 includes both the OpenCL and Vulkan tests. Its OpenCL score of 4650 is 0.8% ahead of the AMD Radeon R5 M335 (4752) and 1.3% ahead of the AMD Radeon R8 M445DX (4727). It is not as simple as being faster or slower, however. The data shows it is 1.2% slower than the NVIDIA GeForce 940MX (4844) in this average. The most peculiar rival is the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 12 GB, which has an average score of 4791, a delta of -0.1% from the R5 M255. This is an anomalous data point in the database, showing a high-end desktop card with a score nearly identical to this low-end mobile part. This is likely an error in the database or a test condition that produced a skewed result, but it is what the recorded data shows. The R5 M255's own Vulkan score of 4925 is higher than its OpenCL score of 4650, suggesting the card handles the Vulkan API more efficiently, even if its raw compute is lower than the FirePro.

The data paints a clear picture: in raw compute, the FirePro M4000 is the winner. The R5 M255 has a different strength, which is its API support.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The AMD FirePro M4000 has a higher score of 5537, which is 19.1% higher than the AMD Radeon R5 M255's score of 4650.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon R5 M255 support any API that the AMD FirePro M4000 does not?

A: Yes, the R5 M255 has a recorded Geekbench Vulkan score of 4925. The FirePro M4000 has no Vulkan benchmark recorded in the database.

Q: How does the AMD FirePro M4000 compare to the NVIDIA GeForce MX130?

A: The FirePro M4000 is a close rival to the GeForce MX130. The FirePro's score of 5537 is only 0.5% higher than the MX130's average score of 5508.

Q: What is the difference in memory bandwidth between the two cards?

A: The AMD FirePro M4000 has a memory bandwidth of 64.00 GB/s, which is double the 32.00 GB/s of the AMD Radeon R5 M255.

Q: Which card has a higher transistor density?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M255 has a transistor density of 12.4M / mm², which is slightly higher than the AMD FirePro M4000's density of 12.2M / mm².

Q: What is the AMD Radeon R5 M255's position in the overall GPU percentile?

A: The R5 M255 is in the 28th percentile among all GPUs, which is lower than the AMD FirePro M4000's 32nd percentile.

Specification Differences

The two mobile GPUs differ in nearly every core specification, reflecting the different timeframes of their designs. The AMD FirePro M4000 is built with a 128-bit memory bus and comes with 1024 MB of GDDR5 memory, offering a memory bandwidth of 64.00 GB/s. In contrast, the AMD Radeon R5 M255 uses a 128-bit bus (same) but has 2048 MB (2 GB) of DDR3 memory, which results in a memory bandwidth of only 32.00 GB/s.

The processing core counts differ significantly. The FirePro M4000 has 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 16 render output units (ROPs). The R5 M255 has fewer of all of these: 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. These architectural differences lead to different pixel and texture rates. The FirePro M4000 achieves 10.80 GPixel/s and 21.60 GTexel/s, while the R5 M255 achieves lower pixel fill rate of 7.520 GPixel/s but a slightly higher texture rate of 22.56 GTexel/s.

The clock speeds are another point of difference. The FirePro M4000 has no base or boost clock listed in the data, but its memory is clocked at 1000 MHz with a 4 Gbps effective rate. The R5 M255 has a base clock of 925 MHz and a boost clock of 940 MHz, with its memory clocked at 1000 MHz and a 2 Gbps effective rate. The FirePro M4000 is powered by a 33 W TDP and uses an MXM Module interface (MXM-A 3.0), whereas the R5 M255 has no TDP listed and uses a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on the same 28 nm process node from TSMC, but they belong to different generations of AMD's Graphics Core Next (GCN) architecture. The AMD FirePro M4000 uses the "Chelsea" chip and is based on GCN 1.0. The AMD Radeon R5 M255 uses the "Topaz" chip and is based on GCN 3.0. This architectural generation leap is the most defining difference between the two in this category.

The transistor counts are similar, with the FirePro M4000 packing 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die. The R5 M255 has 1,550 million transistors on a slightly larger 125 mm² die. This results in a transistor density of 12.2M/mm² for the FirePro and 12.4M/mm² for the R5 M255. The R5 M255's newer architecture also gives it a higher FP32 performance of 721.9 GFLOPS, compared to the FirePro's 691.2 GFLOPS, despite having fewer cores. The R5 M255 also supports FP16 compute at a 1:1 ratio of 721.9 GFLOPS, which the FirePro does not list.

The feature set also differs in terms of API support. The FirePro M4000 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), while the R5 M255 supports DirectX 12 (12_0). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.170. This shows that the R5 M255 is a more modern part, with a newer GCN architecture and a more complete DirectX 12 feature set.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD FirePro M4000 wins in raw compute performance. Its 19.1% lead in Geekbench OpenCL, combined with its higher pixel fill rate (10.80 GPixel/s vs 7.520 GPixel/s), makes it the superior choice for tasks that are heavily dependent on GPU shader throughput. This includes professional applications, content creation, and any compute-heavy workloads. Its higher memory bandwidth (64.00 GB/s) is also a key advantage for data-intensive tasks that are not cache-friendly. The data suggests that for OpenCL-centric workloads, the FirePro M4000 is the clear winner, with its higher percentile ranking of 32 confirming its stronger standing.

The AMD Radeon R5 M255 wins in architecture and feature support. It has a more modern GCN 3.0 architecture and a higher FP32 compute rating of 721.9 GFLOPS. It wins in the Vulkan API, with a recorded score of 4925, which the FirePro M4000 cannot match. This indicates a potential for better performance in modern games or applications that utilize the Vulkan API. Its higher FP16 throughput (721.9 GFLOPS) also suggests it could be more efficient for certain machine learning or compute workloads that use half-precision. Finally, it is the card with the larger memory capacity (2 GB vs. 1 GB), which may be beneficial for loading larger textures, despite the lower memory bandwidth.

In summary, the FirePro M4000 wins on raw power, while the R5 M255 wins on modern features and API support. The user's specific workload will dictate the correct choice.