GPU Comparison

The AMD FirePro M4150 and AMD Radeon R5 Graphics represent two distinct approaches to integrated and mobile graphics, with the former being a dedicated MXM module and the latter an IGP. Benchmark data from the Geekbench suite reveals a clear performance hierarchy between them, driven by fundamental architectural and memory differences. The Radeon R5 Graphics, despite its lower shading unit count, delivers a significantly higher OpenCL score, while the FirePro M4150 counters with a higher transistor density and dedicated memory bandwidth. The data shows that these are not direct competitors in the traditional sense, but rather solutions optimized for different workloads and physical constraints.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only shared benchmark between the two GPUs is Geekbench OpenCL, where the results are decisive. The AMD Radeon R5 Graphics scores 5183 points, while the AMD FirePro M4150 scores 4013 points. This translates to a deltaPct of -22.6% from the perspective of the FirePro M4150, meaning the Radeon R5 Graphics is a substantial 22.6% ahead in this compute-oriented test. This is a significant margin, placing the two GPUs in different performance tiers for OpenCL workloads.

The Radeon R5 Graphics also has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 2582, a metric that the FirePro M4150 does not have a recorded result for. This absence is notable, as it indicates a comparative lack of data for the FirePro M4150 in modern API benchmarks. The FirePro M4150's single benchmark score of 4013 places it in the 24th percentile of all GPUs, while the Radeon R5 Graphics' average benchmark score of 3883 places it in the 23rd percentile. Despite the Radeon R5 Graphics having a higher OpenCL score, its average score across all benchmarks is slightly lower, due to the inclusion of the Vulkan test in its average, which is a lower-scoring result.

Looking at the nearest rivals for each GPU provides context for their respective standings. The FirePro M4150's score of 4013 is nearly identical to the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M, which averages 4033, a deltaPct of only -0.5%. It also edges out the AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2 by 0.9% and the NVIDIA Quadro K2000 by 1.2%. This shows that the FirePro M4150 sits in a tight cluster of mid-range GPUs from its era, with its performance being very much in line with those contemporaries. The Radeon R5 Graphics, despite its higher OpenCL score, has an average benchmark score that is 0.4% behind the NVIDIA Quadro 2000, 0.9% behind the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D, and 1.2% behind the NVIDIA Quadro 2000D. It does, however, outperform the NVIDIA GeForce MX110 by 1.3%. This indicates that while the Radeon R5 Graphics excels in the specific OpenCL test, its overall average performance is comparable to a different set of rivals, many of which are professional-grade cards.

Where Each One Wins

The data clearly indicates a single, decisive win for the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics in the head-to-head comparison. Its victory in the Geekbench OpenCL test is the defining difference, suggesting it is the stronger choice for general-purpose compute tasks that leverage OpenCL. This is a notable result, as the Radeon R5 Graphics achieves this with a lower shading unit count and a fundamentally different memory architecture.

The AMD FirePro M4150, while losing the sole compute benchmark, does not have a recorded win in any head-to-head test. However, its performance profile is not without merit. Its proximity to the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M and other mid-range discrete GPUs suggests that in its own context, it was a competitive part. The FirePro M4150's strength lies in its dedicated memory subsystem, with 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus providing 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth. This is a stark contrast to the Radeon R5 Graphics' system-shared memory, the bandwidth of which is described as "System Dependent." For applications that are sensitive to memory bandwidth, the FirePro M4150's dedicated solution is inherently more predictable.

The Radeon R5 Graphics, as an IGP, also has a distinct advantage in its integration. It is part of the Kaveri generation and has a TDP of 15 W, which is a critical factor for mobile or low-power designs. The FirePro M4150, being an MXM Module, is a separate, more power-hungry component. The Radeon R5 Graphics also has a higher DirectX support level, reporting 12 (12_0) compared to the FirePro M4150's 12 (11_1), which could be a factor for newer gaming titles or applications that leverage DX12 features.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures, despite both being manufactured on a 28 nm process. The AMD FirePro M4150 utilizes GCN 1.0 architecture, while the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics uses the newer GCN 2.0 architecture. This generational shift is significant, as GCN 2.0 brought optimizations and improvements over its predecessor. The FirePro M4150 is based on the "Opal" chip, while the Radeon R5 Graphics uses the "Spectre SL" chip.

The physical characteristics of the chips also differ substantially. The FirePro M4150's chip is smaller, with a die size of 77 mm² and containing 950 million transistors. This results in a transistor density of 12.3M / mm². In contrast, the Radeon R5 Graphics' chip is much larger, at 245 mm², and contains a significantly higher 2,410 million transistors. However, its transistor density is lower, at 9.8M / mm². This indicates that the Radeon R5 Graphics' chip is not just a GPU, but likely integrates other components, such as a CPU, which is typical for an APU. The foundries also differ, with the FirePro M4150 being fabricated by TSMC and the Radeon R5 Graphics by GlobalFoundries.

The compute configurations are also distinct. The FirePro M4150 has 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 8 ROPs. The Radeon R5 Graphics has fewer of each: 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 4 ROPs. This lower count is reflected in its theoretical pixel and texture rates. The FirePro M4150 has a pixel rate of 5.720 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 17.16 GTexel/s, while the Radeon R5 Graphics has a pixel rate of 3.032 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 12.13 GTexel/s. The FirePro M4150's FP32 performance is 549.1 GFLOPS, which is higher than the Radeon R5 Graphics' 388.1 GFLOPS. This is a clear case where the FirePro M4150 has a raw compute advantage per shading unit, but the Radeon R5 Graphics still wins the OpenCL benchmark, likely due to architectural efficiency and memory characteristics.

The memory architecture is a major point of divergence. The FirePro M4150 uses dedicated 1024 MB of GDDR5 memory with a 128-bit bus, providing a fixed 64.00 GB/s bandwidth. The Radeon R5 Graphics, being an IGP, uses "System Shared" memory, with the bus width and type also being "System Shared," and the bandwidth being "System Dependent." This means the Radeon R5 Graphics' performance is tied to the system's main memory performance, which can vary greatly depending on the host platform. The FirePro M4150's memory clock is listed as 1000 MHz, or 4 Gbps effective.

FAQ

Q: Based on the benchmark data, which GPU has a higher OpenCL score?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 Graphics has a higher Geekbench OpenCL score of 5183, compared to the AMD FirePro M4150's score of 4013.

Q: What is the percentage difference in the OpenCL benchmark between the two?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 Graphics is 22.6% ahead of the AMD FirePro M4150 in the Geekbench OpenCL test.

Q: How does the FirePro M4150 compare to its nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M?

A: The FirePro M4150's score of 4013 is 0.5% lower than the GeForce GT 755M's average score of 4033, making them extremely close in performance.

Q: Which GPU has a higher theoretical pixel fill rate?

A: The AMD FirePro M4150 has a higher pixel rate of 5.720 GPixel/s, while the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics has a pixel rate of 3.032 GPixel/s.

Q: What are the memory specifications for each GPU?

A: The FirePro M4150 has 1024 MB of dedicated GDDR5 memory with a 128-bit bus and 64.00 GB/s bandwidth. The Radeon R5 Graphics uses system-shared memory with a system-dependent bandwidth.

Q: What is the production status of both GPUs?

A: Both the AMD FirePro M4150 and the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics are listed as "End-of-life" products.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear, if nuanced, verdict. For users prioritizing raw OpenCL compute performance, the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics is the definitive choice, being 22.6% ahead of the FirePro M4150 in the sole head-to-head benchmark. Its higher DirectX support of 12 (12_0) also gives it an edge for modern graphics APIs. The Radeon R5 Graphics, with its 15 W TDP and IGP form factor, is also the more power-efficient and integrated solution, making it suitable for compact or low-power systems where a dedicated card is not feasible.

However, the AMD FirePro M4150 should not be dismissed. Its dedicated GDDR5 memory with a fixed 64.00 GB/s bandwidth offers a level of performance predictability that the system-dependent memory of the Radeon R5 Graphics cannot guarantee. Its higher theoretical fill rates and FP32 performance of 549.1 GFLOPS suggest it has a stronger raw compute ceiling per shading unit, which may be beneficial in specific workloads that are not fully captured by the single OpenCL test. Its performance is also closely aligned with that of the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M, indicating it was a capable part in its generation.

The choice between them depends entirely on the use case. The Radeon R5 Graphics is the better choice for a general-purpose, low-power system where OpenCL performance is a priority. The FirePro M4150 is a more specialized component, suited for systems where a dedicated mobile GPU with its own memory pool is required, offering more consistent bandwidth at the cost of a higher power envelope and a lower OpenCL score. The data does not support a universal winner; it supports a context-dependent selection.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD FirePro M4150 | AMD Radeon R5 Graphics |

| :--- | :--- | :--- |

| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | GCN 2.0 |

| Chip | Opal | Spectre SL |

| Foundry | TSMC | GlobalFoundries |

| Transistors | 950 million | 2,410 million |

| Die Size | 77 mm² | 245 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.3M / mm² | 9.8M / mm² |

| Memory Size | 1024 MB | System Shared |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | System Shared |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | System Shared |

| Memory Bandwidth | 64.00 GB/s | System Dependent |

| Shading Units | 384 | 256 |

| TMUs | 24 | 16 |

| ROPs | 8 | 4 |

| Pixel Rate | 5.720 GPixel/s | 3.032 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 17.16 GTexel/s | 12.13 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 549.1 GFLOPS | 388.1 GFLOPS |

| TDP | Not specified | 15 W |

| Slot Width | MXM Module | IGP |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | IGP |

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