AMD FirePro M4150 vs AMD Radeon R5 M255 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only recorded head-to-head benchmark between these two mobile graphics solutions is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the data shows a decisive outcome. The AMD Radeon R5 M255 scores 4650 points, while the AMD FirePro M4150 scores 4013 points. That represents a 15.9% advantage for the R5 M255, which is a substantial margin in the context of low-power mobile GPUs. The R5 M255 wins the single shared benchmark, giving it a 1 to 0 win record in the database.

Looking at broader context, the R5 M255's average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 4788, which places it at the 28th percentile of all GPUs in the database. The FirePro M4150, by contrast, has an average score of 4013 and sits at the 24th percentile. The gap between these percentiles is modest, but the raw score difference tells a clearer story. The R5 M255's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 12 GB at 4791 (just 0.1% ahead), the AMD Radeon R5 M335 at 4752 (0.8% behind the R5 M255), the NVIDIA GeForce 940MX at 4844 (1.2% ahead), and the AMD Radeon R8 M445DX at 4727 (1.3% behind). This cluster of scores indicates the R5 M255 is competing in a tightly packed performance band, where even small deltas separate products.

The FirePro M4150's nearest rivals tell a similar story of tight competition, but at a lower performance level. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M scores 4033 (0.5% ahead), the AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2 scores 3977 (0.9% behind), the NVIDIA Quadro K2000 scores 3964 (1.2% behind), and the NVIDIA GeForce 830M scores 3957 (1.4% behind). The FirePro M4150's 4013 score places it in a bracket where the competition is within a few percentage points, but that bracket is roughly 15% lower than where the R5 M255 operates.

Where Each One Wins

The R5 M255 has the advantage in raw compute throughput, as reflected in the OpenCL benchmark. Its FP32 performance is rated at 721.9 GFLOPS, compared to 549.1 GFLOPS for the FirePro M4150. That is a significant mathematical difference that translates to roughly 31% higher theoretical floating-point capability. The R5 M255 also has a higher pixel rate at 7.520 GPixel/s versus 5.720 GPixel/s, and a higher texture rate at 22.56 GTexel/s versus 17.16 GTexel/s. These figures suggest the R5 M255 should handle fill-rate-bound workloads, such as texture-heavy rendering or certain compute tasks, with more headroom.

The FirePro M4150, however, has one clear advantage in memory bandwidth. It uses GDDR5 memory running at 4 Gbps effective, delivering 64.00 GB/s across a 128-bit bus. The R5 M255 uses DDR3 memory at 2 Gbps effective, delivering only 32.00 GB/s on the same 128-bit bus width. That is exactly double the bandwidth for the FirePro M4150. For workloads that are memory-bandwidth-bound, such as certain image processing filters, large buffer copies, or some OpenCL kernels that stream data, the FirePro M4150 could hold its own despite lower compute throughput. The database only records one shared benchmark, so direct evidence is limited, but the memory specification gap is large enough to warrant attention.

The R5 M255 also offers higher memory capacity at 2 GB versus 1024 MB for the FirePro M4150. This matters for workloads that require larger working sets, such as holding larger textures or datasets in VRAM. The FirePro M4150's smaller frame buffer could force more frequent data transfers over the bus, partially offsetting its bandwidth advantage.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different generations of AMD's Graphics Core Next architecture. The Radeon R5 M255 is built on GCN 3.0, using the Topaz chip. The FirePro M4150 is built on the original GCN 1.0, using the Opal chip. Both are manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC, so process technology is not a differentiator. The transistor counts, however, differ notably. The R5 M255 packs 1,550 million transistors on a 125 mm² die, while the FirePro M4150 has 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die. Transistor density is nearly identical at 12.4 million per mm² for the R5 M255 and 12.3 million per mm² for the FirePro M4150, confirming that the size difference comes from having more hardware, not denser packaging.

The core configuration is identical in terms of shading units, texture mapping units, and render output units. Both GPUs have 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. This means the architectural differences are not in sheer parallel resource count, but rather in how those resources are utilized and clocked. The R5 M255 runs at a base clock of 925 MHz and a boost clock of 940 MHz. The FirePro M4150 has no recorded base or boost clock in the database, so direct clock comparison is not possible. However, the R5 M255's higher FP32, pixel rate, and texture rate figures imply it sustains higher operating frequencies.

Memory architecture also differs. The R5 M255 uses DDR3 at 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective), while the FirePro M4150 uses GDDR5 at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective). Both have a 128-bit memory bus, but the GDDR5 double-data-rate scheme gives the FirePro M4150 twice the bandwidth. The R5 M255 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the FirePro M4150 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), indicating the newer architecture has a higher feature level for that API. Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.170. The R5 M255 has no recorded FP16 performance, but the database lists FP16 at 721.9 GFLOPS (1:1 ratio) for the R5 M255, meaning it does not have dedicated half-rate FP16 hardware. The FirePro M4150 has no FP16 entry at all.

Form factors differ as well. The FirePro M4150 is an MXM Module, while the R5 M255 has no recorded slot width. Display outputs for the FirePro M4150 are listed as "Portable Device Dependent," suggesting its output configuration depends on the host laptop. The R5 M255 has no recorded display output information.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the recorded data, the AMD Radeon R5 M255 is the stronger performer in compute workloads. It wins the only shared benchmark by 15.9%, and its theoretical throughput figures are uniformly higher. The 15.9% lead in OpenCL is substantial enough that most users would notice it in GPU-accelerated applications. The R5 M255 also offers double the memory capacity, which is critical for modern workloads that want more than 1 GB of VRAM.

The FirePro M4150 is not without merit. Its GDDR5 memory provides twice the bandwidth of the R5 M255's DDR3, which could matter for specific streaming workloads. But the database records no benchmark where the FirePro M4150 wins, and its lower FP32, pixel rate, and texture rate make it difficult to recommend over the R5 M255 for general-purpose compute.

The R5 M255 also has the advantage of a newer architecture generation, GCN 3.0 versus GCN 1.0, which brings a higher DirectX 12 feature level. The transistor count difference, 1,550 million versus 950 million, indicates the R5 M255 is a significantly more complex chip. The R5 M255's average benchmark score of 4788 places it among rivals like the GeForce 940MX and the Radeon R8 M445DX, while the FirePro M4150's 4013 places it alongside the GeForce GT 755M and Quadro K2000. Those are different performance tiers.

For a user choosing between these two for a mobile workstation or laptop, the data points clearly to the R5 M255 for raw compute performance, larger memory, and API feature support. The FirePro M4150 should only be considered if the specific workload is heavily memory-bandwidth-bound and the 1024 MB capacity is sufficient, since no benchmark in the database validates that advantage in practice.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M255 scores 4650 compared to 4013 for the AMD FirePro M4150, giving the R5 M255 a 15.9% lead.

Q: Do both GPUs have the same core configuration?

A: Yes, both have 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 8 render output units.

Q: Which GPU has more memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD FirePro M4150 has 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth using GDDR5 memory, while the AMD Radeon R5 M255 has 32.00 GB/s using DDR3 memory.

Q: What are the architectural generations of these two GPUs?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M255 uses GCN 3.0 with the Topaz chip, while the AMD FirePro M4150 uses GCN 1.0 with the Opal chip.

Q: Which GPU supports a higher DirectX 12 feature level?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M255 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the AMD FirePro M4150 supports DirectX 12 (11_1).

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M255 has 2 GB of memory, while the AMD FirePro M4150 has 1024 MB.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon R5 M255 | AMD FirePro M4150 |

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

| Architecture | GCN 3.0 | GCN 1.0 |

| Chip | Topaz | Opal |

| Transistors | 1,550 million | 950 million |

| Die Size | 125 mm² | 77 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.4M / mm² | 12.3M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 925 MHz | Not recorded |

| Boost Clock | 940 MHz | Not recorded |

| Memory Clock | 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective) | 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | 1024 MB |

| Memory Type | DDR3 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bandwidth | 32.00 GB/s | 64.00 GB/s |

| Pixel Rate | 7.520 GPixel/s | 5.720 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 22.56 GTexel/s | 17.16 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 721.9 GFLOPS | 549.1 GFLOPS |

| FP16 | 721.9 GFLOPS (1:1) | Not recorded |

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

| Slot Width | Not recorded | MXM Module |

| Display Outputs | Not recorded | Portable Device Dependent |

| Release Date | 2014-10-11 | 2013-10-15 |

| Predecessor | Solar System | FirePro Mobility |

| Successor | Polaris Mobile | Radeon Pro Mobile |

| Geekbench OpenCL Score | 4650 | 4013 |

| Geekbench Vulkan Score | 4925 | Not recorded |

| Average Benchmark Score | 4788 | 4013 |

| Percentile vs All GPUs | 28 | 24 |