AMD FirePro M4150 vs AMD Radeon R5 M320 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records one direct head-to-head benchmark between these two mobile graphics processors: Geekbench OpenCL. In that test, the AMD Radeon R5 M320 scores 5051 points, while the AMD FirePro M4150 scores 4013 points. That gives the R5 M320 a 25.9% lead, a decisive margin that places the two chips in noticeably different performance tiers.

The R5 M320’s OpenCL score of 5051 lands it in the 27th percentile of all GPUs tracked in the database. Its nearest rivals in average benchmark score are tightly clustered: the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB matches it exactly at 4657 (0% delta), the NVIDIA Quadro P400 sits just 0.6% higher at 4684, and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M trails by 0.6% at 4628. The NVIDIA Quadro M3000M is 0.8% behind at 4621. This places the R5 M320 in a competitive band where even a few percentage points separate adjacent entries.

The FirePro M4150, with its Geekbench OpenCL score of 4013, sits in the 24th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals are similarly packed: the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M is 0.5% ahead at 4033, the AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2 is 0.9% behind at 3977, the NVIDIA Quadro K2000 is 1.2% behind at 3964, and the NVIDIA GeForce 830M is 1.4% behind at 3957. The FirePro’s position in this cluster is consistent with its overall standing, roughly three percentage points lower in percentile ranking than the R5 M320.

The raw score gap between the two AMD parts is substantial. A 25.9% delta in OpenCL compute performance is not a marginal difference; it represents a clear generational or specification-driven separation. The R5 M320’s higher score reflects a combination of factors recorded in the database, including its larger memory allocation and different memory type. Where the FirePro M4150 relies on a 1024 MB GDDR5 frame buffer, the R5 M320 ships with 4 GB of DDR3. That quadrupling of memory capacity does not directly translate to compute throughput, but it does influence how the GPU handles memory-intensive OpenCL workloads.

It is importantly the database only records a single head-to-head benchmark between these two products. The R5 M320 also has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 4262, a test that the FirePro M4150 has no recorded entry for. That absence means the Vulkan comparison cannot be made directly, but it does indicate that the R5 M320 supports and has been validated under the Vulkan API.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the recorded data, the AMD Radeon R5 M320 wins the only benchmark where both products have results. Its 5051 OpenCL score versus the FirePro M4150’s 4013 gives it a 25.9% advantage in that specific compute workload. The R5 M320 also has a Vulkan benchmark score of 4262, although there is no corresponding FirePro M4150 result to compare against.

The FirePro M4150 does not win any of the recorded head-to-head benchmarks. The database shows zero wins for this chip in direct comparisons. However, the FirePro M4150 has its own strengths that are visible in the specification data, even if they do not translate into benchmark victories. Its memory subsystem is notably faster: the FirePro uses GDDR5 memory clocked at 4 Gbps effective on a 128-bit bus, yielding 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The R5 M320, by contrast, uses DDR3 at 2 Gbps effective on a 64-bit bus, delivering only 16.00 GB/s. That is a fourfold difference in memory bandwidth, a metric that can matter for certain workloads even when raw compute scores favor the other chip.

The FirePro M4150 also has more raw compute resources in some respects. It packs 384 shading units and 24 texture mapping units, versus 320 shading units and 20 TMUs on the R5 M320. Its FP32 throughput is 549.1 GFLOPS, slightly higher than the R5 M320’s 547.2 GFLOPS. The texture rate is nearly identical: 17.16 GTexel/s for the FirePro versus 17.10 GTexel/s for the R5 M320. The pixel rate, however, favors the R5 M320 at 6.840 GPixel/s versus 5.720 GPixel/s, a 19.6% advantage.

In practical terms, the R5 M320 is the better choice for OpenCL compute workloads based on the benchmark data. The FirePro M4150’s higher memory bandwidth and slightly larger shading unit count do not overcome the R5 M320’s overall performance advantage in the recorded test. The FirePro’s smaller 1024 MB memory capacity may also limit its ability to handle large datasets, whereas the R5 M320’s 4 GB frame buffer provides more headroom for memory-intensive tasks.

The Verdict

The data clearly favors the AMD Radeon R5 M320 in direct comparison. It wins the only recorded head-to-head benchmark by 25.9%, a margin large enough to place it in a different performance class. Its 5051 OpenCL score puts it at the 27th percentile of all GPUs, while the FirePro M4150’s 4013 score lands at the 24th percentile. The average benchmark score tells the same story: 4657 for the R5 M320 versus 4013 for the FirePro M4150, a 16% gap.

The R5 M320’s nearest rivals in the database include the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB at identical average score, the NVIDIA Quadro P400 at 0.6% higher, and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M at 0.6% lower. This places the R5 M320 in respectable company for a mobile integrated graphics solution, slotting it alongside discrete workstation and gaming GPUs from a similar era.

The FirePro M4150, for its part, sits among the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M (0.5% higher), AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2 (0.9% lower), NVIDIA Quadro K2000 (1.2% lower), and NVIDIA GeForce 830M (1.4% lower). These are all older or lower-tier parts, reflecting the FirePro’s more modest standing.

For buyers choosing between these two, the R5 M320 is the clear pick based on benchmark performance. It offers higher OpenCL scores, a better percentile ranking, and double the memory capacity of the FirePro M4150. The FirePro M4150 does have a faster memory interface with GDDR5 and 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth, which could benefit certain memory-bound tasks, but the recorded compute benchmarks show it trailing by a wide margin.

The R5 M320 also has the advantage of a Vulkan benchmark score (4262), indicating it has been tested and validated under that API. The FirePro M4150 lacks any recorded Vulkan result. For users prioritizing compute performance, API coverage, or memory capacity, the R5 M320 is the superior choice. The FirePro M4150’s only notable advantages are its higher memory bandwidth and slightly higher FP32 throughput, neither of which translated into a benchmark win.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M320 scores 5051, while the AMD FirePro M4150 scores 4013. The R5 M320 leads by 25.9%.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in memory bandwidth?

A: The FirePro M4150 has a 128-bit bus with GDDR5 memory at 4 Gbps effective, delivering 64.00 GB/s. The R5 M320 has a 64-bit bus with DDR3 at 2 Gbps effective, delivering 16.00 GB/s. The FirePro has four times the memory bandwidth.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference between the two?

A: The R5 M320 has 4 GB of DDR3 memory, while the FirePro M4150 has 1024 MB of GDDR5 memory. The R5 M320 has four times the memory capacity.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The FirePro M4150 has 384 shading units, compared to 320 on the R5 M320. The FirePro also has 24 TMUs versus 20 on the R5 M320, though both have 8 ROPs.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same APIs?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. However, the R5 M320 has a recorded Vulkan benchmark score of 4262, while the FirePro M4150 has no Vulkan benchmark result.

Q: How do their pixel rates compare?

A: The R5 M320 has a pixel rate of 6.840 GPixel/s, which is higher than the FirePro M4150’s 5.720 GPixel/s. The R5 M320 leads by about 19.6% in this metric.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs share the same GCN 1.0 architecture and are manufactured on the same 28 nm process node at TSMC, but they are built around different chips. The R5 M320 uses the Jet chip, while the FirePro M4150 uses the Opal chip. Both are classified as end-of-life products, but they belong to different generations: the R5 M320 is part of the Gem System (R5 M300) lineup, while the FirePro M4150 is from the FirePro Mobile (Mx100) series. The R5 M320 was released in 2015, while the FirePro M4150 came earlier in 2013.

The transistor counts differ notably. The Jet chip in the R5 M320 contains 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die, while the Opal chip in the FirePro M4150 packs 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die. Both have the same transistor density of 12.3M per mm². The larger Opal chip provides more computational resources, which is reflected in the FirePro’s higher shading unit count (384 versus 320) and TMU count (24 versus 20). Both chips have 8 ROPs.

Memory architecture is where the two diverge most significantly. The R5 M320 uses a 64-bit memory bus with DDR3 memory at 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective), yielding 16.00 GB/s of bandwidth and 4 GB of capacity. The FirePro M4150 uses a 128-bit bus with GDDR5 memory at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective), yielding 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth but only 1024 MB of capacity. This represents a trade-off: the FirePro has vastly higher bandwidth, while the R5 M320 has much more memory.

Clock speeds are recorded only for the R5 M320, which has a base clock of 780 MHz and a boost clock of 855 MHz. The FirePro M4150 has no recorded base or boost clock in the database. The R5 M320’s FP32 throughput is 547.2 GFLOPS, slightly below the FirePro’s 549.1 GFLOPS. The texture rates are nearly identical at 17.10 GTexel/s for the R5 M320 and 17.16 GTexel/s for the FirePro. The pixel rate favors the R5 M320 at 6.840 GPixel/s versus 5.720 GPixel/s.

Both GPUs use a PCIe 3.0 x8 bus interface and have portable-device-dependent display outputs. The R5 M320 is an IGP (integrated graphics processor), while the FirePro M4150 is an MXM module. Neither has recorded power connectors or TDP values. Both support DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The R5 M320 has a Vulkan benchmark score of 4262, while the FirePro M4150 has no Vulkan result. The R5 M320’s predecessor is listed as Solar System, with a successor of Polaris Mobile. The FirePro M4150’s predecessor is FirePro Mobility, with a successor of Radeon Pro Mobile.