AMD FirePro M4150 vs AMD Radeon R5 M330 Comparison

The AMD Radeon R5 M330 and AMD FirePro M4150 are both end-of-life mobile graphics solutions built on the same GCN 1.0 architecture, yet they target different segments of the laptop market. The data shows a narrow but clear performance advantage for the R5 M330 in the single available head-to-head benchmark, while the FirePro M4150 counters with a substantially different memory subsystem and a higher transistor count. This analysis walks through the benchmark results, architectural differences, and practical use-case implications based solely on the provided facts.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available in the data is the Geekbench OpenCL test, where the AMD Radeon R5 M330 scores 4302 points against the AMD FirePro M4150's 4013 points. This yields a 7.2% delta in favor of the R5 M330, making it the winner of the sole head-to-head matchup. The magnitude of this difference is modest but consistent — it places the R5 M330 roughly 7% ahead of the FirePro M4150 in raw compute throughput as measured by this benchmark.

Context from the nearest rivals clarifies the significance of this margin. The R5 M330's average benchmark score of 4170 sits within a tight cluster of competitors: it trails the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M (4241) by 1.7%, edges out the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (4193) by 0.5%, and leads the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M (4151) by 0.4%. The FirePro M4150's average score of 4013 places it similarly close to its own rivals, sitting 0.5% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M (4033) and 0.9% ahead of the AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2 (3977).

What the head-to-head number does not show is the full picture of where each card excels. The R5 M330's win in OpenCL is its only benchmark victory, but the FirePro M4150 has no recorded wins in any tested workload. The data suggests that the R5 M330 holds a genuine, if narrow, performance edge in general-purpose compute tasks, which is the only arena where both have been measured. Neither card posts a win in Vulkan — the R5 M330 has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 4037, but the FirePro M4150 has no Vulkan result recorded, so no comparison is possible there.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs share the same GCN 1.0 architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC, and both have a transistor density of 12.3M / mm². The similarities end there. The R5 M330 uses the Exo chip, while the FirePro M4150 uses the Opal chip, and this distinction drives most of the hardware divergence.

The FirePro M4150's Opal chip is physically larger and more complex: it contains 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, compared to the R5 M330's 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die. That 260 million transistor difference does not translate into a compute advantage, however. The R5 M330 actually fields more raw throughput in several metrics: it delivers 659.2 GFLOPS of FP32 performance versus 549.1 GFLOPS for the FirePro M4150, and its texture rate of 20.60 GTexel/s outpaces the FirePro's 17.16 GTexel/s. The R5 M330 also has a higher pixel rate at 8.240 GPixel/s versus 5.720 GPixel/s.

The memory subsystem tells a different story. The FirePro M4150 pairs its 1024 MB of GDDR5 memory with a 128-bit bus, producing 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The R5 M330 uses 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, yielding just 14.40 GB/s — a 4.4x deficit in raw bandwidth. This is a critical architectural split: the R5 M330 has more compute cores (320 shading units, 20 TMUs) but far less memory bandwidth, while the FirePro M4150 has more shading units (384) and TMUs (24) yet delivers lower clocked performance (memory at 1000 MHz / 4 Gbps effective versus 900 MHz / 1800 Mbps effective for the R5).

Clock speeds are only partially specified. The R5 M330 runs at a 955 MHz base with a 1030 MHz boost, a detail absent for the FirePro M4150, which has no base or boost clock listed. Both cards support identical APIs — DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170 — and both use a PCIe 3.0 x8 bus interface. The R5 M330 is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no power connectors and an 18 W TDP, while the FirePro M4150 comes as an MXM Module with no TDP specified.

Where Each One Wins

The R5 M330 wins in compute-intensive workloads that rely on raw FP32 throughput and texture processing. Its 659.2 GFLOPS and 20.60 GTexel/s give it a measurable edge in OpenCL-style general-purpose tasks, which is exactly where it beat the FirePro M4150 by 7.2%. The R5 M330 also benefits from double the memory capacity (2 GB versus 1024 MB), which can help in workloads that need larger working sets, even if the DDR3 interface is slower.

The FirePro M4150 wins in bandwidth-sensitive scenarios. Its 64.00 GB/s of memory bandwidth versus 14.40 GB/s for the R5 M330 means that any workload which streams large amounts of data — such as texture-heavy rendering or certain compute kernels that repeatedly access memory — will see a significant advantage on the FirePro. The 128-bit bus versus 64-bit bus is the primary driver here, and the GDDR5 memory type compounds the benefit. The FirePro also has more shading units (384 versus 320) and TMUs (24 versus 20), which could help in workloads that scale with core count rather than clock speed.

Neither card has a clear win in gaming scenarios, as the data provides no gaming benchmarks. The R5 M330's higher pixel rate and texture rate suggest it would handle rasterization better, but the FirePro's superior bandwidth could offset that in high-resolution textures. Without direct evidence, the data only supports the OpenCL result and the architectural implications.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M330, with an average score of 4170 compared to the AMD FirePro M4150's 4013.

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

A: The FirePro M4150 has 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth, while the R5 M330 has 14.40 GB/s — a 4.4x gap in favor of the FirePro.

Q: Do both cards support the same APIs?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170.

Q: How many shading units does each card have?

A: The FirePro M4150 has 384 shading units, while the R5 M330 has 320.

Q: What is the process node for both GPUs?

A: Both are fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC, with a transistor density of 12.3M / mm².

Q: Which card has more memory capacity?

A: The R5 M330 has 2 GB of DDR3, while the FirePro M4150 has 1024 MB of GDDR5.

The Verdict

The data points to the AMD Radeon R5 M330 as the stronger general-purpose performer, based on its 7.2% win in OpenCL and its higher FP32 throughput (659.2 GFLOPS versus 549.1 GFLOPS). For users who prioritize compute workloads that are not memory-bound, the R5 M330 is the clear choice — it also offers double the memory capacity, which can be decisive for certain tasks. Its percentile ranking of 25 versus the FirePro's 24 reinforces this narrow overall advantage.

The AMD FirePro M4150, however, is the better option for bandwidth-critical applications. Its 64.00 GB/s of memory bandwidth is a massive advantage for data streaming, and its 384 shading units provide more parallel compute cores than the R5 M330's 320. The FirePro's lower average score (4013 versus 4170) suggests that its hardware advantages do not translate into better overall benchmark results, but the memory subsystem is an undeniable strength that the R5 M330 cannot match.

The R5 M330 is the safer pick for general use, given its higher scores and lower power draw (18 W TDP versus unspecified for the FirePro). The FirePro M4150 is the specialist's choice, for workloads where memory bandwidth matters more than raw compute. Neither card is competitive with modern GPUs — the R5 M330's nearest rivals include the GeForce GTX 1050 Ti at a 0.5% delta, while the FirePro's closest competitor is the GeForce GT 755M at 0.5% — so both should be considered legacy solutions.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon R5 M330 | AMD FirePro M4150 |

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

| Chip | Exo | Opal |

| Generation | Gem System (R5 M300) | FirePro Mobile (Mx100) |

| Transistors | 690 million | 950 million |

| Die Size | 56 mm² | 77 mm² |

| Base Clock | 955 MHz | Not specified |

| Boost Clock | 1030 MHz | Not specified |

| Memory Clock | 900 MHz / 1800 Mbps effective | 1000 MHz / 4 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | 1024 MB |

| Memory Type | DDR3 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | 64 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 14.40 GB/s | 64.00 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 320 | 384 |

| TMUs | 20 | 24 |

| Pixel Rate | 8.240 GPixel/s | 5.720 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 20.60 GTexel/s | 17.16 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 659.2 GFLOPS | 549.1 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 18 W | Not specified |

| Slot Width | IGP | MXM Module |

| Release Date | 2015-05-04 | 2013-10-15 |