AMD FirePro M4150 vs AMD Radeon R5 M335 Comparison

AMD Radeon R5 M335 and AMD FirePro M4150 are both end-of-life mobile graphics solutions built on the same GCN 1.0 architecture and 28 nm TSMC process, but they target different use cases and deliver measurably different results. The R5 M335 is positioned in the consumer R5 M300 generation, while the FirePro M4150 belongs to the older FirePro Mobile Mx100 lineup. Benchmark data from the database shows a single head-to-head result, with the R5 M335 winning the only recorded test by a significant margin. The R5 M335 also carries a higher percentile ranking among all GPUs, placing it at the 28th percentile versus the FirePro M4150’s 24th percentile. The average benchmark score for the R5 M335 is 4752, while the FirePro M4150 averages 4013.

Where Each One Wins

The R5 M335 wins the only direct comparison available in the database. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, it scores 4745 against the FirePro M4150’s 4013, a delta of 18.2%. That is a substantial lead in a compute-oriented workload, and it aligns with the R5 M335’s higher average score of 4752 versus 4013. The R5 M335 also has a Vulkan score of 4758, a result the FirePro M4150 does not have recorded at all, which suggests the R5 M335 offers broader API coverage in measured performance.

The FirePro M4150, despite losing the head-to-head compute test, still has structural advantages that matter in certain contexts. It uses GDDR5 memory with a 128 bit bus, giving it 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth, which is over four times the R5 M335’s 14.40 GB/s. For memory-bound workloads that are not captured in the single OpenCL score, the FirePro M4150’s memory subsystem is objectively stronger. It also has more shading units (384 versus 320) and more texture mapping units (24 versus 20). These specifications do not translate into a win in the recorded benchmark, but they indicate that the FirePro M4150 was built with a different emphasis, likely professional or workstation-oriented tasks where memory throughput and shader count matter more than raw OpenCL throughput in this particular test.

In short, the R5 M335 wins where the database has measured performance. The FirePro M4150 wins on paper in memory bandwidth and shader resources, but no benchmark in the database confirms that advantage.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M335 has an average benchmark score of 4752, while the AMD FirePro M4150 has an average score of 4013.

Q: How much faster is the R5 M335 in the head-to-head OpenCL test?

A: The R5 M335 scores 4745 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 4013 for the FirePro M4150, a lead of 18.2%.

Q: Does the FirePro M4150 have any memory advantage?

A: Yes. The FirePro M4150 uses 1024 MB of GDDR5 memory on a 128 bit bus, delivering 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The R5 M335 uses 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64 bit bus, delivering 14.40 GB/s.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The FirePro M4150 has 384 shading units, while the R5 M335 has 320. The FirePro M4150 also has 24 texture mapping units versus 20 on the R5 M335.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same graphics APIs?

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

Q: Which GPU ranks higher among all GPUs in the database?

A: The R5 M335 sits at the 28th percentile, while the FirePro M4150 sits at the 24th percentile.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains one direct head-to-head benchmark between these two GPUs: Geekbench OpenCL. The R5 M335 scores 4745, and the FirePro M4150 scores 4013. The R5 M335 wins by 18.2%. To put that in perspective, the R5 M335’s nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon R8 M445DX at 4727 (0.5% behind the R5 M335), the AMD Radeon R5 M255 at 4788 (0.7% ahead), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 12 GB at 4791 (0.8% ahead), and the NVIDIA Quadro P400 at 4684 (1.5% behind). So the R5 M335 lands in a cluster of GPUs with very similar average scores, all within roughly 1.5% of each other. The FirePro M4150, by contrast, sits near the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M at 4033 (0.5% ahead), the AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2 at 3977 (0.9% behind), the NVIDIA Quadro K2000 at 3964 (1.2% behind), and the NVIDIA GeForce 830M at 3957 (1.4% behind). The FirePro M4150’s average score of 4013 places it in a lower performance tier than the R5 M335, and the 18.2% head-to-head gap is consistent with that tier separation.

The R5 M335 also has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 4758, which is nearly identical to its OpenCL score of 4745. The FirePro M4150 has no recorded Vulkan score, so the R5 M335 is the only one of the two with measurable performance in both APIs. That Vulkan result is particularly notable because it shows the R5 M335 can sustain similar throughput across different compute interfaces, a sign of consistent driver and hardware behavior. The FirePro M4150’s lack of a Vulkan score in the database limits direct comparison, but its OpenCL result of 4013 is the reference point for all performance analysis.

The magnitude of the 18.2% delta is meaningful. It is not a narrow margin like the differences seen among the R5 M335’s nearest rivals, where the spread from the Quadro P400 to the RTX 3080 12 GB is only about 2.3%. Instead, the gap between the R5 M335 and the FirePro M4150 is roughly nine times larger than the gap between the R5 M335 and its closest competitor. That makes the R5 M335 the clear winner in the recorded compute test, even though both GPUs are end-of-life products in the same architectural family.

It is also worth noting the pixel rate difference. The R5 M335 produces 8.240 GPixel/s, while the FirePro M4150 produces 5.720 GPixel/s. The R5 M335 is ahead by roughly 44% in pixel throughput. Texture rate also favors the R5 M335 at 20.60 GTexel/s versus 17.16 GTexel/s, about 20% ahead. These rates are not part of the head-to-head benchmark table, but they are consistent with the R5 M335’s overall performance lead. The FirePro M4150’s FP32 output is 549.1 GFLOPS, while the R5 M335 is 659.2 GFLOPS, putting the R5 M335 ahead by about 20% in raw floating-point throughput.

Specification Differences

The R5 M335 and the FirePro M4150 differ in nearly every major specification field. The R5 M335 uses the Exo chip, while the FirePro M4150 uses Opal. Both are 28 nm TSMC parts, with the R5 M335 at 690 million transistors and the FirePro M4150 at 950 million. Die size also differs: the R5 M335 measures 56 mm², and the FirePro M4150 measures 77 mm². Transistor density is the same at 12.3M per mm², which is expected given the shared process node.

Memory is a major differentiator. The R5 M335 has 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64 bit bus with 14.40 GB/s bandwidth. The FirePro M4150 has 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 128 bit bus with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth. Memory clock speeds also differ, with the R5 M335 running at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective 4 Gbps effective for the FirePro M4150, so the FirePro M4150 memory operates at a much higher effective speed.

Core configuration favors the FirePro M4150 in count but not in throughput. The FirePro M4150 has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The R5 M335 has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. Despite fewer cores, the R5 M335 achieves higher pixel rate (8.240 GPixel/s versus 5.720 GPixel/s), higher texture rate (20.60 GTexel/s versus 17.16 GTexel/s), and higher FP32 (659.2 GFLOPS versus 549.1 GFLOPS). This means the R5 M335’s cores are clocked higher or the architecture implementation is tuned for throughput, even though the database does not list base or boost clock speeds for either GPU.

Form factor also differs. The FirePro M4150 is an MXM Module, while the R5 M335 has no slot width listed. Both use PCIe 3.0 x8. Display outputs are the same for both, listed as Portable Device Dependent. Power connectors are listed as None for the R5 M335, while the FirePro M4150 has no power connector data. Neither GPU has a launch MSRP. Production status is end-of-life for both. Release dates differ, with the R5 M335 released on 2015-10-20 and the FirePro M4150 released on 2013-10-15. Generations also differ: the R5 M335 belongs to the Gem System (R5 M300) generation, while the FirePro M4150 belongs to the FirePro Mobile (Mx100) generation.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built on GCN 1.0 and use the same 28 nm TSMC process, so fundamental architectural compatibility is identical. The differences come from chip design and implementation. The R5 M335 uses the Exo chip with 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die. The FirePro M4150 uses the Opal chip with 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die. The larger transistor count and die size of the FirePro M4150 do not translate into higher measured performance, which strongly indicates that clock speeds or power management favor the R5 M335, even though those clock speeds are not listed in the database.

The memory architecture is the most significant architectural divergence. The FirePro M4150 uses GDDR5 on a 128 bit interface, which is a more capable memory subsystem than the R5 M335’s DDR3 on a 64 bit interface. The FirePro M4150’s bandwidth of 64.00 GB/s versus 14.40 GB/s is a 4.4x advantage. For workloads that depend on memory throughput, such as large data transfers or certain compute kernels, the FirePro M4150 has a structural edge. However, the recorded OpenCL benchmark does not reflect that edge, which suggests the test workload is not bandwidth-limited.

The R5 M335 has a higher FP32 throughput (659.2 GFLOPS versus 549.1 GFLOPS) and higher pixel and texture rates. This indicates that the R5 M335’s execution units are running at higher clocks, or the chip is more efficient in its ALU utilization. The R5 M335 also has a Vulkan score of 4758, while the FirePro M4150 has no recorded Vulkan result. Both GPUs share the same API support list (DirectX 12 11_1, OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.2.170), so the lack of a Vulkan score for the FirePro M4150 is a measurement gap, not a feature gap.

The R5 M335’s predecessor is Solar System, and its successor is Polaris Mobile. The FirePro M4150’s predecessor is FirePro Mobility, and its successor is Radeon Pro Mobile. These lineage differences reflect the distinct product tracks: consumer mobile graphics versus professional mobile graphics. The FirePro brand typically targets workstation use, but the database’s performance data does not show a workstation-related advantage in this comparison. The R5 M335’s higher percentile rank (28th versus 24th) and higher average score (4752 versus 4013) place it ahead in the database’s overall ranking.

The Verdict

The data is clear: the AMD Radeon R5 M335 outperforms the AMD FirePro M4150 in the recorded benchmarks. The R5 M335 wins the only head-to-head test by 18.2%, has a higher average score (4752 versus 4013), a higher percentile rank (28th versus 24th), and additional Vulkan performance data that the FirePro M4150 lacks. For any workload represented by Geekbench OpenCL or Vulkan, the R5 M335 is the better choice.

The FirePro M4150 is not without merit. Its GDDR5 memory on a 128 bit bus provides 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth, which is 4.4x the R5 M335’s bandwidth. It also has more shading units (384 versus 320) and more texture mapping units (24 versus 20). These specifications could benefit specific memory-intensive or shader-heavy tasks, but no benchmark in the database confirms that benefit. The FirePro M4150’s lower FP32 throughput (549.1 GFLOPS versus 659.2 GFLOPS), lower pixel rate (5.720 GPixel/s versus 8.240 GPixel/s), and lower texture rate (17.16 GTexel/s versus 20.60 GTexel/s) indicate that its additional resources are not being translated into higher performance in the measured workloads.

Who should pick the R5 M335? Anyone looking for the stronger compute performer based on recorded data. The R5 M335 is ahead in every measured metric, has a higher overall ranking, and offers both OpenCL and Vulkan results. It is the safer choice for general mobile graphics and compute tasks.

Who should pick the FirePro M4150? Only those who specifically need the memory bandwidth advantage or the larger shader count for a niche workload that is not represented in the database’s benchmark set. The FirePro M4150’s 64.00 GB/s bandwidth is a real specification advantage, and its MXM module form factor may be relevant for certain upgrade paths. But for measured performance, the R5 M335 wins outright. The 18.2% head-to-head lead is decisive, and the R5 M335’s position among its nearest rivals, all within 1.5% of its score, shows it is competitive in its tier. The FirePro M4150’s tier, with rivals like the GeForce 830M and Quadro K2000, sits measurably lower. Choose the R5 M335 unless the FirePro M4150’s specific memory or form factor features are mandatory for the intended use.