AMD FirePro M5100 vs AMD Radeon R5 M240 Comparison

The benchmark data places the AMD Radeon R5 M240 and the AMD FirePro M5100 in a close contest, with the R5 M240 holding a narrow lead. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the R5 M240 scores 6975, which is 2.1% higher than the FirePro M5100’s 6830. This places the R5 M240 at the 39th percentile of all GPUs, while the FirePro M5100 sits just below at the 38th percentile. The data indicates that the R5 M240 is the better choice for raw compute performance in this specific benchmark, but the FirePro M5100 counters with a substantially different feature set, including double the memory capacity and a much wider memory bus. The R5 M240 is the pick for users prioritizing raw OpenCL throughput in a compact, lower-power mobile package, while the FirePro M5100 is the pick for users needing greater memory capacity and bandwidth for larger datasets, despite its lower clock speeds and core count advantage being offset by its lower operating frequency.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built on TSMC’s 28 nm process node, yet they diverge significantly in their internal design. The Radeon R5 M240 uses the “Jet” chip, while the FirePro M5100 uses the “Venus” chip. Both are based on the GCN 1.0 architecture, but the FirePro M5100’s Venus die is physically larger and more complex. The R5 M240 integrates 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 12.3M / mm². The FirePro M5100 nearly doubles the transistor count to 1,500 million on a 123 mm² die, with a slightly lower density of 12.2M / mm². This larger silicon budget translates directly into a doubled execution resource pool: the FirePro M5100 has 640 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 16 render output units, versus the R5 M240’s 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs.

The memory subsystems are also fundamentally different. The R5 M240 is equipped with 1024 MB of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus, yielding a bandwidth of 14.40 GB/s. The FirePro M5100 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering a bandwidth of 72.00 GB/s — exactly five times the bandwidth of the R5 M240. Clock speeds tell the opposite story: the R5 M240 runs at a base of 1000 MHz and a boost of 1030 MHz, while the FirePro M5100 runs at a notably lower 725 MHz base and 775 MHz boost. Memory clocks differ similarly, with the R5 M240 at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) and the FirePro M5100 at 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective).

The bus interface also differs: the R5 M240 uses PCIe 3.0 x8, while the FirePro M5100 is an MXM-A (3.0) module, with display outputs that are portable device dependent. Both support identical API levels: DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The FirePro M5100 was released earlier, on 2013-10-15, while the R5 M240 launched on 2014-09-17. Both are end-of-life products. The R5 M240’s predecessor is “Solar System” and its successor is “Polaris Mobile,” while the FirePro M5100’s predecessor is “FirePro Mobility” and its successor is “Radeon Pro Mobile.”

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M240 scores 6975, which is 2.1% higher than the AMD FirePro M5100’s score of 6830. This makes the R5 M240 the winner in the head-to-head benchmark comparison.

Q: How does the memory bandwidth compare between the two?

A: The FirePro M5100 has a massive advantage, with a bandwidth of 72.00 GB/s compared to the R5 M240’s 14.40 GB/s. This is due to the FirePro’s GDDR5 memory type and 128-bit bus, versus the R5 M240’s DDR3 memory and 64-bit bus.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The FirePro M5100 has exactly double the shading units of the R5 M240, with 640 versus 320. It also has double the TMUs (40 vs 20) and double the ROPs (16 vs 8).

Q: What are the core clock speeds for each GPU?

A: The R5 M240 runs at a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 1030 MHz. The FirePro M5100 runs at a significantly lower base clock of 725 MHz and a boost clock of 775 MHz.

Q: Are there differences in the manufacturing process?

A: No, both GPUs are manufactured on the same 28 nm process node at TSMC. The difference lies in die size and transistor count, with the FirePro M5100’s chip being 123 mm² with 1,500 million transistors versus the R5 M240’s 56 mm² with 690 million transistors.

Q: Which GPU has a higher percentile ranking among all GPUs?

A: The R5 M240 ranks at the 39th percentile, while the FirePro M5100 ranks at the 38th percentile. This indicates the R5 M240 is slightly better positioned in the overall performance distribution.

Specification Differences

The primary specifications where the two GPUs differ are substantial, reflecting their distinct design goals. The chip design differs: the R5 M240 uses “Jet” while the FirePro M5100 uses “Venus.” The transistor count is 690 million for the R5 M240 versus 1,500 million for the FirePro M5100, and the die size is 56 mm² versus 123 mm².

Clock speeds are a major differentiator. The R5 M240 has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 1030 MHz, while the FirePro M5100 has a base clock of 725 MHz and a boost clock of 775 MHz. Memory clocks also differ: the R5 M240 runs at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) and the FirePro M5100 at 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective).

Memory configuration is starkly different: the R5 M240 has 1024 MB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, while the FirePro M5100 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus. This yields bandwidth of 14.40 GB/s for the R5 M240 and 72.00 GB/s for the FirePro M5100. The execution resources are doubled in the FirePro M5100: 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs versus the R5 M240’s 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs.

The compute rates reflect these differences. The R5 M240 has a pixel rate of 8.240 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 20.60 GTexel/s, while the FirePro M5100 has a pixel rate of 12.40 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 31.00 GTexel/s. The FP32 performance is 659.2 GFLOPS for the R5 M240 and 992.0 GFLOPS for the FirePro M5100. The bus interface differs, with the R5 M240 using PCIe 3.0 x8 and the FirePro M5100 using MXM-A (3.0). The FirePro M5100 is an MXM Module with portable device dependent display outputs, while the R5 M240 has no slot width listed. Release dates differ: the FirePro M5100 launched on 2013-10-15 and the R5 M240 on 2014-09-17. Generation names also differ: “Gem System (R5 M200)” for the R5 M240 and “FirePro Mobile (Mx100)” for the FirePro M5100.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only head-to-head benchmark available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, where the AMD Radeon R5 M240 emerges as the clear winner in this specific metric. The R5 M240 scores 6975, while the AMD FirePro M5100 scores 6830, resulting in a delta of 2.1% in favor of the R5 M240. This is a narrow margin, but it is a definitive win, giving the R5 M240 one win in the head-to-head comparison against zero wins for the FirePro M5100.

This result is interesting given the architectural advantages of the FirePro M5100. The FirePro M5100 has double the shading units (640 vs 320), double the TMUs (40 vs 20), and double the ROPs (16 vs 8). It also has significantly higher FP32 performance at 992.0 GFLOPS versus 659.2 GFLOPS for the R5 M240, a 50% advantage. The texture rate is also higher at 31.00 GTexel/s versus 20.60 GTexel/s, and the pixel rate is higher at 12.40 GPixel/s versus 8.240 GPixel/s. The memory bandwidth advantage is massive, with 72.00 GB/s versus 14.40 GB/s.

However, the R5 M240 compensates with much higher clock speeds. The R5 M240 runs at a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost of 1030 MHz, compared to the FirePro M5100’s 725 MHz base and 775 MHz boost. This is a 38% higher base clock and a 33% higher boost clock. In the Geekbench OpenCL workload, this clock speed advantage appears to be more impactful than the FirePro M5100’s raw resource and bandwidth advantages.

The percentile rankings confirm the closeness of the contest. The R5 M240 sits at the 39th percentile of all GPUs, while the FirePro M5100 sits at the 38th percentile. The nearest rivals for the R5 M240 include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M (score 6946, delta 0.4%), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M (score 7023, delta -0.7%), and the NVIDIA T600 (score 7035, delta -0.8%). The FirePro M5100’s nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon R7 M370 (score 6764, delta 1%), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M (score 6946, delta -1.7%), and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 1010 (score 6698, delta 2%).

In summary, the data shows that the R5 M240 wins the only benchmark test, but the FirePro M5100 offers a fundamentally different trade-off. The FirePro M5100’s advantages in memory capacity (2 GB vs 1 GB), memory bandwidth (72 GB/s vs 14.4 GB/s), and compute resources (640 vs 320 shading units) make it a more capable platform for bandwidth-intensive tasks, even though its lower clocks hold it back in the OpenCL score. The R5 M240, with its higher clocks and smaller footprint, demonstrates that raw clock speed can sometimes overcome a significant hardware deficit in synthetic benchmarks. The choice between these two depends on whether the user prioritizes the higher benchmark score of the R5 M240 or the superior memory subsystem and compute resources of the FirePro M5100.