AMD FirePro M5100 vs AMD Radeon R7 250 Comparison

The AMD Radeon R7 250 and AMD FirePro M5100 are both end-of-life graphics solutions built on the same 28 nm GCN 1.0 architecture, yet they target different market segments. The single benchmark data point available shows the desktop-oriented R7 250 posting a Geekbench OpenCL score of 7557, while the mobile workstation FirePro M5100 trails at 6830. This 10.6% delta places the R7 250 in the 41st percentile of all GPUs, compared to the FirePro M5100’s 38th percentile. The following analysis breaks down their architectural lineage, specification differences, and benchmark implications.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 250 scores 7557, while the AMD FirePro M5100 scores 6830. The R7 250 leads by 10.6% in the Geekbench OpenCL test.

Q: How does the R7 250 compare to its nearest rival, the Intel Arc A310?

A: The R7 250’s score of 7557 is 0.1% higher than the Intel Arc A310's average of 7550, indicating a near-identical performance level in this test.

Q: What is the closest competitor to the FirePro M5100 in the benchmark data?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M scores 6946, which is 1.7% higher than the FirePro M5100's 6830. The M5100 also sits 1% above the AMD Radeon R7 M370.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same modern graphics APIs?

A: Yes, both list DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170 support, making their API feature sets identical.

Q: Which GPU has more memory bandwidth?

A: The FirePro M5100 has 72.00 GB/s bandwidth using 2 GB of GDDR5, while the R7 250 has 28.80 GB/s with 1 GB of DDR3 memory.

Q: Are both GPUs based on the same chip design?

A: No, the R7 250 uses the Cape Verde chip, while the FirePro M5100 uses the Venus chip. Both use the GCN 1.0 architecture and are built by TSMC on a 28 nm process.

Where Each One Wins

The Radeon R7 250 wins the only head-to-head benchmark, the Geekbench OpenCL test, with a 10.6% advantage over the FirePro M5100. This indicates that for general-purpose compute workloads, the desktop card holds a clear edge. The R7 250 also achieves a higher pixel fill rate of 14.80 GPixel/s versus the M5100’s 12.40 GPixel/s, suggesting better performance in fill-limited scenarios.

The FirePro M5100, however, wins on memory configuration and texture processing. It offers 2 GB of VRAM compared to the R7 250’s 1 GB, and its GDDR5 memory delivers 72.00 GB/s bandwidth versus the R7 250’s 28.80 GB/s. This 2.5x bandwidth advantage makes the M5100 the better choice for memory-intensive workloads, despite its lower compute score. The M5100 also has a higher texture rate of 31.00 GTexel/s versus 29.60 GTexel/s on the R7 250.

The R7 250 wins on clock speeds and power efficiency. Its memory runs at 1800 Mbps effective, and it has a TDP of 55 W with no power connectors required. The FirePro M5100’s base clock is 725 MHz with a boost of 775 MHz, but its TDP and power connector requirements are not listed in the data. For desktop use, the R7 250’s PCIe 3.0 x16 interface and single-slot design with DVI, HDMI, and DisplayPort outputs are more versatile than the M5100’s MXM-A (3.0) module form factor, which depends on the portable device’s display outputs.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs share the GCN 1.0 architecture and are fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process node. Each chip contains 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.2M / mm². The fundamental architecture is identical, but the chip implementations differ: the R7 250 uses the Cape Verde chip, while the FirePro M5100 uses the Venus chip.

The shading unit count differs significantly. The FirePro M5100 has 640 shading units and 40 texture mapping units (TMUs), while the R7 250 has 512 shading units and 32 TMUs. Both have 16 raster operation units (ROPs). This gives the M5100 a theoretical compute advantage in raw shader throughput, though its lower clock speeds reduce the realized benefit. The R7 250’s higher memory clock of 1800 Mbps effective compensates partially in bandwidth-sensitive tasks, but the M5100’s GDDR5 memory at 4.5 Gbps effective provides a substantial bandwidth lead.

The GPUs belong to different product generations. The R7 250 is part of the Volcanic Islands (R7 200) generation, succeeding Sea Islands and preceding Pirate Islands. The FirePro M5100 is from the FirePro Mobile (Mx100) generation, succeeding FirePro Mobility and preceding Radeon Pro Mobile. The R7 250 was released on October 7, 2013, while the M5100 came slightly later on October 15, 2013.

Specification Differences

The most notable specification difference is memory configuration. The R7 250 has 1024 MB of DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 28.80 GB/s bandwidth. The FirePro M5100 doubles the capacity to 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on the same 128-bit bus, delivering 72.00 GB/s bandwidth. This is a 2.5x bandwidth advantage for the M5100.

Clock speeds differ, with the M5100 having explicit base and boost clocks of 725 MHz and 775 MHz, respectively. The R7 250 does not list base or boost clocks in the data, only a memory clock of 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective). The M5100’s memory runs at 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective).

Compute resources differ: the M5100 has 640 shading units and 40 TMUs, versus 512 shading units and 32 TMUs on the R7 250. Both have 16 ROPs. The resulting pixel rates are 14.80 GPixel/s for the R7 250 and 12.40 GPixel/s for the M5100, while texture rates are 29.60 GTexel/s and 31.00 GTexel/s, respectively. FP32 performance is 947.2 GFLOPS for the R7 250 and 992.0 GFLOPS for the M5100.

Form factor and interface differ. The R7 250 is a single-slot desktop card with a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, 168 mm length, no power connectors, and a 250 W suggested PSU. The M5100 is an MXM Module with an MXM-A (3.0) bus interface, no listed dimensions or power requirements, and display outputs that are portable device dependent. The R7 250 offers 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only head-to-head benchmark available is Geekbench OpenCL, where the AMD Radeon R7 250 achieves 7557 points against the AMD FirePro M5100’s 6830 points. The delta of 10.6% in favor of the R7 250 is substantial and places it in the 41st percentile of all GPUs, while the M5100 sits in the 38th percentile.

This result is somewhat counterintuitive given the M5100’s higher shading unit count (640 vs 512) and higher texture rate (31.00 GTexel/s vs 29.60 GTexel/s). The R7 250’s victory likely stems from its higher memory clock (1800 Mbps effective vs 4.5 Gbps effective) and higher pixel rate (14.80 GPixel/s vs 12.40 GPixel/s), which can benefit certain OpenCL workloads. The R7 250 also has a slight FP32 advantage in the data: 947.2 GFLOPS versus 992.0 GFLOPS for the M5100, though the M5100’s raw shader count suggests it should be faster if clocks were equal.

Comparing to their nearest rivals, the R7 250’s score of 7557 is nearly identical to the Intel Arc A310’s 7550 (0.1% higher) and the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100’s 7580 (0.3% lower). The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7472, which is 1.1% lower than the R7 250. On the M5100 side, its 6830 score is 1.7% below the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M’s 6946 and 2.1% below the AMD Radeon R5 M240’s 6975. The M5100 is only 1% above the AMD Radeon R7 M370’s 6764.

In terms of percentile ranking, the R7 250’s 41st percentile versus the M5100’s 38th percentile confirms the benchmark lead. The wins tally shows the R7 250 with 1 win and the M5100 with 0 wins in the head-to-head data. This single data point suggests that for OpenCL compute performance, the desktop R7 250 is the stronger choice, despite the M5100’s superior memory bandwidth and larger VRAM pool. The M5100’s advantages would likely manifest in workloads that are bandwidth-limited or require more than 1 GB of frame buffer, but the available benchmark data does not capture those scenarios.