AMD FirePro M5100 vs AMD Radeon R7 350 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL compute workloads?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 350 wins the only head-to-head benchmark, scoring 7,792 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 6,830 for the AMD FirePro M5100, a 14.1% advantage.

Q: How do the two cards compare in terms of overall benchmark percentile?

A: The Radeon R7 350 sits at the 40th percentile of all GPUs, while the FirePro M5100 sits at the 38th percentile. This places both in the lower-middle tier of the GPU landscape, with the R7 350 slightly ahead.

Q: Do both cards use the same graphics architecture?

A: Yes. Both are built on GCN 1.0 architecture, use a 28 nm process at TSMC, and share the same 1,500 million transistor count and 123 mm² die size.

Q: What is the closest rival to the Radeon R7 350 according to benchmark data?

A: The Intel UHD Graphics 750 has an average score of 7,441, which is only 0.2% lower than the R7 350's average. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is also close, sitting 0.6% behind.

Q: What is the closest rival to the FirePro M5100?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M370 has an average score of 6,764, which is 1% lower than the FirePro M5100's average. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 1010 trails by 2%, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M is 1.7% ahead.

Q: Which card has a higher shading unit count?

A: The FirePro M5100 has 640 shading units, while the Radeon R7 350 has 512. Despite this advantage, the R7 350 still delivers higher OpenCL performance.

Architecture Differences

Both the AMD Radeon R7 350 and the AMD FirePro M5100 are built on the same fundamental GCN 1.0 architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. They share identical transistor counts of 1,500 million and die sizes of 123 mm², resulting in the same transistor density of 12.2M per mm². Both cards implement the same API support, including DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170.

The core silicon differs in configuration despite the architectural similarity. The Radeon R7 350 uses the Cape Verde chip, while the FirePro M5100 uses the Venus chip. The FirePro M5100 fields a larger compute configuration with 640 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 16 raster operation units. The Radeon R7 350, by contrast, is configured with 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This gives the FirePro M5100 a theoretical peak FP32 throughput of 992.0 GFLOPS and a texture rate of 31.00 GTexel/s, compared to 819.2 GFLOPS and 25.60 GTexel/s for the R7 350.

However, the R7 350 compensates with higher raw clock behavior in practice. The FirePro M5100 has documented base and boost clocks of 725 MHz and 775 MHz, respectively, while the R7 350's base and boost clocks are not listed. The memory subsystems are identical: both use 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, with the same 1,125 MHz memory clock (4.5 Gbps effective) and 72.00 GB/s bandwidth. The R7 350 achieves a slightly higher pixel rate at 12.80 GPixel/s versus 12.40 GPixel/s for the FirePro M5100, despite the latter's higher shading count.

Generationally, the R7 350 belongs to the Pirate Islands (R7 300) family, while the FirePro M5100 comes from the FirePro Mobile (Mx100) generation. The R7 350's predecessor is Volcanic Islands and its successor is Arctic Islands, while the FirePro M5100's predecessor is FirePro Mobility and its successor is Radeon Pro Mobile. The R7 350 was released on July 5, 2016, whereas the FirePro M5100 launched on October 15, 2013. Both are now end-of-life products.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The sole head-to-head benchmark available is Geekbench OpenCL, and the results are decisive. The AMD Radeon R7 350 scores 7,792, while the AMD FirePro M5100 scores 6,830. This represents a 14.1% victory for the R7 350, a substantial margin in GPU compute terms.

This result is notable because the FirePro M5100 has a hardware advantage on paper: 640 shading units versus 512, 40 TMUs versus 32, and 992.0 GFLOPS versus 819.2 GFLOPS. Yet the R7 350 still outperforms it by a wide margin in OpenCL. This suggests that the R7 350's clock behavior, memory efficiency, or driver optimization gives it a real-world edge that the raw specification sheet does not fully capture.

The R7 350 also holds a slight pixel-rate advantage at 12.80 GPixel/s versus 12.40 GPixel/s, which may contribute to its faster performance in certain workloads. The texture rate, however, favors the FirePro M5100 at 31.00 GTexel/s versus 25.60 GTexel/s, indicating that the FirePro M5100 could theoretically excel in texture-bound tasks even if the OpenCL aggregate result shows otherwise.

In terms of broader benchmark context, the R7 350's average benchmark score is 7,425, placing it at the 40th percentile of all GPUs. The FirePro M5100's average score is 6,830, at the 38th percentile. The R7 350's average score is only 0.2% away from the Intel UHD Graphics 750 and 0.6% away from the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650, showing that it sits in a competitive performance band. The FirePro M5100, meanwhile, is 1% above the AMD Radeon R7 M370 and 2% above the NVIDIA GeForce GT 1010, but 1.7% below the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M and 2.1% below the AMD Radeon R5 M240.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in several key specification fields:

• Chip: Radeon R7 350 uses Cape Verde; FirePro M5100 uses Venus
• Generation: R7 350 is Pirate Islands (R7 300); FirePro M5100 is FirePro Mobile (Mx100)
• Base Clock: R7 350 is not listed; FirePro M5100 is 725 MHz
• Boost Clock: R7 350 is not listed; FirePro M5100 is 775 MHz
• Shading Units: R7 350 has 512; FirePro M5100 has 640
• Texture Mapping Units: R7 350 has 32; FirePro M5100 has 40
• Pixel Rate: R7 350 is 12.80 GPixel/s; FirePro M5100 is 12.40 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: R7 350 is 25.60 GTexel/s; FirePro M5100 is 31.00 GTexel/s
• FP32: R7 350 is 819.2 GFLOPS; FirePro M5100 is 992.0 GFLOPS
• TDP: R7 350 is 55 W; FirePro M5100 is not listed
• Slot Width: R7 350 is Single-slot; FirePro M5100 is MXM Module
• Power Connectors: R7 350 has None; FirePro M5100 has none listed
• Suggested PSU: R7 350 is 250 W; FirePro M5100 is not listed
• Bus Interface: R7 350 is PCIe 3.0 x16; FirePro M5100 is MXM-A (3.0)
• Display Outputs: R7 350 is 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 1x DisplayPort 1.2; FirePro M5100 is Portable Device Dependent
• Dimensions: R7 350 is 168 mm (6.6 inches) long; FirePro M5100 has no listed dimensions
• Release Date: R7 350 is July 5, 2016; FirePro M5100 is October 15, 2013
• Predecessor: R7 350 is Volcanic Islands; FirePro M5100 is FirePro Mobility
• Successor: R7 350 is Arctic Islands; FirePro M5100 is Radeon Pro Mobile

The cards are identical in memory size (2 GB), memory type (GDDR5), bus width (128 bit), memory clock (1,125 MHz, 4.5 Gbps effective), bandwidth (72.00 GB/s), ROPs (16), process node (28 nm), foundry (TSMC), transistors (1,500 million), die size (123 mm²), transistor density (12.2M / mm²), and API support.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon R7 350 wins in aggregate compute performance, taking the only head-to-head benchmark with a 14.1% lead in Geekbench OpenCL. It also has a higher average benchmark score (7,425 vs. 6,830) and sits at a higher percentile rank (40th vs. 38th). The R7 350 offers a slightly higher pixel rate and comes in a standard single-slot PCIe 3.0 x16 form factor with dedicated display outputs (DVI, HDMI 1.4a, DisplayPort 1.2), making it a drop-in desktop solution. It also carries a defined 55 W TDP and a 250 W suggested PSU, giving system integrators clear power requirements.

The AMD FirePro M5100 wins on raw compute resources. It has 640 shading units (25% more than the R7 350's 512), 40 TMUs (25% more than 32), and a theoretical FP32 throughput of 992.0 GFLOPS versus 819.2 GFLOPS. Its texture rate of 31.00 GTexel/s is 21% higher than the R7 350's 25.60 GTexel/s. The FirePro M5100 also has documented base and boost clocks (725 MHz / 775 MHz), which the R7 350 lacks entirely. As an MXM module, the FirePro M5100 is designed for portable devices where the display output depends on the host system, making it suitable for laptop or compact form-factor upgrades rather than desktop builds.

The Verdict

The data is clear: the AMD Radeon R7 350 is the faster GPU in real-world compute benchmarks, beating the AMD FirePro M5100 by 14.1% in Geekbench OpenCL. This win comes despite the FirePro M5100's superior shading unit count, TMU count, and theoretical FP32 throughput, demonstrating that raw specifications do not always translate to benchmark performance.

The R7 350 is the better choice for users who need a desktop graphics card with standard PCIe 3.0 x16 connectivity, dedicated display outputs, and clear power specifications (55 W TDP, 250 W suggested PSU). Its 168 mm single-slot design fits in standard desktop cases, and its release date of July 5, 2016 means it is a more modern product in the same architecture family.

The FirePro M5100, released on October 15, 2013, is a mobile-oriented MXM module with no standalone display outputs and no published TDP. Its hardware configuration is theoretically stronger on paper, but the benchmark evidence shows it underperforms the R7 350 in OpenCL workloads. It could be the better option in texture-heavy scenarios given its 31.00 GTexel/s texture rate, but the aggregate compute data favors the R7 350 decisively.

For users choosing between these two end-of-life GPUs, the Radeon R7 350 is the recommended pick based on benchmark performance, form-factor flexibility, and power specification clarity. The FirePro M5100 should only be considered when an MXM-A form factor is required, and even then, its lower compute performance and older release date make it the weaker option in the data presented.