AMD FirePro M5100 vs AMD Radeon R9 M360 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data splits cleanly between these two mobile GPUs. The AMD Radeon R9 M360 wins the only head-to-head benchmark available in the database, the Geekbench OpenCL test, with a score of 8211 against 6830 for the AMD FirePro M5100. That is a 20.2% advantage, a substantial margin for two parts built on the same GCN 1.0 architecture and the same 28 nm TSMC process.

The R9 M360 also holds a second benchmark result, a Geekbench Vulkan score of 8047, while the FirePro M5100 has no recorded Vulkan result. The database therefore shows the R9 M360 as the stronger compute performer in both OpenCL and Vulkan contexts, with the FirePro M5100 limited to a single OpenCL data point.

The R9 M360's average benchmark score of 8129 places it at the 42nd percentile of all GPUs in the database. The FirePro M5100's average score of 6830 sits at the 38th percentile. Neither part is near the top of the field, but the R9 M360 is clearly the higher-ranked of the two, sitting above its rival by a meaningful margin in overall standing.

The use-case split follows from these numbers. For anyone prioritizing raw compute throughput, OpenCL acceleration, or Vulkan-capable workloads, the R9 M360 is the choice. The FirePro M5100, by contrast, offers no recorded scenario where it wins a benchmark in this comparison. Its role in the database is as the slower reference point.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs share the same fundamental design lineage. The R9 M360 uses the Tropo chip, while the FirePro M5100 uses the Venus chip. Both are built on GCN 1.0 architecture, fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process, with 1,500 million transistors and a 123 mm² die size. The transistor density is identical at 12.2M per mm². These are not divergent architectures; they are two configurations of the same generation of AMD silicon.

The differences emerge in implementation. The FirePro M5100 carries 640 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 16 raster output units. The R9 M360 has fewer shading units at 512, fewer texture units at 32, but the same 16 ROPs. Despite having fewer cores, the R9 M360 clocks substantially higher. Its base clock is 900 MHz with a boost of 925 MHz, versus 725 MHz base and 775 MHz boost for the FirePro M5100. That clock advantage is what allows the smaller chip to outrun the larger one.

Memory configurations differ in capacity only. Both use GDDR5 with a 128-bit bus and 72.00 GB/s bandwidth. The R9 M360 comes with 4 GB, while the FirePro M5100 has 2 GB. Memory clock is the same at 1125 MHz, which translates to 4.5 Gbps effective for both.

The FirePro M5100 is a mobile workstation part, using an MXM module form factor with an MXM-A (3.0) bus interface and portable-device-dependent display outputs. The R9 M360 uses a standard PCIe 3.0 x16 interface. Both are end-of-life products, with the R9 M360 released on May 4, 2015, and the FirePro M5100 released earlier on October 15, 2013. The R9 M360 follows the Solar System generation and precedes Polaris Mobile. The FirePro M5100 follows FirePro Mobility and precedes Radeon Pro Mobile.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R9 M360 has an average benchmark score of 8129, compared to 6830 for the AMD FirePro M5100. The R9 M360 also sits at the 42nd percentile of all GPUs, while the FirePro M5100 sits at the 38th percentile.

Q: How much faster is the R9 M360 in the only shared benchmark?

A: In Geekbench OpenCL, the R9 M360 scores 8211 against 6830 for the FirePro M5100. That is a 20.2% delta in favor of the R9 M360.

Q: Does the FirePro M5100 have any benchmark win over the R9 M360?

A: No. The database records zero wins for the FirePro M5100 in this head-to-head. The R9 M360 wins the one shared test, Geekbench OpenCL, and also has a Vulkan result of 8047 that the FirePro M5100 does not have.

Q: Why does the FirePro M5100 have more shading units but lower performance?

A: The FirePro M5100 has 640 shading units and 40 texture units, but its clocks are much lower: 725 MHz base and 775 MHz boost. The R9 M360 has 512 shading units and 32 texture units, but runs at 900 MHz base and 925 MHz boost. The clock advantage more than compensates for the core deficit in the recorded benchmarks.

Q: Are these GPUs based on the same architecture?

A: Yes. Both use GCN 1.0 architecture on a 28 nm TSMC process with 1,500 million transistors and a 123 mm² die size. The R9 M360 uses the Tropo chip, and the FirePro M5100 uses the Venus chip, but the underlying design generation is the same.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same APIs?

A: Yes. Both list DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The R9 M360 has a recorded Vulkan benchmark score of 8047, while the FirePro M5100 has no Vulkan benchmark result in the database.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in several specification fields. The table below lists only the recorded differences.

| Specification | AMD Radeon R9 M360 | AMD FirePro M5100 |

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

| Chip | Tropo | Venus |

| Generation | Gem System (R9 M300) | FirePro Mobile (Mx100) |

| Base clock | 900 MHz | 725 MHz |

| Boost clock | 925 MHz | 775 MHz |

| Memory size | 4 GB | 2 GB |

| Shading units | 512 | 640 |

| Texture mapping units | 32 | 40 |

| Pixel rate | 14.80 GPixel/s | 12.40 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 29.60 GTexel/s | 31.00 GTexel/s |

| FP32 performance | 947.2 GFLOPS | 992.0 GFLOPS |

| Slot width | Not recorded | MXM Module |

| Bus interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | MXM-A (3.0) |

| Display outputs | Not recorded | Portable Device Dependent |

| Release date | May 4, 2015 | October 15, 2013 |

| Predecessor | Solar System | FirePro Mobility |

| Successor | Polaris Mobile | Radeon Pro Mobile |

Fields that match include process node (28 nm), foundry (TSMC), transistor count (1,500 million), die size (123 mm²), transistor density (12.2M / mm²), memory type (GDDR5), memory bus width (128 bit), memory clock (1125 MHz, 4.5 Gbps effective), memory bandwidth (72.00 GB/s), ROPs (16), DirectX version (12 (11_1)), OpenGL version (4.6), Vulkan version (1.2.170), and production status (End-of-life).

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison in the database is Geekbench OpenCL. The R9 M360 scores 8211, and the FirePro M5100 scores 6830. The delta is 20.2%, meaning the R9 M360 is roughly one-fifth faster in this compute workload. That margin is consistent with the clock speed difference: the R9 M360 boosts to 925 MHz versus 775 MHz for the FirePro M5100, a 19.4% higher boost clock. The R9 M360's lower core count, 512 versus 640, does not prevent it from winning because the clock advantage scales throughput across the whole chip.

The R9 M360's nearest rivals in the database are revealing. Its average score of 8129 sits within 0.1% of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M (8135), 0.4% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce 945M (8099), 0.5% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 (8167), and 0.6% ahead of the NVIDIA GRID K2 (8080). This places the R9 M360 in a tight cluster of comparable GPUs, all within roughly one percentage point of each other. The R9 M360 is not an outlier; it is squarely mid-pack among its recorded peers.

The FirePro M5100's nearest rivals tell a different story. Its average score of 6830 is 1% ahead of the AMD Radeon R7 M370 (6764), 1.7% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M (6946), 2% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GT 1010 (6698), and 2.1% behind the AMD Radeon R5 M240 (6975). The FirePro M5100 sits in a slightly wider cluster, with deltas ranging from -2.1% to +2%. It is a slower part overall, with an average score about 19% below the R9 M360's nearest-rival cluster.

The R9 M360 also records a Vulkan score of 8047, which the database treats as a separate data point. The FirePro M5100 has no Vulkan result, so no direct comparison is possible, but the R9 M360's Vulkan score is close to its OpenCL score, indicating consistent compute performance across API boundaries. The wins column in the head-to-head data shows one win for the R9 M360 and zero for the FirePro M5100.

The Verdict

The data supports a single conclusion: the AMD Radeon R9 M360 is the faster GPU. It wins the only shared benchmark by 20.2%, holds a higher average score (8129 versus 6830), and occupies a higher percentile rank (42nd versus 38th). It also offers double the memory capacity at 4 GB versus 2 GB, which matters for memory-heavy workloads, even though bandwidth is identical at 72.00 GB/s.

The FirePro M5100 has a larger core configuration, 640 shading units and 40 texture units, but the R9 M360's higher clocks (925 MHz boost versus 775 MHz boost) make the difference. In raw FP32 throughput, the FirePro M5100 actually edges ahead at 992.0 GFLOPS versus 947.2 GFLOPS, and its texture rate is higher at 31.00 GTexel/s versus 29.60 GTexel/s. Yet the recorded OpenCL benchmark shows the R9 M360 winning decisively, which indicates that real-world compute performance does not track theoretical peak rates in this case.

For buyers choosing between these two end-of-life mobile GPUs, the R9 M360 is the pick for compute performance, Vulkan support, and memory capacity. The FirePro M5100 is the pick only for those who specifically need the MXM module form factor or the FirePro mobile workstation branding, since its recorded benchmark results are uniformly lower. The database shows no scenario where the FirePro M5100 outperforms the R9 M360.