AMD FirePro W2100 vs AMD Radeon R5 M255 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clear, consistent winner across every benchmark test in the database. The AMD Radeon R5 M255 beats the AMD FirePro W2100 in both Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan workloads, taking 2 wins to 0 in the head-to-head comparison.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the R5 M255 scores 4650 points against 4093 points for the FirePro W2100. That is a 13.6% advantage, a substantial gap for two GPUs from the same manufacturer and the same 28 nm production process. The OpenCL test stresses raw compute throughput, and the R5 M255's higher shading unit count and clock speeds translate directly into a measurable lead.

The Vulkan result is closer but still favors the R5 M255. It posts 4925 points versus 4497 points for the FirePro W2100, a 9.5% delta. Vulkan workloads often reward driver efficiency and architectural maturity, and the R5 M255's newer GCN 3.0 architecture appears to handle the API more effectively than the GCN 1.0 design in the FirePro W2100.

Looking at the broader database context, the R5 M255 has an average benchmark score of 4788 and sits at the 28th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals in the database are tightly clustered: the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 12 GB averages 4791 (just 0.1% ahead), the AMD Radeon R5 M335 averages 4752 (0.8% behind), the NVIDIA GeForce 940MX averages 4844 (1.2% ahead), and the AMD Radeon R8 M445DX averages 4727 (1.3% behind). This places the R5 M255 in a competitive band where small differences separate it from several well-known mobile and entry-level parts.

The FirePro W2100, by contrast, averages 4295 across its benchmark results and lands at the 25th percentile. Its nearest rivals also cluster tightly: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M averages 4282 (0.3% behind), the AMD Radeon Vega 3 averages 4268 (0.6% behind), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 GDDR6 averages 4335 (0.9% ahead), and the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M averages 4241 (1.3% behind). The FirePro W2100's position in that group shows it trades blows with older mobile gaming GPUs and entry-level integrated parts.

The 11.5% difference in average benchmark scores between the two cards (4788 versus 4295) is larger than the spread between either card and its own nearest rivals. That consistency across both individual tests and the aggregate score makes the verdict straightforward: the R5 M255 is the faster GPU in every measured workload, with its largest win coming in OpenCL compute.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins in Geekbench OpenCL performance?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M255 wins with a score of 4650 compared to 4093 for the AMD FirePro W2100, a 13.6% advantage.

Q: How do the two cards compare in Geekbench Vulkan?

A: The R5 M255 scores 4925 while the FirePro W2100 scores 4497, giving the R5 M255 a 9.5% lead in Vulkan workloads.

Q: What are the average benchmark scores for each GPU?

A: The R5 M255 has an average benchmark score of 4788, while the FirePro W2100 averages 4295. The R5 M255 sits at the 28th percentile of all GPUs, and the FirePro W2100 sits at the 25th percentile.

Q: Which card has the higher memory bandwidth?

A: The R5 M255 offers 32.00 GB/s of bandwidth from its 2 GB DDR3 memory on a 128 bit bus. The FirePro W2100 provides 28.80 GB/s from the same 2 GB DDR3 configuration and 128 bit bus width.

Q: Are both cards still in production?

A: No. Both are end-of-life products. The R5 M255 was released on 2014-10-11, and the FirePro W2100 was released on 2014-08-11.

Q: Do both cards support the same API levels?

A: Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.170. The R5 M255 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the FirePro W2100 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_1).

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different generations of AMD's Graphics Core Next design, and that architectural gap explains most of the performance difference recorded in the database.

The R5 M255 uses the Topaz chip built on GCN 3.0. It belongs to the Gem System generation within the R5 M200 family. The FirePro W2100 uses the Oland chip built on the original GCN 1.0 architecture and belongs to the FirePro GCN generation in the Wx100 family. GCN 3.0 introduced several compute and resource management improvements over the first-generation design, including better handling of asynchronous workloads and more efficient use of the shader array.

Both chips are fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process, so the node is identical. The difference lies in how each chip uses that process. The R5 M255's Topaz die contains 1,550 million transistors on a 125 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.4 million transistors per square millimeter. The FirePro W2100's Oland die is smaller and simpler: 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, with a density of 12.3 million transistors per square millimeter. The density figures are nearly identical, which makes sense for two chips on the same process node, but the R5 M255 packs roughly 63% more transistors into its larger die.

That transistor budget translates into more execution resources. The R5 M255 has 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 8 render output units. The FirePro W2100 has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The R5 M255 therefore holds a 20% lead in shading units and TMUs, while the ROP count is equal at 8.

The R5 M255 also runs its shader array at higher clocks. Its base clock is 925 MHz with a boost of 940 MHz. The FirePro W2100 operates at a 630 MHz base and 680 MHz boost. The combination of more execution units and higher clocks produces the large compute throughput gap seen in the specifications: the R5 M255 delivers 721.9 GFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the FirePro W2100 delivers 435.2 GFLOPS. The R5 M255 also supports FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, reaching 721.9 GFLOPS, while the FirePro W2100 lists no FP16 capability in the database.

Memory architecture is similar but not identical. Both cards use 2 GB of DDR3 on a 128 bit bus. The R5 M255 runs its memory at 1000 MHz with 2 Gbps effective speed, producing 32.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The FirePro W2100 runs at 900 MHz with 1800 Mbps effective speed, producing 28.80 GB/s. The R5 M255's 11% bandwidth advantage is smaller than its compute advantage, but it still contributes to the overall performance gap.

Both cards use a PCIe 3.0 x8 bus interface, and both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.170. The DirectX support differs: the R5 M255 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the FirePro W2100 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_1). This means the R5 M255 can expose a fuller feature set in DirectX 12 titles, though the practical impact is limited given the low-end positioning of both cards.

Specification Differences

The database records several clear specification differences between the two cards.

The R5 M255 uses the Topaz chip with GCN 3.0 architecture, while the FirePro W2100 uses the Oland chip with GCN 1.0. The R5 M255 belongs to the Gem System (R5 M200) generation, and the FirePro W2100 belongs to the FirePro GCN (Wx100) generation.

Transistor counts differ substantially: 1,550 million for the R5 M255 versus 950 million for the FirePro W2100. Die size follows: 125 mm² for the R5 M255 versus 77 mm² for the FirePro W2100. Transistor density is nearly identical at 12.4M per mm² versus 12.3M per mm².

Clock speeds differ across the board. The R5 M255 has a 925 MHz base and 940 MHz boost. The FirePro W2100 has a 630 MHz base and 680 MHz boost. Memory clocks also differ: the R5 M255 runs at 1000 MHz with 2 Gbps effective, while the FirePro W2100 runs at 900 MHz with 1800 Mbps effective.

Compute resources favor the R5 M255: 384 shading units versus 320, 24 TMUs versus 20. Both have 8 ROPs.

Memory bandwidth differs: 32.00 GB/s for the R5 M255 versus 28.80 GB/s for the FirePro W2100. Both use 2 GB DDR3 on a 128 bit bus.

Pixel and texture rates reflect the clock and unit differences. The R5 M255 achieves 7.520 GPixel/s and 22.56 GTexel/s. The FirePro W2100 achieves 5.440 GPixel/s and 13.60 GTexel/s.

FP32 compute is 721.9 GFLOPS for the R5 M255 versus 435.2 GFLOPS for the FirePro W2100. The R5 M255 lists FP16 at 721.9 GFLOPS (1:1 ratio); the FirePro W2100 has no FP16 figure.

Power and physical characteristics only appear for the FirePro W2100 in the database. It has a 26 W TDP, single-slot width, no power connectors, a suggested 200 W PSU, and dimensions of 168 mm by 69 mm. Its display outputs are 2x DisplayPort 1.2. The R5 M255 has no recorded TDP, slot width, power connector, PSU suggestion, or display output information.

Both cards are end-of-life. The R5 M255 released on 2014-10-11, and the FirePro W2100 released on 2014-08-11. The R5 M255's predecessor is the Solar System generation and its successor is Polaris Mobile. The FirePro W2100's predecessor is FirePro Terascale and its successor is Radeon Pro Polaris. The database lists no launch MSRP for either card.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous. The AMD Radeon R5 M255 is the faster GPU in every test the database records. It wins Geekbench OpenCL by 13.6% and Geekbench Vulkan by 9.5%. Its average benchmark score of 4788 exceeds the FirePro W2100's 4295 by roughly 11.5%, and it holds a higher percentile ranking at 28 versus 25.

The architectural and specification differences support the benchmark results. The R5 M255 has a newer GCN 3.0 design, more shading units, more TMUs, higher clocks, higher memory bandwidth, and roughly 66% more FP32 compute throughput. It also supports a newer DirectX feature level. There is no metric in the database where the FirePro W2100 leads.

The FirePro W2100 does have one practical advantage in the recorded data: its power envelope. It carries a 26 W TDP, a single-slot design, no power connectors, and a modest 200 W suggested PSU. The R5 M255 has no power data recorded, so no direct comparison is possible, but the FirePro W2100 is clearly positioned as a low-power workstation card with conservative power requirements. It also offers 2x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, which suits professional multi-monitor setups. The R5 M255 has no display output information in the database.

For raw performance, the R5 M255 is the pick. It delivers meaningfully better compute and graphics results across both API workloads, and its nearest rivals in the database include the NVIDIA GeForce 940MX and RTX 3080 12 GB, indicating it competes in a slightly higher performance band than the FirePro W2100, whose rivals include the GeForce GTX 460M and Quadro K3000M.

For a low-power professional workstation application where display connectivity and power draw matter more than raw compute, the FirePro W2100's 26 W TDP and dual DisplayPort outputs make it a defensible choice. But the database does not record a single benchmark where it outperforms the R5 M255.

Where Each One Wins

The R5 M255 wins in every measured performance category. In compute-heavy OpenCL workloads, it leads by 13.6%, and in Vulkan workloads it leads by 9.5%. Its shading unit count of 384 versus 320 gives it an edge in shader-bound tasks. Its higher texture rate of 22.56 GTexel/s versus 13.60 GTexel/s helps in texture-intensive rendering. Its higher pixel rate of 7.520 GPixel/s versus 5.440 GPixel/s benefits fill-rate-bound scenarios. Its memory bandwidth advantage of 32.00 GB/s versus 28.80 GB/s supports higher-resolution textures and more demanding memory access patterns. Its FP32 throughput of 721.9 GFLOPS versus 435.2 GFLOPS makes it the stronger choice for general-purpose compute workloads that use OpenCL.

The FirePro W2100 wins in power efficiency and physical design, based on the recorded data. It operates at a 26 W TDP, which is a modest power draw for a discrete GPU. It requires no power connectors and only a 200 W suggested PSU, making it suitable for small-form-factor workstations and systems with limited power delivery. Its single-slot profile and compact dimensions of 168 mm by 69 mm allow installation in tight chassis. Its dual DisplayPort 1.2 outputs provide native multi-monitor support without adapters, which is a meaningful feature for professional productivity workloads that do not stress the GPU heavily.

In short, the R5 M255 is the choice for anyone who needs the highest possible performance from these two options, whether in OpenCL compute, Vulkan graphics, or general rendering. The FirePro W2100 is the choice for a low-power workstation role where connectivity and a conservative power envelope are the priorities, and where the benchmark performance gap is acceptable in exchange for those practical attributes. The database shows 2 wins for the R5 M255 and 0 for the FirePro W2100, and no recorded scenario flips that outcome.