AMD FirePro W2100 vs AMD Radeon R5 M320 Comparison

The AMD Radeon R5 M320 and AMD FirePro W2100 are both end-of-life, GCN 1.0-based parts from the 28 nm era, yet they deliver contrasting benchmark profiles. The R5 M320 leads decisively in OpenCL compute, while the FirePro W2100 counters with a narrower but real victory in Vulkan. With an average benchmark score of 4657 versus 4295, the R5 M320 holds an overall edge of roughly 8.4%, placing it at the 27th percentile of all GPUs versus the W2100’s 25th. The data paints a picture of two entries with identical core counts but divergent memory subsystems and clock strategies.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most substantial gap between the two appears in Geekbench OpenCL, where the Radeon R5 M320 scores 5051 against the FirePro W2100’s 4093. That is a 23.4% advantage for the R5 M320, a margin large enough to define the overall comparison. The R5 M320’s higher base clock of 780 MHz and boost of 855 MHz, compared to 630 MHz and 680 MHz on the W2100, directly explain much of this delta. The R5 M320 also carries a 4 GB frame buffer versus 2 GB, and while both use DDR3 memory, the R5 M320’s 64-bit bus yields 16.00 GB/s of bandwidth—nearly half of the W2100’s 28.80 GB/s from its 128-bit bus. Despite the bandwidth deficit, the R5 M320’s raw shader throughput prevails in OpenCL.

The Vulkan result flips the script. Here the FirePro W2100 scores 4497, edging out the R5 M320’s 4262 by 5.2%. This is a closer contest, but it is a consistent one. The W2100’s lower clocks might seem a handicap, yet its wider memory bus and higher bandwidth appear to benefit workload scheduling in Vulkan. The delta is modest—235 points—but it demonstrates that the W2100 is not universally outclassed. The R5 M320 still wins the aggregate: its average score of 4657 beats the W2100’s 4295 by 362 points, a 8.4% overall margin. In the head-to-head tally, each card claims exactly one benchmark win, making the overall comparison a split decision that favors the R5 M320 only by virtue of its larger OpenCL lead.

Where Each One Wins

The Radeon R5 M320 is the clear pick for compute-heavy tasks that lean on OpenCL. Its 547.2 GFLOPS of FP32 throughput, derived from 320 shading units at 855 MHz boost, outpaces the W2100’s 435.2 GFLOPS by roughly 25.7%. Texture rate tells a similar story: 17.10 GTexel/s versus 13.60 GTexel/s, a 25.7% gap in favor of the R5 M320. Pixel rate follows the same pattern, with the R5 M320 hitting 6.840 GPixel/s against the W2100’s 5.440 GPixel/s. For any workload that stresses raw arithmetic or texture fetching, the R5 M320’s higher clocks give it a decisive edge. The 4 GB memory capacity also makes it more suitable for datasets that exceed 2 GB, even if the narrower bus limits how fast that memory can be accessed.

The FirePro W2100 wins in scenarios where Vulkan is the API of choice. Its 4497 Vulkan score suggests better driver-level optimization or scheduling efficiency for that interface, despite lower raw compute. The wider 128-bit memory bus and 28.80 GB/s bandwidth are likely contributors, as Vulkan workloads often exhibit more memory-level parallelism. The W2100 also offers a fixed set of display outputs—2x DisplayPort 1.2—whereas the R5 M320’s outputs are “Portable Device Dependent,” meaning it is an integrated graphics part with no guaranteed external connectivity. For a workstation context requiring dual DisplayPort monitors, the W2100 is structurally superior. Its single-slot form factor, 168 mm length, and 69 mm height also make it a drop-in card for compact chassis, while the R5 M320’s IGP designation ties it to a specific laptop or APU platform.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs share the GCN 1.0 architecture, 320 shading units, 20 texture mapping units, and 8 ROPs, but they diverge sharply in physical implementation. The R5 M320 uses the Jet chip, a 28 nm TSMC die measuring 56 mm² with 690 million transistors. The FirePro W2100 employs the Oland chip, also 28 nm TSMC, but larger at 77 mm² with 950 million transistors. Transistor density is identical at 12.3M / mm², reflecting the same fabrication node, but the Oland die dedicates more area to memory controllers—explaining the 128-bit bus versus 64-bit. The R5 M320’s clocks are higher across the board: 780 MHz base and 855 MHz boost against 630 MHz and 680 MHz. This clock advantage compensates for the smaller die and narrower memory path in compute tests.

Memory configurations are fundamentally different. The R5 M320 ships with 4 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, yielding 16.00 GB/s bandwidth at 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective). The W2100 has 2 GB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus, achieving 28.80 GB/s at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective). The W2100’s bandwidth is 80% higher, but the R5 M320’s capacity is double. Power profiles differ as well: the W2100 has a rated TDP of 26 W and requires no power connectors, with a suggested PSU of 200 W. The R5 M320 has no listed TDP, consistent with its IGP slot width, meaning it draws power from the host platform rather than a dedicated slot. Both use PCIe 3.0 x8, though the R5 M320’s IGP nature may limit actual PCIe throughput in mobile implementations.

API support is identical: DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170 for both. The R5 M320’s generation is “Gem System (R5 M300),” while the W2100 belongs to “FirePro GCN (Wx100).” Release dates are close—May 2015 for the R5 M320 and August 2014 for the W2100—but the R5 M320’s predecessor is Solar System and its successor is Polaris Mobile, whereas the W2100 follows FirePro Terascale and precedes Radeon Pro Polaris. No launch MSRP exists for either card, so pricing comparisons are not possible from this data. The R5 M320’s transistor density matches the W2100 exactly, confirming both are products of the same mature 28 nm process.

The Verdict

For users prioritizing OpenCL compute performance, the Radeon R5 M320 is the data-backed choice. Its 23.4% lead in Geekbench OpenCL, combined with higher FP32 throughput (547.2 GFLOPS vs 435.2 GFLOPS) and a larger 4 GB buffer, makes it superior for general-purpose GPU workloads. The 27th percentile ranking versus the W2100’s 25th reinforces this as the higher-performing part overall. However, that advantage is conditional: the R5 M320 is an IGP with no discrete display outputs, so it is only viable in a system where it is already integrated. It is not a card you can install; it is a component of a laptop or embedded platform.

The FirePro W2100 is the better pick for professional environments requiring a discrete, single-slot card with dual DisplayPort outputs. Its Vulkan score of 4497 beats the R5 M320 by 5.2%, and its 26 W TDP with no external power connectors makes it easy to deploy in low-power workstations. The 128-bit memory bus provides 28.80 GB/s of bandwidth, which is 80% higher than the R5 M320 and beneficial for memory-intensive tasks. For someone building a compact workstation or needing reliable multi-monitor output, the W2100’s physical design and display capabilities outweigh its lower raw compute. The verdict is situational: the R5 M320 wins on raw performance and memory capacity, but the W2100 wins on connectivity, power efficiency, and Vulkan-specific workloads.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M320, with an average score of 4657, outperforms the AMD FirePro W2100’s 4295 by 8.4%.

Q: How do the two compare in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The R5 M320 scores 5051, which is 23.4% higher than the W2100’s 4093, making it the clear winner in OpenCL compute.

Q: Is the FirePro W2100 better in any benchmark?

A: Yes, the W2100 wins in Geekbench Vulkan with a score of 4497, beating the R5 M320’s 4262 by 5.2%.

Q: What are the memory differences between the two cards?

A: The R5 M320 has 4 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus with 16.00 GB/s bandwidth, while the W2100 has 2 GB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus with 28.80 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same APIs?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170.

Q: Which card is more suitable for a discrete workstation build?

A: The FirePro W2100, as it has a single-slot form factor, 2x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, a 26 W TDP, and no power connector requirement, whereas the R5 M320 is an IGP with portable-device-dependent outputs.