AMD FirePro W2100 vs AMD Radeon R5 M330 Comparison

The AMD FirePro W2100 and AMD Radeon R5 M330 are both 28 nm GCN 1.0 parts with 320 shading units, yet they target completely different segments: the FirePro is a single-slot workstation card with DisplayPort outputs, while the Radeon is an integrated mobile GPU. Benchmark data shows a split decision: the R5 M330 wins OpenCL by 4.9%, while the FirePro W2100 wins Vulkan by 11.4%, leaving the overall score comparison nearly tied.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD FirePro W2100 has an average benchmark score of 4295, which is 3.0% higher than the AMD Radeon R5 M330's average of 4170. The FirePro's Vulkan advantage of 11.4% outweighs the R5's OpenCL edge of 4.9% in the aggregate.

Q: How do these cards compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The FirePro W2100 sits within 1.3% of the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M (deltaPct 1.3) and 0.3% of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M. The R5 M330 is 0.4% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M but 1.7% behind the same Quadro K3000M, placing both AMD parts in similar performance territory.

Q: Which GPU has a higher memory bandwidth?

A: The FirePro W2100 has 28.80 GB/s of bandwidth, exactly double the R5 M330's 14.40 GB/s. This stems from the FirePro's 128-bit memory bus versus the R5's 64-bit bus, despite both using 2 GB of DDR3 at 1800 Mbps effective.

Q: What are the core clock differences?

A: The R5 M330 runs at a base clock of 955 MHz with a boost of 1030 MHz, significantly higher than the FirePro W2100's 630 MHz base and 680 MHz boost. This clock advantage explains the R5's higher pixel rate of 8.240 GPixel/s versus 5.440 GPixel/s.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same APIs?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The identical API support means software compatibility does not differentiate these two parts.

Q: Which GPU has a higher transistor count?

A: The FirePro W2100 has 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, while the R5 M330 has 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die. Interestingly, both have the same transistor density of 12.3M per mm².

The Verdict

The data points to a clear conclusion: neither GPU offers a decisive overall victory. The FirePro W2100 and R5 M330 each win exactly one of the two head-to-head benchmarks. Buyers should decide based on workload priorities. If Vulkan performance matters most, the FirePro W2100's 11.4% lead in geekbench_vulkan makes it the better choice. If OpenCL compute is the priority, the R5 M330's 4.9% advantage in geekbench_opencl tips the scale.

The FirePro W2100 is the workstation-oriented option. Its 128-bit memory bus delivers 28.80 GB/s bandwidth, double the R5's 14.40 GB/s, and its 2x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs enable multi-monitor professional setups. The R5 M330, being an IGP with portable-device-dependent outputs, is designed for laptops. Its higher clocks (955 MHz base, 1030 MHz boost) produce superior pixel and texture rates, but the narrow 64-bit bus limits memory throughput.

For users who prioritize sustained memory bandwidth and display connectivity, the FirePro W2100 is the logical pick. For those who need higher raw compute throughput per watt in a mobile form factor, the R5 M330's 18 W TDP versus 26 W makes it more power-efficient. The benchmark scores are too close to declare a universal winner, so the decision rests entirely on the application.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two GPUs split their benchmark results precisely down the middle. In geekbench_opencl, the AMD Radeon R5 M330 scores 4302 against the AMD FirePro W2100's 4093, a delta of 4.9% in favor of the R5. This margin is consistent with the R5's 52% higher boost clock (1030 MHz vs 680 MHz) and its resulting 51% higher pixel rate. The OpenCL test appears to reward the R5's aggressive clock speeds over the FirePro's memory bandwidth advantage.

In geekbench_vulkan, the tables turn dramatically. The AMD FirePro W2100 scores 4497, while the R5 M330 manages only 4037. That 11.4% delta is more than double the R5's OpenCL margin, indicating the FirePro's architecture handles Vulkan workloads substantially better. The FirePro's 28.80 GB/s bandwidth likely plays a larger role in Vulkan's memory-heavy access patterns, overcoming the R5's clock advantage.

The average benchmark scores reflect this split. The FirePro W2100 averages 4295 across both tests, placing it 0.3% above the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M and 0.6% above the AMD Radeon Vega 3. The R5 M330 averages 4170, sitting 0.4% above the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M but 0.5% below the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti. Both GPUs land in the 25th percentile among all GPUs, confirming their entry-level positioning.

The biggest single win belongs to the FirePro W2100 in Vulkan. An 11.4% advantage is significant for any workload that relies on this API. Conversely, the R5 M330's OpenCL win of 4.9% is more modest but still meaningful for compute tasks. The deltaPct values against common rivals show both cards clustering within 2% of each other and their competition, making any purchase decision tightly contested.

Specification Differences

The most striking differences appear in memory configuration. The FirePro W2100 uses a 128-bit bus yielding 28.80 GB/s, while the R5 M330's 64-bit bus halves that to 14.40 GB/s. Both use 2 GB of DDR3 at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective), but the bus width alone doubles the FirePro's bandwidth.

Clock speeds favor the R5 M330 substantially. Its base clock of 955 MHz and boost of 1030 MHz dwarf the FirePro's 630 MHz base and 680 MHz boost. This translates directly to compute rates: the R5 produces 659.2 GFLOPS FP32 versus 435.2 GFLOPS for the FirePro, a 51% advantage. Texture rate follows suit at 20.60 GTexel/s versus 13.60 GTexel/s.

Power and form factor diverge sharply. The R5 M330 is an IGP with an 18 W TDP and no power connectors, while the FirePro W2100 is a single-slot card with a 26 W TDP and a suggested PSU of 200 W. The FirePro measures 168 mm in length and 69 mm in height, whereas the R5 has no listed dimensions due to its integrated nature.

Display outputs present another clear division. The FirePro W2100 offers 2x DisplayPort 1.2, making it suitable for professional multi-monitor use. The R5 M330's outputs are "Portable Device Dependent," meaning they rely entirely on the host laptop's implementation. The FirePro also has a longer physical footprint by virtue of being a discrete card.

Chip specifications differ in scale. The FirePro uses the Oland chip with 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, while the R5 M330 uses the Exo chip with 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die. Both share the same 12.3M per mm² transistor density and identical 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built on GCN 1.0 architecture at TSMC's 28 nm process node, which explains their identical transistor density and shading unit counts. The core architectural similarities end there, as the chips serve different purposes. The FirePro W2100 belongs to the FirePro GCN (Wx100) generation, while the R5 M330 comes from the Gem System (R5 M300) generation.

The FirePro's Oland chip is physically larger at 77 mm² with 950 million transistors, suggesting more robust memory controllers and display logic for workstation duties. The R5's Exo chip is smaller at 56 mm² with 690 million transistors, reflecting its mobile-integrated design that offloads display output to the host system. The 260 million transistor difference likely accounts for the FirePro's wider 128-bit memory interface and dual DisplayPort outputs.

Clock behavior reveals different design philosophies. The R5 M330's high 1030 MHz boost clock indicates a power-optimized mobile chip that can burst to high frequencies under light loads. The FirePro W2100's conservative 680 MHz boost suggests a stability-first approach typical of workstation parts, prioritizing consistent performance over peak throughput.

Both support identical API sets: DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. This means software compatibility is not a differentiator. The architectural distinction lies in how each chip allocates its resources: the FirePro invests in memory bandwidth and display capabilities, while the R5 invests in raw clock speed and compute throughput.

The production status for both is end-of-life, and their release dates are separated by roughly nine months: the FirePro launched on August 11, 2014, and the R5 on May 4, 2015. Both have successors in the Radeon Pro Polaris and Polaris Mobile lines respectively, indicating AMD replaced both with newer architecture families.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD FirePro W2100 wins in scenarios that demand memory bandwidth and display flexibility. Its 28.80 GB/s bandwidth is essential for large texture datasets or multi-sample anti-aliasing at higher resolutions. The 2x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs enable dual-monitor professional workflows, a capability the R5 M330 simply cannot match with its portable-device-dependent outputs. The FirePro's Vulkan score of 4497, an 11.4% lead over the R5, makes it the better choice for any Vulkan-based application or game.

The AMD Radeon R5 M330 wins in power-constrained and compute-oriented scenarios. Its 18 W TDP versus 26 W makes it more suitable for thin-and-light laptops where thermal headroom is scarce. The higher 659.2 GFLOPS FP32 performance and 20.60 GTexel/s texture rate give it an edge in OpenCL workloads, as evidenced by its 4302 score versus 4093. The R5's 1030 MHz boost clock also provides snappier response in bursty, short-duration tasks.

For professional workstation use, the FirePro W2100 is the clear winner. Its single-slot form factor, dedicated display outputs, and memory bandwidth align with CAD, video editing, and multi-monitor productivity tasks. The R5 M330 has no place in a desktop workstation due to its IGP nature. Conversely, for mobile users who need basic GPU acceleration without draining battery life, the R5 M330's lower TDP and higher compute density make it the pragmatic choice.

Gamers and general consumers will find both GPUs underwhelming, as both sit at the 25th percentile among all GPUs. The R5 M330's OpenCL advantage could help in compute-accelerated applications like video encoding or physics simulations, while the FirePro W2100's Vulkan strength matters for modern game engines that adopt this API. Ultimately, the FirePro W2100 wins for workstation display tasks, and the R5 M330 wins for mobile power efficiency and raw FP32 throughput.