AMD FirePro W4170M vs AMD Radeon R5 M320 Comparison

The AMD FirePro W4170M and AMD Radeon R5 M320 are both end-of-life mobile graphics solutions built on the same foundational GCN 1.0 architecture and 28 nm TSMC process, but they target different segments: the FirePro is a professional workstation part on an MXM module, while the Radeon R5 is an entry-level IGP. Benchmark data reveals a surprisingly close contest, with the Radeon R5 M320 edging out the FirePro in the single available head-to-head test, despite the FirePro having a higher theoretical compute ceiling.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is in Geekbench OpenCL, and the results are remarkably tight. The AMD Radeon R5 M320 scores 5051 points, while the AMD FirePro W4170M scores 5034 points, giving the Radeon a marginal 0.3% advantage. This is a negligible performance gap, well within typical run-to-run variance for synthetic workloads, but it does mean the Radeon holds the sole win in the head-to-head tally.

Looking at the broader context, both GPUs sit in the lower echelons of the performance spectrum. The FirePro W4170M holds a 30th percentile ranking among all GPUs, while the Radeon R5 M320 sits at the 27th percentile. The FirePro’s average benchmark score is 5034, which is the same as its OpenCL result, while the Radeon’s average is dragged down to 4657 by the inclusion of its Geekbench Vulkan score of 4262.

The nearest rival data helps contextualize these numbers. The FirePro W4170M is effectively tied with the AMD Radeon R5 M430 (5018, 0.3% faster) and the AMD Radeon R7 M340 (5063, 0.6% slower). It also matches the AMD Radeon R7 Graphics (4998, 0.7% faster). The Radeon R5 M320, meanwhile, shows an unusual rival list: it is exactly tied with the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB (4657, 0% delta), a far more modern and powerful part, which highlights that average scores can be misleading across different benchmark sets. It is 0.6% slower than the NVIDIA Quadro P400 (4684) and 0.6% faster than the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M (4628).

Where Each One Wins

The Radeon R5 M320 wins the only head-to-head benchmark, but the margin is so thin that it does not indicate a meaningful performance advantage. The FirePro W4170M, however, shows theoretical superiority in raw compute specifications that do not translate into a win in the available test.

The FirePro W4170M has a higher base clock (825 MHz vs 780 MHz) and boost clock (900 MHz vs 855 MHz). It also has more shading units (384 vs 320), more texture mapping units (24 vs 20), and an identical 8 ROPs. This results in higher theoretical fill rates: 7.200 GPixel/s vs 6.840 GPixel/s, and 21.60 GTexel/s vs 17.10 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is also higher on the FirePro at 691.2 GFLOPS vs 547.2 GFLOPS. These numbers suggest the FirePro should win in compute-heavy tasks, yet the OpenCL score does not reflect this.

The Radeon R5 M320 wins in memory capacity, offering 4 GB of DDR3 against the FirePro’s 2 GB of GDDR5. However, the FirePro holds a massive bandwidth advantage: 64.00 GB/s over a 128-bit bus versus 16.00 GB/s over a 64-bit bus. The Radeon’s memory operates at 2 Gbps effective, while the FirePro’s operates at 4 Gbps effective. For memory-bound workloads, the FirePro’s bandwidth should be a decisive factor, yet again the benchmark results do not show it.

The Verdict

From the data alone, the AMD Radeon R5 M320 is the winner of the head-to-head comparison, but only by a 0.3% margin in a single OpenCL test. Its 4 GB memory capacity is a clear advantage over the FirePro’s 2 GB, which could matter for applications that require larger framebuffers. Its average benchmark score of 4657 is lower than the FirePro’s 5034, however, indicating that the FirePro has a higher consistent score baseline across its benchmark suite.

The AMD FirePro W4170M is positioned as the more capable part based on its architecture specifications: higher clocks, more cores, and dramatically higher memory bandwidth. Its 64.00 GB/s bandwidth is four times that of the Radeon, and its FP32 throughput is 26% higher. For users who prioritize raw compute potential and memory bandwidth, the FirePro appears to be the better engineering choice, despite losing the single benchmark.

The Radeon R5 M320 is the better pick for users who need more memory (4 GB vs 2 GB) and who rely on the Geekbench Vulkan API for their workloads, as it is the only one of the two with a Vulkan score. The FirePro W4170M is the better pick for users who want a professional mobile workstation GPU (MXM Module form factor) with higher theoretical compute and bandwidth, or who need the OpenGL 4.6 and DirectX 12 (11_1) API support that both share but with a stronger spec sheet. Given the benchmark tie, the choice comes down to the memory capacity versus bandwidth trade-off.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M320 scores 5051, which is 0.3% higher than the AMD FirePro W4170M’s 5034.

Q: How much memory does each GPU have?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M320 has 4 GB of DDR3 memory, while the AMD FirePro W4170M has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The AMD FirePro W4170M has a memory bandwidth of 64.00 GB/s, which is four times higher than the AMD Radeon R5 M320’s 16.00 GB/s.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The AMD FirePro W4170M has 384 shading units, compared to 320 shading units on the AMD Radeon R5 M320.

Q: What is the percentile ranking for each GPU?

A: The AMD FirePro W4170M is in the 30th percentile of all GPUs, while the AMD Radeon R5 M320 is in the 27th percentile.

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 Radeon R5 M320 has a Vulkan benchmark score of 4262, while the FirePro has no Vulkan score listed.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs share the same GCN 1.0 architecture and are both manufactured by TSMC on a 28 nm process, with an identical transistor density of 12.3M per mm². However, they use different chips: the FirePro W4170M is based on the "Opal" chip, while the Radeon R5 M320 is based on the "Jet" chip. The Opal chip contains 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, whereas the Jet chip contains 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die.

The FirePro’s larger chip translates into a wider configuration: 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs, with a 128-bit memory bus. The Radeon R5 M320 has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs, with a 64-bit memory bus. The FirePro’s memory subsystem uses GDDR5 at 4 Gbps effective, delivering 64.00 GB/s, while the Radeon uses DDR3 at 2 Gbps effective, delivering 16.00 GB/s.

Clock speeds also differ, with the FirePro running at 825 MHz base and 900 MHz boost, versus the Radeon’s 780 MHz base and 855 MHz boost. This gives the FirePro higher pixel and texture rates (7.200 GPixel/s and 21.60 GTexel/s) compared to the Radeon (6.840 GPixel/s and 17.10 GTexel/s). FP32 performance is 691.2 GFLOPS for the FirePro and 547.2 GFLOPS for the Radeon.

The form factors also differ: the FirePro is an MXM Module with no power connectors, while the Radeon R5 M320 is an IGP. Both use a PCIe 3.0 x8 bus interface and have portable-device-dependent display outputs. The FirePro belongs to the FirePro Mobile (Wx100M) generation, while the Radeon belongs to the Gem System (R5 M300) generation. The FirePro’s predecessor is FirePro Mobility and its successor is Radeon Pro Mobile; the Radeon’s predecessor is Solar System and its successor is Polaris Mobile. Neither has a listed TDP or launch MSRP.