AMD FirePro W4170M vs AMD Radeon R5 M330 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits these two mobile GPUs along a clear line. The AMD FirePro W4170M takes the single recorded win in OpenCL compute performance, while the AMD Radeon R5 M330 has no wins in the head-to-head comparison. That does not mean the R5 M330 is without merit; it simply shows where each part was designed to operate.

The FirePro W4170M is the stronger compute-oriented part. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 5034 places it 17% ahead of the R5 M330's 4302 in the same test. This is a decisive margin for anyone running OpenCL workloads, such as GPGPU acceleration in media encoding, scientific simulation, or OpenCL-based rendering tasks. The FirePro branding itself signals a professional orientation, and the data backs that up: it sits at the 30th percentile of all GPUs in the database, which puts it ahead of the R5 M330's 25th percentile ranking.

The Radeon R5 M330, by contrast, is positioned as a mainstream mobile graphics solution. Its only benchmark win is absent, but it does have a Vulkan score of 4037, which the FirePro lacks entirely in the recorded data. That gives the R5 M330 a niche: applications that use the Vulkan API. The FirePro has no recorded Vulkan result, so in that specific API workload, the R5 M330 is the only option with measurable performance data.

For gaming and everyday graphics, the R5 M330's higher clock speeds (955 MHz base, 1030 MHz boost) suggest it can handle lighter DirectX 11 titles, but the compute-heavy FirePro is the one with the numerical advantage in the only test where both parts appear. The FirePro also has a larger memory bus (128 bit vs. 64 bit) and GDDR5 memory versus DDR3, which we will detail in the specification section. Those memory advantages directly feed its OpenCL lead.

In short: choose the FirePro W4170M for OpenCL compute and professional workflows. Choose the Radeon R5 M330 if Vulkan support matters, or if the workload never touches OpenCL, since it also carries a lower TDP of 18 W compared to the FirePro's unlisted power draw.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL benchmarks?

A: The AMD FirePro W4170M scores 5034 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 17% higher than the AMD Radeon R5 M330's 4302 in the same test.

Q: Does the Radeon R5 M330 have any benchmark advantage over the FirePro W4170M?

A: Yes, in Vulkan. The R5 M330 records a Geekbench Vulkan score of 4037, while the FirePro W4170M has no recorded Vulkan result in the database.

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

A: The FirePro W4170M is within 0.7% of the AMD Radeon R7 Graphics (4998) and 0.3% of the AMD Radeon R5 M430 (5018), while trailing the AMD Radeon R7 M340 and R7 240 by 0.6% (both at 5063). The R5 M330 is 0.4% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M (4151) and 1.9% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 8 GB (4093), but trails the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti by 0.5% (4193) and the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M by 1.7% (4241).

Q: Which GPU has the higher base and boost clock?

A: The Radeon R5 M330 runs at 955 MHz base and 1030 MHz boost, while the FirePro W4170M runs at 825 MHz base and 900 MHz boost.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same DirectX version?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170, according to the recorded API data.

Q: Which GPU has the larger memory bus?

A: The FirePro W4170M has a 128-bit bus, double the R5 M330's 64-bit bus, and it uses GDDR5 memory instead of DDR3.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only shared benchmark in the database is Geekbench OpenCL, and the result is unambiguous. The FirePro W4170M scores 5034, while the Radeon R5 M330 scores 4302. That is a 17% delta in favor of the FirePro, a substantial gap for two GPUs from the same architecture generation.

To put that 17% in context, look at the rival rankings. The FirePro sits between the AMD Radeon R5 M430 (5018, 0.3% slower) and the AMD Radeon R7 M340 (5063, 0.6% faster). The R5 M330, meanwhile, is clustered with professional mobile GPUs: it is 0.4% faster than the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M (4151) and 1.7% slower than the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M (4241). The FirePro's score is also 0.7% faster than the AMD Radeon R7 Graphics (4998), a notable result for an integrated part.

The delta between the two AMD chips is larger than any delta between either chip and its nearest rivals. That tells you the FirePro is not just marginally ahead; it is in a different performance tier for OpenCL. The R5 M330's average benchmark score of 4170 (which includes its Vulkan result of 4037) drops below the FirePro's single OpenCL score of 5034 by over 800 points, roughly a 20% gap when using the average.

The Vulkan result for the R5 M330 (4037) is lower than its OpenCL score (4302), indicating that even within the same GPU, API choice matters. But since the FirePro has no Vulkan entry, the head-to-head remains one-sided. The FirePro wins the only direct comparison, and it does so by a wide margin.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs diverge significantly in memory architecture, which explains much of the benchmark gap. The FirePro W4170M uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The Radeon R5 M330 uses 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, yielding 14.40 GB/s. That is a 4.4x difference in memory bandwidth, a massive factor for compute workloads that stream data.

Clock speeds tell the opposite story. The R5 M330 runs higher: 955 MHz base and 1030 MHz boost, versus the FirePro's 825 MHz base and 900 MHz boost. The R5 M330 also has a higher pixel rate (8.240 GPixel/s vs. 7.200 GPixel/s). Yet the FirePro still wins OpenCL, thanks to its wider bus and faster memory.

Shader resources favor the FirePro. It has 384 shading units and 24 texture mapping units (TMUs), versus 320 shading units and 20 TMUs on the R5 M330. Both have 8 ROPs. The FirePro's texture rate is 21.60 GTexel/s, slightly ahead of the R5 M330's 20.60 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is also higher on the FirePro: 691.2 GFLOPS versus 659.2 GFLOPS.

The die sizes differ: the FirePro's "Opal" chip measures 77 mm² with 950 million transistors, while the R5 M330's "Exo" chip measures 56 mm² with 690 million transistors. Both use TSMC's 28 nm process, and both have a transistor density of 12.3M / mm².

Power and form factor differ. The R5 M330 has a rated TDP of 18 W and is listed as an IGP, while the FirePro uses an MXM Module slot width with no TDP listed. Neither requires power connectors, and both use a PCIe 3.0 x8 bus interface. Display outputs for both are listed as "Portable Device Dependent."

Release dates are close: the FirePro launched on April 22, 2015, and the R5 M330 on May 4, 2015. Both are end-of-life products. The FirePro's generation is "FirePro Mobile (Wx100M)" and its predecessor is "FirePro Mobility," with successor "Radeon Pro Mobile." The R5 M330's generation is "Gem System (R5 M300)," predecessor "Solar System," successor "Polaris Mobile."

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built on GCN 1.0 architecture, but they are different chips with different transistor budgets. The FirePro uses "Opal," which is the larger die at 77 mm² with 950 million transistors. The R5 M330 uses "Exo," a smaller 56 mm² die with 690 million transistors. Both are fabricated by TSMC at 28 nm, and the transistor density is identical at 12.3M / mm².

The architectural difference is mostly about resources. The FirePro's larger die accommodates 384 shading units and 24 TMUs, versus 320 and 20 on the R5 M330. Both have 8 ROPs, so pixel throughput is not the bottleneck; the R5 M330 actually has a higher pixel rate due to its higher clock. But the FirePro has more shader hardware and a much wider memory path, which is the classic GCN formula for compute performance.

Memory type is a key architectural split. GDDR5 on the FirePro provides 64.00 GB/s over 128 bits, while DDR3 on the R5 M330 provides 14.40 GB/s over 64 bits. This is not just a spec sheet difference; it fundamentally changes what each GPU can do. The FirePro can feed its shaders at four times the data rate, which is why its OpenCL score is 17% higher despite lower clocks.

The R5 M330's clocks are notably higher (955 base, 1030 boost) than the FirePro's (825 base, 900 boost). That higher clock helps it reach a higher pixel rate (8.240 vs. 7.200 GPixel/s), but it cannot compensate for the memory bandwidth deficit in compute tasks. The R5 M330's FP32 output of 659.2 GFLOPS is only 5% below the FirePro's 691.2 GFLOPS, yet the OpenCL gap is 17%, pointing directly at memory as the deciding factor.

API support is identical: both support DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. Neither has ray tracing cores or tensor cores. The R5 M330 does have a recorded Vulkan benchmark score (4037), which suggests its drivers were validated for that API, while the FirePro's recorded data only includes OpenCL.

The R5 M330 is designated as an IGP with an 18 W TDP, making it suitable for thinner notebooks without discrete cooling. The FirePro is an MXM module, a removable card form factor typically found in professional workstations. That form factor difference matters: MXM modules are replaceable and often paired with better cooling, while an IGP is soldered and constrained by the laptop's thermal design.

In summary, the FirePro W4170M uses a bigger GCN 1.0 die with more shaders and GDDR5 to deliver a clear compute advantage. The R5 M330 uses a smaller die, fewer shaders, and slower DDR3, but compensates with higher clocks and lower power draw. The architecture is the same, but the execution differs in every way that matters for performance.