AMD FirePro W4170M vs AMD Radeon R5 M335 Comparison

The AMD FirePro W4170M and AMD Radeon R5 M335 are both end-of-life mobile GPUs from AMD, built on the same GCN 1.0 architecture and 28 nm TSMC process. Despite sharing a common foundation, the data reveals two distinctly different products: the FirePro targets professional mobility workloads with a wider memory bus and faster GDDR5, while the Radeon R5 M335 is a mainstream part with a narrower DDR3 interface. The benchmark results, though limited, show a clear performance gap, with the FirePro W4170M leading in the single available OpenCL test. This analysis will dissect where each wins, the architectural differences, and what the numbers imply for real-world usage.

Where Each One Wins

The head-to-head benchmark data is sparse, containing only one test: Geekbench OpenCL. In this test, the AMD FirePro W4170M scores 5034, while the AMD Radeon R5 M335 scores 4745, giving the FirePro a 6.1% advantage. This is the sole direct comparison, and the FirePro wins it. However, the R5 M335 has an additional benchmark result not present for the FirePro: a Geekbench Vulkan score of 4758. This suggests the R5 M335 can handle Vulkan workloads, but without a comparable FirePro Vulkan score, it is impossible to declare a winner in that API.

Looking at the broader performance context, the FirePro W4170M sits at the 30th percentile of all GPUs, while the R5 M335 sits at the 28th percentile. This indicates that the FirePro is marginally better positioned in the overall performance distribution. The average benchmark score for the FirePro is 5034, while the R5 M335 averages 4752. This 282-point difference reinforces the FirePro’s lead in raw compute performance. For tasks that rely heavily on OpenCL — such as GPGPU acceleration in professional applications — the FirePro W4170M is the clear choice based on the data. For tasks that might leverage Vulkan, the R5 M335 has at least one data point to show capability, but the FirePro’s absence there leaves the question open.

The FirePro also wins on memory bandwidth by a massive margin: 64.00 GB/s versus 14.40 GB/s. This is a 4.4x difference. Memory bandwidth is critical for texture-heavy workloads and large data sets, so the FirePro’s advantage here is likely to translate into wins in scenarios that are bandwidth-bound. The R5 M335’s higher pixel rate (8.240 GPixel/s vs 7.200 GPixel/s) suggests it could be marginally better at pure fill-rate tasks, but the FirePro’s higher texture rate (21.60 GTexel/s vs 20.60 GTexel/s) counters that in texturing.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built on GCN 1.0 and use a 28 nm process at TSMC, but their internal configurations differ significantly. The FirePro W4170M uses the Opal chip, which contains 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die. The R5 M335 uses the Exo chip, with 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die. Both share the same transistor density of 12.3M / mm², indicating they are produced on the same process node with similar design rules.

The compute units differ: the FirePro has 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 8 raster operation units (ROPs). The R5 M335 has fewer shading units (320), fewer TMUs (20), but the same number of ROPs (8). This translates to a higher FP32 throughput for the FirePro at 691.2 GFLOPS versus 659.2 GFLOPS for the R5 M335. The FirePro also has a higher texture rate (21.60 GTexel/s) and a lower pixel rate (7.200 GPixel/s) compared to the R5 M335 (20.60 GTexel/s and 8.240 GPixel/s, respectively).

Memory architecture is where the two diverge most sharply. The FirePro W4170M uses 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, yielding 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The R5 M335 uses 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus, yielding just 14.40 GB/s. The memory clock also differs: the FirePro runs at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective), while the R5 M335 runs at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective). The FirePro’s memory interface is twice as wide and uses faster memory, resulting in a bandwidth advantage that is difficult to overstate.

Both GPUs support PCIe 3.0 x8 and share the same API support: DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The FirePro is an MXM Module, while the R5 M335 has no specified slot width. Both have no power connectors and portable-device-dependent display outputs. The FirePro’s generation is listed as “FirePro Mobile (Wx100M)” and its predecessor is “FirePro Mobility,” while the R5 M335 belongs to “Gem System (R5 M300)” with a predecessor of “Solar System.” The FirePro’s successor is “Radeon Pro Mobile,” whereas the R5 M335’s successor is “Polaris Mobile.”

The Verdict

Based strictly on the data, the AMD FirePro W4170M is the superior GPU for compute-heavy workloads. Its 6.1% lead in Geekbench OpenCL, combined with a 4.4x memory bandwidth advantage, makes it the clear choice for any application that stresses GPGPU compute or memory throughput. The FirePro also has a higher FP32 throughput (691.2 GFLOPS vs 659.2 GFLOPS) and more shading units (384 vs 320), which aligns with its higher average benchmark score (5034 vs 4752). The R5 M335’s only direct win is the pixel rate (8.240 GPixel/s vs 7.200 GPixel/s), which suggests a slight edge in fill-rate-limited scenarios, but this is unlikely to overcome the FirePro’s other advantages.

The R5 M335 does have a Vulkan benchmark score (4758), which the FirePro lacks. This could indicate Vulkan support in real-world scenarios, but without a comparative FirePro score, it’s not evidence of superiority. The FirePro’s percentile rank (30th) is higher than the R5 M335’s (28th), reinforcing its overall position. For professional users needing reliable OpenCL performance in a mobile workstation, the FirePro W4170M is the data-backed choice. For casual users who might encounter Vulkan-based applications, the R5 M335 has a data point, but its lower compute and bandwidth specs suggest it is the weaker part overall.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The AMD FirePro W4170M scores 5034, which is 6.1% higher than the AMD Radeon R5 M335’s 4745.

Q: How much memory bandwidth does each GPU provide?

A: The FirePro W4170M provides 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth via a 128-bit GDDR5 interface, while the R5 M335 provides 14.40 GB/s via a 64-bit DDR3 interface.

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: What is the difference in shading units?

A: The FirePro W4170M has 384 shading units, while the R5 M335 has 320 shading units.

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel rate?

A: The R5 M335 has a higher pixel rate at 8.240 GPixel/s, compared to the FirePro W4170M’s 7.200 GPixel/s.

Q: What are the transistor counts for each chip?

A: The FirePro W4170M (Opal) has 950 million transistors, while the R5 M335 (Exo) has 690 million transistors.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct head-to-head benchmark is Geekbench OpenCL. The FirePro W4170M scores 5034, and the R5 M335 scores 4745. The FirePro wins by 289 points, a delta of 6.1%. This is a significant margin in a synthetic compute test, indicating that the FirePro’s additional shading units and memory bandwidth provide a tangible performance benefit in OpenCL workloads.

Beyond the direct comparison, the R5 M335 has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 4758. This score is higher than its OpenCL score (4745), suggesting the R5 M335 may perform slightly better under Vulkan. However, the FirePro has no Vulkan score in the data, so no direct comparison is possible. If the FirePro’s Vulkan performance were proportional to its OpenCL lead, it would likely exceed the R5 M335’s 4758, but this remains speculative.

The nearest rivals for the FirePro W4170M include the AMD Radeon R7 M340 and R7 240, both scoring 5063, which is 0.6% higher than the FirePro. The FirePro is 0.3% ahead of the Radeon R5 M430 (5018) and 0.7% ahead of the Radeon R7 Graphics (4998). This places the FirePro in a tight cluster of low-end GPUs. The R5 M335’s rivals include the AMD Radeon R8 M445DX (4727), which the R5 M335 beats by 0.5%, and the AMD Radeon R5 M255 (4788), which is 0.7% ahead of the R5 M335. Interestingly, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 12 GB appears as a rival with a score of 4791, only 0.8% higher than the R5 M335, which highlights how narrow the performance range is at this tier.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in several key specifications. The FirePro W4170M uses the Opal chip with 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, while the R5 M335 uses the Exo chip with 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die. The FirePro has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs, while the R5 M335 has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The FirePro’s clocks are specified at 825 MHz base and 900 MHz boost, whereas the R5 M335 has no base or boost clocks listed.

Memory is a major differentiator: the FirePro uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth, while the R5 M335 uses 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus with 14.40 GB/s bandwidth. The memory clock is 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) for the FirePro and 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) for the R5 M335. The FirePro’s pixel rate is 7.200 GPixel/s, and its texture rate is 21.60 GTexel/s; the R5 M335’s pixel rate is 8.240 GPixel/s, and its texture rate is 20.60 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 691.2 GFLOPS for the FirePro and 659.2 GFLOPS for the R5 M335.

The FirePro is an MXM Module, while the R5 M335 has no slot width specified. Both have no power connectors and use PCIe 3.0 x8. The FirePro’s generation is “FirePro Mobile (Wx100M)” with a predecessor of “FirePro Mobility,” while the R5 M335’s generation is “Gem System (R5 M300)” with a predecessor of “Solar System.” The FirePro’s successor is “Radeon Pro Mobile,” and the R5 M335’s successor is “Polaris Mobile.” Release dates differ: the FirePro launched on 2015-04-22, while the R5 M335 launched on 2015-10-20. Both are end-of-life and have no launch MSRP data.