AMD FirePro W4190M vs AMD Radeon R5 Graphics Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score in the database?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 Graphics holds the higher average score of 3883, while the AMD FirePro W4190M averages 4505. This is because the Radeon R5 Graphics has two recorded benchmark entries, and its OpenCL score of 5183 outweighs the FirePro’s single OpenCL result of 4505.

Q: How do the two compare in raw OpenCL performance?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 Graphics leads the OpenCL test with a score of 5183, which is 13.1% ahead of the AMD FirePro W4190M’s 4505. The delta is recorded as -13.1% from the FirePro’s perspective, meaning the Radeon R5 Graphics is the clear winner in this specific workload.

Q: What is the transistor count difference between the two chips?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 Graphics uses a much larger chip, packing 2,410 million transistors on a 245 mm² die, while the AMD FirePro W4190M uses 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die. The Radeon R5 Graphics has roughly 2.5 times the transistor count, but its die is over three times larger.

Q: Which GPU supports a higher DirectX feature level?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 Graphics supports DirectX 12 (feature level 12_0), while the AMD FirePro W4190M is limited to DirectX 12 (feature level 11_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.170.

Q: What are the memory configurations for these two products?

A: The AMD FirePro W4190M has 2 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 64.00 GB/s bandwidth. The AMD Radeon R5 Graphics uses system-shared memory, with no dedicated VRAM, and its bandwidth is labeled as system dependent.

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The AMD FirePro W4190M achieves a pixel rate of 7.200 GPixel/s, which is more than double the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics’ 3.032 GPixel/s. The FirePro also leads in texture rate at 21.60 GTexel/s versus 12.13 GTexel/s.

Architecture Differences

The AMD FirePro W4190M is built on GCN 1.0 architecture with the Opal chip, while the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics uses GCN 2.0 with the Spectre SL chip. This architectural gap explains several fundamental differences. The FirePro is manufactured at TSMC on a 28 nm process, while the Radeon R5 Graphics comes from GlobalFoundries, also on 28 nm. Despite the same node, the chip designs diverge sharply in scale. The FirePro’s Opal die measures 77 mm² and contains 950 million transistors, resulting in a transistor density of 12.3 million per mm². The Radeon R5 Graphics’ Spectre SL die is 245 mm² with 2,410 million transistors, yielding a lower density of 9.8 million per mm².

The compute resources differ significantly. The FirePro W4190M packs 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 8 ROPs. The Radeon R5 Graphics has fewer of each: 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 4 ROPs. This translates directly into throughput figures. The FirePro delivers 691.2 GFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the Radeon R5 Graphics manages only 388.1 GFLOPS. Texture and pixel rates follow the same pattern, with the FirePro at 21.60 GTexel/s and 7.200 GPixel/s versus 12.13 GTexel/s and 3.032 GPixel/s for the Radeon R5 Graphics.

Memory architecture is another major divider. The FirePro uses dedicated GDDR5 with a 128-bit bus and 64.00 GB/s bandwidth, clocked at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective). The Radeon R5 Graphics relies entirely on system-shared memory, with no dedicated VRAM, no fixed bus width, and bandwidth that depends on the host system. The FirePro’s base clock is 825 MHz with a boost up to 900 MHz, whereas the Radeon R5 Graphics has no listed base or boost clocks in the database, reflecting its integrated nature.

Power and form factor also separate the two. The FirePro W4190M is an MXM module with no power connectors, while the Radeon R5 Graphics is an IGP with a 15 W TDP. The FirePro connects via PCIe 3.0 x8, while the Radeon R5 Graphics uses the integrated graphics path. Display outputs are portable-device dependent for the FirePro and motherboard dependent for the Radeon R5 Graphics. Both are end-of-life products, with the FirePro released in November 2015 and the Radeon R5 Graphics a year earlier in September 2014.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison in the database is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and it decisively favors the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics. The Radeon R5 Graphics scores 5183, while the AMD FirePro W4190M scores 4505. That is a 13.1% margin in favor of the Radeon R5 Graphics. Given that the FirePro has 50% more shading units and nearly double the FP32 throughput, this result is counterintuitive. The explanation likely lies in the Radeon R5 Graphics’ newer GCN 2.0 architecture and its ability to leverage system memory more effectively in this particular workload.

The FirePro’s nearest rivals in the database provide context for its 4505 OpenCL score. The AMD Radeon R7 M260 scores 4499, a negligible 0.1% difference. The Intel HD Graphics P530 scores 4560, putting it 1.2% ahead of the FirePro. The AMD Radeon RX 560 scores 4569, 1.4% ahead, and the AMD Radeon R5 M230 scores 4577, 1.6% ahead. This cluster of results suggests the FirePro sits in a narrow performance band where small architectural differences determine the ranking.

For the Radeon R5 Graphics, its average score of 3883 is dragged down by the Vulkan result of 2582, but its OpenCL result of 5183 stands alone as the strongest single score in this comparison. Its nearest rivals are all NVIDIA products: the Quadro 2000 at 3898 is 0.4% ahead, the Quadro K2000D at 3919 is 0.9% ahead, the Quadro 2000D at 3930 is 1.2% ahead, and the GeForce MX110 at 3834 is 1.3% behind. The Radeon R5 Graphics’ average score places it between these cards, but its OpenCL peak is far above all of them.

The database records one win for the Radeon R5 Graphics and zero for the FirePro in head-to-head tests. That single win is the OpenCL benchmark, and it is substantial. The 13.1% delta is not a marginal edge; it is a clear, repeatable gap in compute performance as measured by Geekbench. For users prioritizing OpenCL workloads, this result is the deciding factor.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD FirePro W4190M | AMD Radeon R5 Graphics |

| --- | --- | --- |

| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | GCN 2.0 |

| Chip | Opal | Spectre SL |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 28 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | GlobalFoundries |

| Transistors | 950 million | 2,410 million |

| Die Size | 77 mm² | 245 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.3M / mm² | 9.8M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 825 MHz | Not listed |

| Boost Clock | 900 MHz | Not listed |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | System Shared |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | System Shared |

| Bus Width | 128 bit | System Shared |

| Bandwidth | 64.00 GB/s | System Dependent |

| Shading Units | 384 | 256 |

| TMUs | 24 | 16 |

| ROPs | 8 | 4 |

| Pixel Rate | 7.200 GPixel/s | 3.032 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 21.60 GTexel/s | 12.13 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 691.2 GFLOPS | 388.1 GFLOPS |

| TDP | Not listed | 15 W |

| Slot Width | MXM Module | IGP |

| Power Connectors | None | Not listed |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | IGP |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | Motherboard Dependent |

| DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 12 (12_0) |

| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |

| Vulkan | 1.2.170 | 1.2.170 |

| Release Date | 2015-11-11 | 2014-09-16 |

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon R5 Graphics wins the only recorded head-to-head benchmark, the Geekbench OpenCL test, with a 13.1% lead over the FirePro W4190M. This is its sole victory in the database, but it is decisive. The Radeon R5 Graphics also supports a higher DirectX feature level (12_0 versus 11_1), which matters for modern gaming and compute APIs. Its 15 W TDP makes it a low-power integrated solution, which is an advantage in systems where discrete GPUs are not feasible. The Radeon R5 Graphics also has a newer architecture (GCN 2.0) and a much larger chip, which may contribute to its OpenCL advantage despite lower theoretical throughput.

The AMD FirePro W4190M wins on every raw specification that involves compute or rendering throughput. It has more shading units (384 versus 256), more TMUs (24 versus 16), more ROPs (8 versus 4), and higher clocks (825 MHz base, 900 MHz boost). Its FP32 performance is 691.2 GFLOPS, which is 78% higher than the Radeon R5 Graphics’ 388.1 GFLOPS. Pixel rate is 7.200 GPixel/s versus 3.032 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 21.60 GTexel/s versus 12.13 GTexel/s. The FirePro also has dedicated GDDR5 memory with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth, while the Radeon R5 Graphics relies on shared system memory with variable bandwidth. For applications that depend on fixed-function throughput, such as traditional rasterization or texture-heavy workloads, the FirePro’s specification sheet is clearly superior.

The database’s percentile rankings reflect a nuanced picture. The FirePro W4190M sits at the 26th percentile of all GPUs, while the Radeon R5 Graphics sits at the 23rd percentile. Despite the Radeon R5 Graphics winning the OpenCL head-to-head, its average benchmark score of 3883 is lower than the FirePro’s 4505, because the Vulkan score of 2582 pulls its average down. This means the Radeon R5 Graphics is a specialist: excellent in OpenCL, but weaker in Vulkan. The FirePro has no Vulkan score recorded, so its single OpenCL result stands as its complete benchmark profile.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear split between these two AMD products. The AMD Radeon R5 Graphics is the winner in the only direct benchmark comparison, beating the FirePro W4190M by 13.1% in Geekbench OpenCL. If the priority is compute performance in OpenCL workloads, the Radeon R5 Graphics is the pick. Its newer GCN 2.0 architecture and larger chip (2,410 million transistors versus 950 million) appear to give it an edge in this specific test, despite having fewer shading units and lower theoretical FP32. The Radeon R5 Graphics also supports DirectX 12_0, which is a newer feature level than the FirePro’s 11_1, making it more future-proof for API compatibility.

The AMD FirePro W4190M, however, is the better choice for applications that rely on raw fill rates, texture throughput, or dedicated memory. Its 691.2 GFLOPS of FP32, 7.200 GPixel/s pixel rate, and 21.60 GTexel/s texture rate are all substantially higher than the Radeon R5 Graphics’ figures. The FirePro’s 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus provides predictable 64.00 GB/s bandwidth, whereas the Radeon R5 Graphics depends on the host system’s memory performance. For embedded or mobile systems where the GPU is a discrete MXM module, the FirePro’s form factor is appropriate. For low-power integrated systems, the Radeon R5 Graphics’ 15 W TDP and IGP design are the advantages.

The database’s percentile data shows both GPUs are near the low end of the performance spectrum, with the FirePro at the 26th percentile and the Radeon R5 Graphics at the 23rd percentile. Their nearest rivals confirm this positioning: the FirePro trades blows with the Radeon R7 M260, Intel HD Graphics P530, Radeon RX 560, and Radeon R5 M230, all within 1.6% of its score. The Radeon R5 Graphics sits among NVIDIA Quadro 2000-series cards and the GeForce MX110, with a 1.3% spread. Neither GPU is a performance leader, but each has a distinct role.

For OpenCL compute, choose the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics. For traditional graphics throughput and dedicated memory, choose the AMD FirePro W4190M. The verdict is not about which is universally better; it is about matching the silicon to the workload. The recorded data favors the Radeon R5 Graphics in the only head-to-head test, but the FirePro’s specification sheet wins every throughput metric. Buyers should weigh the benchmark result against the hardware differences. The Radeon R5 Graphics is the benchmark champion; the FirePro W4190M is the specification champion.