AMD FirePro W4190M vs AMD Radeon R5 M255 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable benchmark between these two mobile GPUs is Geekbench OpenCL, and the data shows a narrow but clear victory for the AMD Radeon R5 M255. The R5 M255 scores 4650 points against 4505 points for the AMD FirePro W4190M, a 3.2% advantage. That margin is small enough that it could be considered within run-to-run variance on most workloads, but as a single data point it consistently favors the consumer part.

To put that score in context, the R5 M255's average benchmark score of 4788 places it at the 28th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 12 GB with an average score of 4791, which is only 0.1% faster. That is a peculiar pairing that speaks more to the clustering of scores in this range than to any real-world equivalence. The R5 M255 also edges out the AMD Radeon R5 M335 by 0.8% (4788 vs 4752) and the AMD Radeon R8 M445DX by 1.3% (4788 vs 4727), while trailing the NVIDIA GeForce 940MX by 1.2% (4788 vs 4844). So the R5 M255 sits in a tight pack of low-end mobile parts where a few points of performance separate them.

The FirePro W4190M, by contrast, has an average benchmark score of 4505, which places it at the 26th percentile. Its closest rival is the AMD Radeon R7 M260 at 4499, a 0.1% gap. It also trails the Intel HD Graphics P530 by 1.2% (4505 vs 4560), the AMD Radeon RX 560 by 1.4% (4505 vs 4569), and the AMD Radeon R5 M230 by 1.6% (4505 vs 4577). The FirePro's single OpenCL result of 4505 is essentially the entire basis for its standing, and it lands just below the R5 M255's OpenCL result of 4650.

The R5 M255 also has a second benchmark result: a Geekbench Vulkan score of 4925. The FirePro W4190M has no Vulkan benchmark data in the pack, so the comparison rests entirely on the OpenCL result. That Vulkan score suggests the R5 M255 can handle low-level API workloads, but without a corresponding FirePro number, no direct comparison is possible.

Where Each One Wins

The R5 M255 wins the only head-to-head benchmark, taking the OpenCL test with a 3.2% margin. That makes it the better choice for general-purpose compute workloads that rely on OpenCL acceleration. Its Vulkan score of 4925, while not comparable to the FirePro directly, indicates that it has at least some capability in modern graphics APIs. The R5 M255 also has a higher base clock (925 MHz vs 825 MHz) and boost clock (940 MHz vs 900 MHz), which contributes to its higher pixel rate of 7.520 GPixel/s versus 7.200 GPixel/s on the FirePro. Its texture rate is also higher: 22.56 GTexel/s versus 21.60 GTexel/s. These are small margins, but they add up to a consistent edge in raw throughput.

The FirePro W4190M has no benchmark wins in the head-to-head data. However, it does have a significant memory advantage. The FirePro uses GDDR5 memory with a bandwidth of 64.00 GB/s, exactly double the R5 M255's 32.00 GB/s. The FirePro's memory runs at 4 Gbps effective, while the R5 M255's DDR3 runs at 2 Gbps effective. Both have 2 GB of memory on a 128-bit bus, but the memory type and speed make a substantial difference in bandwidth-bound workloads. In tasks that stream large datasets or require frequent memory access — such as certain compute kernels or texture-heavy rendering — the FirePro could close the gap or even pull ahead, despite its lower raw compute scores.

The FirePro also has a notable feature in its form factor: it is an MXM Module with no power connectors and display outputs described as "portable device dependent." That makes it a more flexible option for mobile workstation chassis that use MXM slots. The R5 M255 has no slot width, power connector, or display output data listed, which suggests it is a soldered or less standardized implementation.

Architecture Differences

The R5 M255 is built on GCN 3.0 architecture with the Topaz chip, while the FirePro W4190M uses the older GCN 1.0 architecture with the Opal chip. Both are manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC, but the transistor counts differ significantly. The R5 M255 packs 1,550 million transistors on a 125 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 12.4M per mm². The FirePro has 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, with a density of 12.3M per mm². The R5 M255 is therefore a larger, more complex chip, but both are remarkably similar in transistor density, indicating that the process node is the same and the difference is mostly chip size and architectural evolution.

The two GPUs share identical compute resources in terms of shading units (384), texture mapping units (24), and raster operation units (8). Both have the same 128-bit memory bus and 2 GB of memory. The core difference lies in the memory type: the R5 M255 uses DDR3 at 2 Gbps effective, while the FirePro uses GDDR5 at 4 Gbps effective. That gives the FirePro twice the memory bandwidth (64.00 GB/s vs 32.00 GB/s) despite the identical bus width.

Clock speeds also differ. The R5 M255 runs at a base clock of 925 MHz and boosts to 940 MHz, while the FirePro runs at 825 MHz base and 900 MHz boost. This gives the R5 M255 a higher pixel rate (7.520 GPixel/s vs 7.200 GPixel/s) and texture rate (22.56 GTexel/s vs 21.60 GTexel/s). The FP32 compute is also higher on the R5 M255: 721.9 GFLOPS versus 691.2 GFLOPS. Interestingly, the R5 M255 lists FP16 performance at 721.9 GFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio to FP32, while the FirePro lists no FP16 data at all.

Architecturally, the R5 M255 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the FirePro supports DirectX 12 (11_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.170. The R5 M255 is part of the "Gem System (R5 M200)" generation, while the FirePro belongs to "FirePro Mobile (Wx100M)." The R5 M255's predecessor is "Solar System" and its successor is "Polaris Mobile." The FirePro's predecessor is "FirePro Mobility" and its successor is "Radeon Pro Mobile." Both are end-of-life products, with the R5 M255 released on October 11, 2014, and the FirePro released on November 11, 2015 — over a year later, yet built on older architecture.

The Verdict

From the data alone, the AMD Radeon R5 M255 is the faster GPU in compute workloads. It wins the only head-to-head benchmark with a 3.2% margin, and it also has higher clock speeds, pixel rate, texture rate, and FP32 throughput. If you are choosing between these two strictly for OpenCL compute performance, the R5 M255 is the pick.

However, the FirePro W4190M has one very clear advantage: memory bandwidth. Its GDDR5 memory at 64.00 GB/s is double the R5 M255's DDR3 at 32.00 GB/s. For any workload that is memory-bound — and many graphics and compute tasks are — this could be the deciding factor. The FirePro's lower compute throughput (691.2 GFLOPS vs 721.9 GFLOPS) is a modest 4.4% deficit, but its bandwidth advantage is a 100% improvement. In practice, a bandwidth-starved chip can perform poorly regardless of compute power.

The FirePro also has the MXM Module form factor, which makes it suitable for modular mobile workstations where the GPU can be swapped. The R5 M255 has no such specification listed, implying it is less serviceable. If you are working with a system that requires an MXM card, the FirePro is the only one of the two that fits that description.

For the typical user, the R5 M255's higher benchmark scores and newer GCN 3.0 architecture (with better DirectX 12 support at 12_0) make it the safer choice. The FirePro's older GCN 1.0 architecture with DirectX 12 (11_1) is a generation behind. The FirePro has a later release date (November 2015 vs October 2014) but that does not compensate for its older architecture.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M255 scores 4650 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the AMD FirePro W4190M scores 4505. The R5 M255 wins by 3.2%.

Q: Do both GPUs have the same amount of memory?

A: Yes, both have 2 GB of memory on a 128-bit bus. However, the R5 M255 uses DDR3 at 2 Gbps effective, while the FirePro uses GDDR5 at 4 Gbps effective.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth of each GPU?

A: The R5 M255 has a memory bandwidth of 32.00 GB/s, while the FirePro W4190M has a bandwidth of 64.00 GB/s — exactly double.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: Both GPUs have identical shading units (384), texture mapping units (24), and raster operation units (8). The difference is in clock speeds and memory type.

Q: What DirectX versions do they support?

A: The R5 M255 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the FirePro W4190M supports DirectX 12 (11_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.170.

Q: Are these GPUs still in production?

A: No. Both are end-of-life products. The R5 M255 was released on October 11, 2014, and the FirePro W4190M was released on November 11, 2015.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon R5 M255 | AMD FirePro W4190M |

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

| Architecture | GCN 3.0 | GCN 1.0 |

| Chip | Topaz | Opal |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 1,550 million | 950 million |

| Die Size | 125 mm² | 77 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.4M / mm² | 12.3M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 925 MHz | 825 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 940 MHz | 900 MHz |

| Memory Type | DDR3 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Speed | 2 Gbps effective | 4 Gbps effective |

| Memory Bandwidth | 32.00 GB/s | 64.00 GB/s |

| Pixel Rate | 7.520 GPixel/s | 7.200 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 22.56 GTexel/s | 21.60 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Compute | 721.9 GFLOPS | 691.2 GFLOPS |

| FP16 Compute | 721.9 GFLOPS (1:1) | Not listed |

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

| Slot Width | Not listed | MXM Module |

| Power Connectors | Not listed | None |

| Display Outputs | Not listed | Portable Device Dependent |

| Generation | Gem System (R5 M200) | FirePro Mobile (Wx100M) |

| Release Date | October 11, 2014 | November 11, 2015 |

| Predecessor | Solar System | FirePro Mobility |

| Successor | Polaris Mobile | Radeon Pro Mobile |

| Geekbench OpenCL | 4650 | 4505 |

| Geekbench Vulkan | 4925 | Not listed |

| Average Benchmark Score | 4788 | 4505 |

| Percentile vs All GPUs | 28 | 26 |