AMD FirePro W4190M vs AMD Radeon R5 M320 Comparison

The AMD Radeon R5 M320 and AMD FirePro W4190M are both end-of-life mobile graphics solutions from AMD, built on the same GCN 1.0 architecture and 28 nm process node. The data reveals a close contest, with the R5 M320 taking the only direct benchmark victory, but the FirePro W4190M countering with a superior memory subsystem and higher raw compute specifications. This analysis will break down the head-to-head results, explore where each chip has its strengths, and answer key questions based strictly on the provided benchmark and specification data.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the results show a decisive win for the AMD Radeon R5 M320. The R5 M320 scored 5051 points, while the AMD FirePro W4190M managed 4505 points. This translates to a 12.1% performance advantage for the R5 M320, a significant margin in a synthetic compute workload that stresses general-purpose GPU performance.

This result is interesting because the FirePro W4190M has a higher raw compute ceiling. The FirePro’s FP32 throughput is rated at 691.2 GFLOPS, compared to the R5 M320’s 547.2 GFLOPS. Similarly, the FirePro has a higher pixel rate (7.200 GPixel/s vs 6.840 GPixel/s) and texture rate (21.60 GTexel/s vs 17.10 GTexel/s). Yet, in the Geekbench OpenCL test, the R5 M320 comes out ahead. This suggests that the benchmark is not purely a measure of peak theoretical throughput; it may be sensitive to other factors such as memory latency, driver optimizations, or the specific workload characteristics of the OpenCL test.

The average benchmark scores reinforce this picture. The R5 M320 has an average benchmark score of 4657, while the FirePro W4190M sits lower at 4505. Looking at the nearest rivals for each card provides additional context. The R5 M320’s average score is exactly matched by the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB (deltaPct 0%), and it sits within a narrow band of competitors. It is 0.6% behind the NVIDIA Quadro P400 but 0.6% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M and 0.8% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M. This places the R5 M320 in a competitive position against a range of dedicated and semi-discrete mobile GPUs.

The FirePro W4190M, on the other hand, is 1.2% behind the Intel HD Graphics P530 and 1.4% behind the AMD Radeon RX 560. It is only 0.1% ahead of the AMD Radeon R7 M260. This suggests that while the FirePro’s theoretical specifications are higher, its real-world OpenCL performance is more in line with lower-tier integrated and entry-level discrete graphics. The 12.1% delta between the two cards in the head-to-head test is therefore a notable outlier when considering the pure specifications, indicating that the R5 M320’s performance in this specific workload is surprisingly strong.

Where Each One Wins

The data presents a clear split: the R5 M320 wins the only benchmark test, while the FirePro W4190M wins on paper specifications that are likely to matter in other scenarios.

The AMD Radeon R5 M320 wins in the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark. This is a synthetic test that measures compute performance, and a 12.1% lead is substantial. For any application that relies heavily on OpenCL compute—such as certain video encoding, image processing, or scientific simulation tasks—the R5 M320 is the clear winner based on this data. Its higher average benchmark score (4657 vs 4505) also suggests that, on average, it is the more capable performer in general computing tasks. The R5 M320 also has a larger memory pool at 4 GB, which can be an advantage for workloads that need to store larger datasets on the GPU.

The AMD FirePro W4190M wins in the specifications that are not directly tested. Its memory subsystem is vastly superior. The FirePro uses GDDR5 memory running at an effective 4 Gbps on a 128-bit bus, yielding a memory bandwidth of 64.00 GB/s. The R5 M320, in contrast, uses DDR3 memory at 2 Gbps effective on a 64-bit bus, resulting in a bandwidth of just 16.00 GB/s. This is a 4x difference in memory bandwidth. For gaming or applications that are heavily bandwidth-bound, this would be a decisive advantage for the FirePro. The FirePro also has more shading units (384 vs 320), more texture mapping units (24 vs 20), and higher clock speeds (825 MHz base and 900 MHz boost vs 780 MHz base and 855 MHz boost). These factors contribute to its higher theoretical pixel rate, texture rate, and FP32 throughput. In a pure rasterization workload, these specifications suggest the FirePro should be able to push more pixels and textures than the R5 M320.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M320 has a higher average benchmark score of 4657, compared to the AMD FirePro W4190M’s score of 4505.

Q: What is the performance difference in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M320 scored 5051, which is 12.1% higher than the AMD FirePro W4190M’s score of 4505.

Q: Which GPU has a wider memory bus and more bandwidth?

A: The AMD FirePro W4190M has a 128-bit memory bus and 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The AMD Radeon R5 M320 has a 64-bit bus and only 16.00 GB/s of bandwidth.

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

A: The R5 M320’s average score is on par with the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB (0% delta) and slightly ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M (0.6%). The FirePro W4190M is slightly ahead of the AMD Radeon R7 M260 (0.1%) but trails the Intel HD Graphics P530 by 1.2%.

Q: What is the difference in shading units?

A: The AMD FirePro W4190M has 384 shading units, while the AMD Radeon R5 M320 has 320 shading units.

Q: Which GPU has a higher boost clock?

A: The AMD FirePro W4190M has a boost clock of 900 MHz, which is higher than the AMD Radeon R5 M320’s boost clock of 855 MHz.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in several key specification areas. The most significant differences are in the memory subsystem and the physical board design.

• Memory Size: The R5 M320 has 4 GB of memory, while the FirePro W4190M has 2 GB.
• Memory Type: The R5 M320 uses DDR3, while the FirePro W4190M uses GDDR5.
• Memory Bus Width: The R5 M320 has a 64-bit bus, while the FirePro W4190M has a 128-bit bus.
• Memory Bandwidth: The R5 M320 offers 16.00 GB/s, while the FirePro W4190M offers 64.00 GB/s.
• Effective Memory Clock: The R5 M320 runs at 2 Gbps effective, while the FirePro W4190M runs at 4 Gbps effective.
• Shading Units: The R5 M320 has 320, while the FirePro W4190M has 384.
• Texture Mapping Units: The R5 M320 has 20, while the FirePro W4190M has 24.
• Pixel Rate: The R5 M320 is rated at 6.840 GPixel/s, while the FirePro W4190M is rated at 7.200 GPixel/s.
• Texture Rate: The R5 M320 is rated at 17.10 GTexel/s, while the FirePro W4190M is rated at 21.60 GTexel/s.
• FP32 Performance: The R5 M320 is rated at 547.2 GFLOPS, while the FirePro W4190M is rated at 691.2 GFLOPS.
• Slot Width: The R5 M320 is an IGP (Integrated Graphics Processor), while the FirePro W4190M is an MXM Module.
• Power Connectors: The R5 M320 has none listed, while the FirePro W4190M explicitly lists "None".
• Transistor Count: The R5 M320 has 690 million, while the FirePro W4190M has 950 million.
• Die Size: The R5 M320 is 56 mm², while the FirePro W4190M is 77 mm².

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs share the same fundamental architecture, but they are built on different chips with distinct characteristics.

The AMD Radeon R5 M320 is based on the "Jet" chip, which uses the GCN 1.0 architecture. It is part of the Gem System (R5 M300) generation. The chip contains 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die, produced by TSMC on a 28 nm process. This results in a transistor density of 12.3M / mm². The R5 M320 features 320 shading units, 20 texture mapping units, and 8 ROPs. Its memory configuration is a 64-bit bus connected to 4 GB of DDR3 memory. The R5 M320 is designed as an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with a slot width of "IGP", and it is the predecessor to Polaris Mobile.

The AMD FirePro W4190M is based on the "Opal" chip, also using the GCN 1.0 architecture. It belongs to the FirePro Mobile (Wx100M) generation. The Opal chip is larger, containing 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die. It has the same transistor density of 12.3M / mm². The FirePro W4190M has more execution resources, with 384 shading units and 24 texture mapping units, but the same 8 ROPs. Its memory subsystem is a 128-bit bus connected to 2 GB of GDDR5 memory, providing much higher bandwidth. The FirePro W4190M is designed as a discrete mobile workstation GPU in an MXM Module form factor. It is the successor to FirePro Mobility and the predecessor to Radeon Pro Mobile.

Both chips are manufactured by TSMC on a 28 nm process and share the same API support (DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.2.170) and bus interface (PCIe 3.0 x8). The R5 M320 has a base clock of 780 MHz and a boost clock of 855 MHz, while the FirePro W4190M has a higher base clock of 825 MHz and a boost clock of 900 MHz.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the data, the choice between these two GPUs depends on the priority of the user. For raw compute performance in OpenCL workloads, the AMD Radeon R5 M320 is the clear winner. Its 12.1% lead in the Geekbench OpenCL test and higher average benchmark score (4657 vs 4505) make it the better choice for general-purpose computing tasks that utilize this API. Its larger 4 GB memory pool is also an advantage for holding larger data sets.

However, for applications that are sensitive to memory bandwidth or that rely on the traditional rasterization pipeline, the AMD FirePro W4190M has the more compelling specification sheet. Its 64.00 GB/s of memory bandwidth is four times that of the R5 M320, which is critical for high-resolution textures and fill-rate-bound scenarios. Its higher clock speeds, more shading units, and superior pixel/texture rates suggest it would outperform the R5 M320 in gaming or CAD-style workloads, even though it has half the memory capacity.

In summary, the data shows a trade-off. The R5 M320 wins the only tested benchmark and offers more memory, while the FirePro W4190M offers a far superior memory subsystem and higher theoretical compute throughput. Users prioritizing compute performance should lean toward the R5 M320, while those prioritizing bandwidth and raw fill rates should consider the FirePro W4190M. The R5 M320’s percentile ranking (27th vs 26th) is also slightly higher, reinforcing its edge in overall benchmark performance.