AMD FirePro W5000 vs AMD FirePro W5170M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a single head-to-head benchmark, and it is a decisive one. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the AMD FirePro W5000 scores 9,803 points, while the AMD FirePro W5170M scores 8,140 points. This results in a 20.4% advantage for the W5000, a substantial margin that places the desktop card firmly ahead of the mobile part in compute workloads.

The W5000's win is not just a matter of beating the W5170M; it also positions the card in a competitive tier among its nearest rivals. The database shows the W5000 with an average benchmark score of 9,803, placing it at the 47th percentile of all GPUs. Its closest rival, the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M, scores 9,832, which is 0.3% higher, meaning the W5000 trails that specific competitor by a hair. Against the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070, the W5000 is 0.2% ahead, with the GTX 1070 scoring 9,780. The NVIDIA Quadro 6000 scores 9,846, putting it 0.4% ahead of the W5000, while the NVIDIA Tesla M10 scores 9,724, which is 0.8% behind. These deltas are all within a single percentage point, indicating that the W5000 sits in a tightly contested performance band where small differences separate adjacent cards.

The W5170M, by contrast, has a lower average benchmark score of 8,595, which places it at the 44th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals tell a similar story of close competition, but at a lower absolute level. The Intel Arc A380 scores 8,558, which is 0.4% behind the W5170M, while the NVIDIA Quadro P2200 scores 8,686, putting it 1.1% ahead. The AMD Radeon HD 8870M scores 8,462, trailing the W5170M by 1.6%, and the NVIDIA GeForce MX330 scores 8,458, also 1.6% behind. The W5170M's OpenCL result of 8,140 is notably lower than its own average, which is pulled up by a separate Geekbench Vulkan score of 9,050. That Vulkan result, however, does not factor into the head-to-head comparison, as the only shared test between the two cards is OpenCL.

The data indicates that the W5000's 20.4% lead in OpenCL is the single most important differentiator in raw compute performance. No benchmark in the database shows the W5170M winning any test against the W5000; the wins column records 1 for the W5000 and 0 for the W5170M. The margin is large enough that it is unlikely to be erased by driver optimizations or workload variability, especially given that both cards use the same GCN 1.0 architecture and similar API support profiles.

Architecture Differences

Both cards are built on GCN 1.0 architecture and use a 28 nm process at TSMC, but the underlying chips are different in scale and capability. The W5000 uses the Pitcairn chip, while the W5170M uses the Tropo chip. The Pitcairn die contains 2,800 million transistors on a 212 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 13.2 million per square millimeter. The Tropo chip is smaller, with 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, resulting in a density of 12.2 million per square millimeter. The larger Pitcairn die gives the W5000 more physical resources to work with, which directly translates into higher component counts.

The W5000 features 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 32 render output units. The W5170M is configured with 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The shading unit count represents a 20% advantage for the W5000, which aligns closely with the 20.4% OpenCL performance lead. The TMU advantage is also 20%, while the ROP difference is much larger: 32 versus 16, a 100% advantage for the W5000. This ROP gap is significant for pixel-heavy workloads, as the W5000 delivers a pixel rate of 26.40 GPixel/s compared to the W5170M's 14.80 GPixel/s. Texture rate is closer, with the W5000 at 39.60 GTexel/s and the W5170M at 37.00 GTexel/s, a difference of only about 7%.

Memory configurations also differ substantially. Both cards use 2 GB of GDDR5, but the W5000 has a 256 bit memory bus, while the W5170M uses a 128 bit bus. This leads to a bandwidth advantage for the W5000: 102.4 GB/s versus 72.00 GB/s. The memory clock also differs, with the W5000 running at 800 MHz (3.2 Gbps effective) and the W5170M at 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective). The W5170M's higher memory clock partially compensates for its narrower bus, but not enough to close the bandwidth gap.

The W5000 has a base clock that is not recorded in the database, while the W5170M has a base clock of 900 MHz and a boost clock of 925 MHz. The W5000's floating-point performance is rated at 1,267.2 GFLOPS, while the W5170M is rated at 1,184.0 GFLOPS, a 7% advantage for the W5000. Neither card lists FP16 performance, and both share the same API support: DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170.

Physically, the two cards are built for different environments. The W5000 is a single-slot desktop card with a length of 183 mm (7.2 inches) and a height of 111 mm (4.4 inches), requiring no power connectors and a suggested power supply of 250 W. Its power draw is rated at 75 W. The W5170M is an MXM module, specifically MXM-A (3.0), with dimensions not recorded, and its power draw is not listed in the database. The W5000 offers 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, while the W5170M's display outputs are listed as portable device dependent, meaning they vary by the laptop implementation.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear conclusion: the AMD FirePro W5000 is the stronger GPU in raw compute performance. Its 20.4% OpenCL lead over the W5170M is backed by a larger chip, more shading units, double the ROPs, and a wider memory bus. For any workload that relies on OpenCL compute, the W5000 is the better choice.

The W5170M, however, is not without merit. It is a mobile part designed for portability, and its Vulkan score of 9,050 shows that it can outperform its own OpenCL result in certain API environments. The database does not include a head-to-head Vulkan comparison, so this advantage cannot be directly measured against the W5000, but it does indicate that the W5170M has capable compute performance in its own right.

The W5000 sits at the 47th percentile of all GPUs, while the W5170M sits at the 44th percentile, a modest gap in overall standing. The W5000's nearest rivals, including the Quadro M2000M and Quadro 6000, are all within 0.4% of its score, suggesting that the W5000 is competitively positioned against NVIDIA's workstation cards of its era. The W5170M's nearest rivals, including the Intel Arc A380 and Quadro P2200, are also tightly clustered, with deltas ranging from 1.6% behind to 1.1% ahead.

The choice between the two depends on the use case. For a desktop workstation where compute performance is the priority, the W5000 is the clear winner. For a laptop where space and power constraints matter, the W5170M is the only option of the two, but the data shows it will deliver noticeably lower OpenCL performance.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The AMD FirePro W5000 scores 9,803 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the AMD FirePro W5170M scores 8,140, giving the W5000 a 20.4% lead.

Q: How does the AMD FirePro W5000 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The W5000 is 0.2% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 (9,780), 0.3% behind the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M (9,832), 0.4% behind the NVIDIA Quadro 6000 (9,846), and 0.8% ahead of the NVIDIA Tesla M10 (9,724).

Q: What is the AMD FirePro W5170M's average benchmark score?

A: The W5170M has an average benchmark score of 8,595, based on its OpenCL score of 8,140 and its Vulkan score of 9,050.

Q: Do both cards support the same APIs?

A: Yes, both cards support DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170.

Q: How much memory does each card have?

A: Both cards have 2 GB of GDDR5 memory, but the W5000 uses a 256 bit bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth, while the W5170M uses a 128 bit bus with 72.00 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What are the shading unit counts for each card?

A: The W5000 has 768 shading units, while the W5170M has 640 shading units.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD FirePro W5000 wins in every category where direct comparison data exists. Its OpenCL score is 20.4% higher, its pixel rate is 26.40 GPixel/s versus 14.80 GPixel/s, its texture rate is 39.60 GTexel/s versus 37.00 GTexel/s, and its FP32 output is 1,267.2 GFLOPS versus 1,184.0 GFLOPS. The memory bandwidth advantage is also substantial: 102.4 GB/s versus 72.00 GB/s. The W5000 has more shading units, TMUs, ROPs, and a larger die with nearly double the transistor count.

The AMD FirePro W5170M has no recorded wins in the head-to-head data, as the wins column records 0 for the mobile card. Its only notable advantage is in areas not covered by shared benchmarks. The Vulkan score of 9,050 exceeds its own OpenCL score of 8,140 by 11.2%, which suggests the W5170M has comparatively stronger Vulkan performance relative to its own OpenCL baseline, but no Vulkan result is recorded for the W5000, so this cannot be compared directly.

For workstation compute tasks, the W5000 is the stronger part. For mobile deployments where the MXM form factor is required, the W5170M is the only viable option, but the data indicates a meaningful performance sacrifice. The W5000's higher pixel rate and ROP count make it better suited for fill-rate-bound tasks, while the W5170M's higher memory clock of 4.5 Gbps effective does not compensate for its narrower 128 bit bus.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every core specification. The W5000 uses the Pitcairn chip with 2,800 million transistors on a 212 mm² die, while the W5170M uses the Tropo chip with 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die. The W5000 has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, while the W5170M has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs.

Memory configuration differs in bus width and bandwidth: the W5000 has a 256 bit bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth, while the W5170M has a 128 bit bus with 72.00 GB/s bandwidth. Both use 2 GB of GDDR5, but the memory clock differs, with the W5000 at 800 MHz (3.2 Gbps effective) and the W5170M at 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective).

The W5000 has no recorded base or boost clocks, while the W5170M has a base clock of 900 MHz and a boost clock of 925 MHz. Pixel rate is 26.40 GPixel/s for the W5000 versus 14.80 GPixel/s for the W5170M, and texture rate is 39.60 GTexel/s versus 37.00 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 1,267.2 GFLOPS for the W5000 and 1,184.0 GFLOPS for the W5170M.

Power and physical specifications also diverge. The W5000 has a TDP of 75 W, a single-slot form factor, a length of 183 mm (7.2 inches), a height of 111 mm (4.4 inches), a suggested power supply of 250 W, and a PCIe 3.0 x16 bus interface. The W5170M has no recorded TDP, uses an MXM module form factor with an MXM-A (3.0) bus interface, and has no recorded dimensions or suggested power supply. Both cards have no power connectors and use the same API set: DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. Display outputs differ, with the W5000 offering 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2, while the W5170M's outputs are portable device dependent.