AMD FirePro W5000 vs AMD Radeon R7 M380 Comparison

The AMD FirePro W5000 and the AMD Radeon R7 M380 are both built on the same GCN 1.0 architecture, but they serve fundamentally different purposes. The FirePro W5000 is a professional workstation card from 2012, while the R7 M380 is a mobile GPU from 2015. The benchmark data shows a single head-to-head comparison, with the FirePro W5000 taking a 5.3% lead in OpenCL performance. This narrow margin, however, masks deeper differences in memory configuration, compute resources, and intended use cases that go beyond a single score.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The AMD FirePro W5000 scores 9803 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the AMD Radeon R7 M380 scores 9313. This gives the FirePro W5000 a 5.3% advantage in the head-to-head comparison.

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

A: The FirePro W5000 sits at the 47th percentile of all GPUs. It is 0.2% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 (9780), 0.8% ahead of the NVIDIA Tesla M10 (9724), and trails the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M and Quadro 6000 by 0.3% and 0.4%, respectively.

Q: What are the memory specifications of each card?

A: The FirePro W5000 features 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The R7 M380 has 4 GB of DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing only 32.00 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: What are the clock speeds of the Radeon R7 M380?

A: The R7 M380 has a base clock of 900 MHz and a boost clock of 915 MHz. Its memory runs at 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective). The FirePro W5000's core clocks are not specified, but its memory operates at 800 MHz (3.2 Gbps effective).

Q: What API levels do both GPUs support?

A: Both GPUs support DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. This indicates they are equally capable in terms of modern software interfaces.

Q: Which card has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The FirePro W5000 achieves a pixel rate of 26.40 GPixel/s, significantly higher than the R7 M380's 14.64 GPixel/s. This is due to the FirePro's 32 ROPs compared to the R7's 16 ROPs.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear, if narrow, victory for the AMD FirePro W5000 in raw compute performance. Its OpenCL score of 9803 outperforms the R7 M380's 9313 by 5.3%. The FirePro W5000 also holds substantial advantages in memory bandwidth (102.4 GB/s vs 32.00 GB/s), pixel rate (26.40 GPixel/s vs 14.64 GPixel/s), and shading units (768 vs 640). For any workload that is bandwidth-sensitive or heavily reliant on pixel throughput, the FirePro W5000 is the stronger choice.

However, the R7 M380 is not without its merits. It offers double the memory capacity (4 GB vs 2 GB), which is critical for large datasets or texture-heavy applications that exceed the FirePro's capacity. Its texture rate of 36.60 GTexel/s is also respectably close to the FirePro's 39.60 GTexel/s. The R7 M380 is a mobile part, designed for power efficiency, while the FirePro W5000 is a single-slot desktop card with a 75 W TDP and a 250 W suggested PSU.

The verdict depends on the workload. For professional compute tasks where memory bandwidth and raw throughput are paramount, the FirePro W5000 wins. For applications that require more memory capacity or where a compact, mobile solution is needed, the R7 M380 is the better fit. The data does not support a universal recommendation; it supports a use-case-specific one.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test. The FirePro W5000 scores 9803, while the R7 M380 scores 9313. The resulting delta is 5.3% in favor of the FirePro W5000. This is a modest lead, but it is consistent across the hardware specifications.

The FirePro's advantage stems from its superior compute resources. It has 768 shading units versus the R7's 640, and 48 TMUs versus 40. More importantly, the FirePro's memory subsystem is vastly superior. The 256-bit GDDR5 interface provides 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth, which is 3.2 times the 32.00 GB/s available to the R7 M380 through its 128-bit DDR3 bus. In OpenCL workloads that are memory-bound, this difference can be decisive.

The R7 M380 does manage to close the gap in texture rate, achieving 36.60 GTexel/s against the FirePro's 39.60 GTexel/s. This is a difference of only 7.6%, which is smaller than the 5.3% overall benchmark delta might suggest. However, the R7's lower pixel rate of 14.64 GPixel/s (versus 26.40 GPixel/s) indicates it will struggle with fragment-heavy rendering tasks.

In summary, the head-to-head data shows a single decisive win for the FirePro W5000. The margin is 5.3%, and it reflects a consistent hardware advantage in shading, texturing, and especially memory bandwidth.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every measurable specification. The FirePro W5000 uses the Pitcairn chip, while the R7 M380 uses the Tropo chip. Both are built on a 28 nm process at TSMC, but the FirePro's die is 212 mm² with 2,800 million transistors, compared to the R7's 123 mm² die with 1,500 million transistors. This gives the FirePro a higher transistor density of 13.2M / mm² versus the R7's 12.2M / mm².

Memory is a major differentiator. The FirePro has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus (102.4 GB/s), while the R7 has 4 GB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus (32.00 GB/s). The FirePro's memory clock is 800 MHz (3.2 Gbps effective), whereas the R7's is 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective).

Compute resources also favor the FirePro: 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs versus the R7's 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The FirePro's pixel rate is 26.40 GPixel/s and texture rate is 39.60 GTexel/s, while the R7 achieves 14.64 GPixel/s and 36.60 GTexel/s respectively. FP32 performance is 1,267.2 GFLOPS for the FirePro and 1,171.2 GFLOPS for the R7.

The FirePro has a 75 W TDP, is single-slot, and requires no power connectors, with a suggested PSU of 250 W. The R7 has no listed TDP, slot width, or power connector information. Both use PCIe 3.0 x16, but the FirePro has display outputs (1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort 1.2) while the R7 has none listed. The FirePro also has physical dimensions of 183 mm (7.2 inches) in length and 111 mm (4.4 inches) in height, while the R7 has none listed.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs share the GCN 1.0 architecture, so the core design philosophy is identical. However, the implementations differ significantly. The FirePro W5000 is a discrete desktop card from the FirePro GCN (Wx000) generation, released on 2012-08-06. The R7 M380 is a mobile GPU from the Gem System (R7 M300) generation, released on 2015-05-04.

The chip designs reflect their different roles. The Pitcairn chip in the FirePro is a larger, more complex design with 2,800 million transistors on a 212 mm² die. The Tropo chip in the R7 is a smaller, more power-efficient design with 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die. Both are fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process, but the FirePro packs more compute units into its larger die.

Neither GPU has ray tracing or tensor cores, as those technologies were not part of the GCN 1.0 era. Both support the same API levels: DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The FirePro's predecessor is FirePro Terascale, and its successor is Radeon Pro Polaris. The R7's predecessor is Solar System, and its successor is Polaris Mobile.

The FirePro's memory architecture is a key architectural advantage. The 256-bit GDDR5 interface is fundamentally different from the R7's 128-bit DDR3 interface. This affects not just bandwidth but also the efficiency of memory access patterns. The FirePro also has double the ROP count (32 vs 16), which explains its significantly higher pixel rate.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD FirePro W5000 wins in scenarios that demand high memory bandwidth and raw compute throughput. Its 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth is over three times the R7's 32.00 GB/s, making it far superior for large data transfers, scientific computing, and OpenCL workloads that stress memory. Its 26.40 GPixel/s fill rate is nearly double the R7's 14.64 GPixel/s, which is critical for high-resolution rendering and multi-sample anti-aliasing. The FirePro also leads in FP32 performance (1,267.2 GFLOPS vs 1,171.2 GFLOPS), shading units (768 vs 640), and TMUs (48 vs 40). Its 75 W TDP and single-slot design make it suitable for professional workstations where reliability and consistent performance are prioritized.

The AMD Radeon R7 M380 wins in scenarios that require larger memory capacity. Its 4 GB of VRAM is double the FirePro's 2 GB, making it better suited for applications that need to store large textures, models, or datasets entirely in video memory. This could be decisive in modern games or content creation applications with high memory footprints. The R7 also has a slightly higher texture rate relative to its compute resources (36.60 GTexel/s from 40 TMUs), which suggests it can handle texture-heavy workloads reasonably well. As a mobile GPU, it is designed for portability and integration into laptops, where space and power are constrained. Its release date of 2015-05-04 means it is a newer design, potentially benefiting from manufacturing refinements.

The benchmark data shows the FirePro W5000 winning the only direct comparison, but the R7 M380's larger memory pool gives it a distinct advantage in capacity-bound scenarios. The choice is not about which is absolutely better, but which aligns with the specific demands of the workload. For bandwidth and compute, the FirePro W5000. For capacity and mobility, the R7 M380.