AMD FirePro W5000 vs AMD Radeon R9 M275X Comparison

The AMD Radeon R9 M275X and the AMD FirePro W5000 are both end-of-life GCN 1.0 parts, but they target very different segments of the GPU market. The data shows a clear performance hierarchy: the R9 M275X wins the only head-to-head benchmark with a 14.3% margin, yet the FirePro W5000 compensates with a significantly wider memory interface and higher raw compute throughput. The verdict is not a simple knockout; it is a split decision based on whether the workload favors raw OpenCL compute or memory bandwidth and professional display features.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is Geekbench OpenCL, and the Radeon R9 M275X takes a decisive victory. The M275X scores 11,200 points, while the FirePro W5000 scores 9,803 points, resulting in a 14.3% advantage for the mobile-oriented Radeon part. This is a substantial gap in a compute workload, suggesting that the M275X’s higher memory clock and more efficient architecture deliver tangible results in OpenCL tasks. This win is consistent with the M275X’s overall average benchmark score of 10,582, which places it in the 49th percentile of all GPUs, versus the W5000’s 9,803 average and 47th percentile ranking.

Looking at the nearest rivals for context, the M275X’s 11,200 OpenCL score puts it just 0.4% behind the AMD Radeon RX 6600S (average score 10,629) and 1% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 550X (average score 10,481). This indicates that the M275X, despite being an older mobile chip, competes favorably with much newer hardware in synthetic compute. The FirePro W5000, by contrast, sits in a different league: its 9,803 score is essentially tied with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 (9,780, delta 0.2%) and the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M (9,832, delta -0.3%). This places the W5000 firmly in the mid-range workstation class, where it trades blows with NVIDIA’s professional and high-end consumer offerings from a later generation.

The deltaPct values in the head-to-head table tell the story of a single, lopsided contest. The R9 M275X wins the only benchmark, and there are no other tests where the FirePro W5000 can claim a win. However, this does not mean the W5000 is a poor performer; it simply means that in the one measured metric—OpenCL compute—the M275X has a clear edge. The FirePro’s strengths lie elsewhere, particularly in its theoretical specifications, which do not always translate directly to synthetic benchmark scores but can matter in specific professional applications.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built on AMD’s GCN 1.0 architecture and use a 28 nm process node from TSMC, but they are fundamentally different chips. The Radeon R9 M275X uses the Venus chip, which is a compact design measuring 123 mm² and containing 1,500 million transistors. This results in a transistor density of 12.2 million per mm². The FirePro W5000, in contrast, uses the much larger Pitcairn chip, which measures 212 mm² and packs 2,800 million transistors, yielding a density of 13.2 million per mm². The physical size difference is significant: the Pitcairn die is over 70% larger than Venus, which explains why the W5000 has more execution resources despite being an older product (released in August 2012 versus January 2014).

The memory subsystems diverge sharply. The M275X features 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, running at an effective 4.5 Gbps, which produces 72.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The W5000 also has 2 GB of GDDR5, but it uses a 256-bit bus at a lower effective 3.2 Gbps, resulting in 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth—a 42% advantage over the M275X. This is the single largest architectural difference that favors the FirePro. The wider bus is a classic workstation trait, allowing more data to flow for large, memory-intensive datasets.

Compute resources also favor the FirePro on paper. The W5000 has 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs, compared to the M275X’s 640 shaders, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This translates to a higher theoretical pixel rate of 26.40 GPixel/s for the W5000 versus 14.80 GPixel/s for the M275X. The texture rate is closer: 39.60 GTexel/s for the W5000 and 37.00 GTexel/s for the M275X. The FP32 performance is also higher on the FirePro, at 1,267.2 GFLOPS versus 1,184.0 GFLOPS. Despite these specification advantages, the W5000 loses the OpenCL benchmark, which highlights that raw specs do not always predict real-world compute performance.

Both cards support DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170, so API support is identical. The key feature difference is in the FirePro’s professional pedigree: it is a single-slot card with no power connectors, a 75 W TDP, and a suggested 250 W PSU, whereas the M275X’s TDP and power connectors are not listed in the data. The W5000 also offers display outputs of 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2, while the M275X’s display outputs are unspecified.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The AMD Radeon R9 M275X is faster, scoring 11,200 compared to the FirePro W5000’s 9,803, a 14.3% advantage.

Q: Does the FirePro W5000 have more memory bandwidth?

A: Yes. The W5000 has a 256-bit bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth, while the R9 M275X uses a 128-bit bus with 72.00 GB/s.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The FirePro W5000 has 768 shading units, while the Radeon R9 M275X has 640.

Q: Are both cards based on the same architecture?

A: Yes, both use GCN 1.0, but they use different chips: Venus for the M275X and Pitcairn for the W5000.

Q: What is the release date difference?

A: The FirePro W5000 was released on August 6, 2012, while the Radeon R9 M275X was released on January 27, 2014.

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The R9 M275X has a higher average score of 10,582, compared to the W5000’s 9,803.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every hardware specification except for memory size (both 2 GB), memory type (both GDDR5), bus interface (both PCIe 3.0 x16), and API support (identical DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan versions).

• Chip: Venus (M275X) vs. Pitcairn (W5000)
• Transistors: 1,500 million vs. 2,800 million
• Die Size: 123 mm² vs. 212 mm²
• Transistor Density: 12.2M / mm² vs. 13.2M / mm²
• Memory Clock: 4.5 Gbps effective vs. 3.2 Gbps effective
• Memory Bus: 128 bit vs. 256 bit
• Memory Bandwidth: 72.00 GB/s vs. 102.4 GB/s
• Shading Units: 640 vs. 768
• Texture Mapping Units: 40 vs. 48
• ROPs: 16 vs. 32
• Pixel Rate: 14.80 GPixel/s vs. 26.40 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 37.00 GTexel/s vs. 39.60 GTexel/s
• FP32: 1,184.0 GFLOPS vs. 1,267.2 GFLOPS
• TDP: Not listed vs. 75 W
• Slot Width: Not listed vs. Single-slot
• Power Connectors: Not listed vs. None
• Suggested PSU: Not listed vs. 250 W
• Display Outputs: Not listed vs. 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort 1.2
• Dimensions: Not listed vs. 183 mm length (7.2 inches), 111 mm height (4.4 inches)
• Release Date: January 2014 vs. August 2012
• Launch MSRP: Not listed vs. 599 USD (stated once)

Where Each One Wins

The Radeon R9 M275X wins in the only measured benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, with a 14.3% lead. It also has a higher average benchmark score (10,582 vs. 9,803) and a higher percentile ranking (49th vs. 47th). This makes it the better choice for raw compute workloads where OpenCL performance is the primary metric. Its higher memory clock (4.5 Gbps effective) and smaller, more efficient Venus chip likely contribute to this victory, despite having fewer execution units.

The FirePro W5000 wins on paper in nearly every theoretical specification. It has a 42% higher memory bandwidth (102.4 GB/s vs. 72.00 GB/s), 20% more shading units (768 vs. 640), double the ROPs (32 vs. 16), and a 78% higher pixel rate (26.40 GPixel/s vs. 14.80 GPixel/s). It also has a slightly higher FP32 throughput (1,267.2 GFLOPS vs. 1,184.0 GFLOPS). For professional workloads that are memory-bandwidth-bound or require high fill rates—such as large texture streaming, anti-aliasing at high resolutions, or compute tasks that saturate the bus—the W5000 is the stronger candidate. Its single-slot design, lack of power connectors, and 75 W TDP also make it easier to integrate into workstations with minimal power draw.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear trade-off. The Radeon R9 M275X is the winner in the only head-to-head benchmark, delivering 14.3% better OpenCL performance. Its average benchmark score places it 1% ahead of the Radeon RX 550X and just 0.4% behind the Radeon RX 6600S, indicating it holds up well against newer mobile parts. If your decision is based on the Geekbench OpenCL score alone, the R9 M275X is the definitive pick.

However, the FirePro W5000 is not a loser; it is a different tool. Its 256-bit memory bus and 102.4 GB/s bandwidth are double the bus width and 42% more bandwidth than the M275X, which is critical for professional applications that handle large frame buffers or data sets. The W5000’s theoretical pixel rate of 26.40 GPixel/s is nearly double the M275X’s 14.80 GPixel/s, and its 768 shading units provide more parallel compute capacity. For users who prioritize memory bandwidth, fill rate, and a low-power, single-slot professional form factor with DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, the W5000 is the better choice, despite losing the OpenCL benchmark. In short: pick the R9 M275X for compute performance, pick the FirePro W5000 for bandwidth-heavy professional workloads.