AMD FirePro W5000 vs AMD Radeon R9 M360 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains a single direct comparison between the AMD FirePro W5000 and the AMD Radeon R9 M360, using the Geekbench OpenCL test. In this measurement, the FirePro W5000 scores 9803 points while the Radeon R9 M360 scores 8211 points. This results in a 19.4% advantage for the FirePro W5000, a substantial margin that places the older workstation card firmly ahead of the newer mobile-oriented part in raw compute throughput.

The FirePro W5000’s OpenCL score of 9803 places it at the 47th percentile among all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals in that metric include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 at 9780 points (a mere 0.2% behind), the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M at 9832 points (0.3% ahead), and the NVIDIA Quadro 6000 at 9846 points (0.4% ahead). This clustering shows the FirePro W5000 sits in a tight performance band where small score differences separate it from several well-known cards, yet it still leads the R9 M360 by nearly a fifth.

The Radeon R9 M360’s OpenCL score of 8211 places it at the 42nd percentile, five points lower than the FirePro W5000’s percentile ranking. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M at 8135 points (0.1% behind the R9 M360), the NVIDIA GeForce 945M at 8099 points (0.4% behind), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 at 8167 points (0.5% ahead). The R9 M360 also has a Vulkan score of 8047 points, a test the FirePro W5000 does not have recorded, so no direct Vulkan comparison is possible from the data.

The head-to-head table shows only one test, and the FirePro W5000 wins that single benchmark. The win count stands at 1 for the FirePro W5000 and 0 for the Radeon R9 M360. This does not mean the R9 M360 lacks merit; rather, the database only includes one matched test, and in that test the older card demonstrates a clear performance lead.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built on the same 28 nm TSMC process node and both use the GCN 1.0 architecture, which means they share fundamental design principles. However, the physical implementations diverge significantly. The FirePro W5000 uses the Pitcairn chip, which packs 2,800 million transistors onto a 212 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 13.2 million per square millimeter. The Radeon R9 M360 uses the Tropo chip, with 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, giving a density of 12.2 million per square millimeter. The FirePro W5000’s die is 72% larger in area and carries 87% more transistors, which explains its higher compute capacity.

The shading resources differ as well. The FirePro W5000 has 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The Radeon R9 M360 has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. These numbers translate directly into theoretical rates: the FirePro W5000 reaches 26.40 GPixel/s pixel fill rate and 39.60 GTexel/s texture rate, while the R9 M360 manages 14.80 GPixel/s and 29.60 GTexel/s. The FP32 compute figures are 1,267.2 GFLOPS for the FirePro W5000 versus 947.2 GFLOPS for the R9 M360, a 33.8% advantage for the workstation card. Neither GPU has ray tracing cores or tensor cores, and neither has recorded FP16 performance.

Memory configurations also diverge. The FirePro W5000 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 across a 256-bit bus, delivering 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The R9 M360 has 4 GB of GDDR5 but only a 128-bit bus, resulting in 72.00 GB/s. This means the FirePro W5000 has 42% more memory bandwidth despite having half the capacity. The R9 M360’s memory clock is higher, at 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective) versus the FirePro W5000’s 800 MHz (3.2 Gbps effective), but the narrower bus limits total throughput. The FirePro W5000 does not list a base or boost clock, while the R9 M360 runs at 900 MHz base and 925 MHz boost.

Both cards support PCIe 3.0 x16, DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The FirePro W5000 is a single-slot card with no power connectors and a 75 W TDP, requiring a 250 W suggested PSU. It outputs 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2. The R9 M360 has no recorded TDP, slot width, power connector, display output, or dimension data in the database, which limits physical comparison.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The AMD FirePro W5000 scores 9803 points in Geekbench OpenCL, while the AMD Radeon R9 M360 scores 8211 points. The FirePro W5000 leads by 19.4%.

Q: Does the Radeon R9 M360 have any benchmark advantage over the FirePro W5000?

A: The database records only one head-to-head test, Geekbench OpenCL, and the FirePro W5000 wins it. The R9 M360 does have a Geekbench Vulkan score of 8047 points, but the FirePro W5000 has no recorded Vulkan score, so no comparison is possible.

Q: How much memory bandwidth does each card provide?

A: The FirePro W5000 provides 102.4 GB/s from a 256-bit bus, while the R9 M360 provides 72.00 GB/s from a 128-bit bus. The FirePro W5000 has 42% more bandwidth.

Q: What is the transistor count difference between the two chips?

A: The FirePro W5000’s Pitcairn chip contains 2,800 million transistors, while the R9 M360’s Tropo chip contains 1,500 million. The Pitcairn die is 212 mm² versus 123 mm² for Tropo.

Q: Are both cards based on the same architecture?

A: Yes, both use GCN 1.0 and are manufactured on a 28 nm TSMC process. They also share the same API support, including DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The FirePro W5000 has 768 shading units, while the R9 M360 has 512. The FirePro W5000 also has 48 TMUs and 32 ROPs versus 32 TMUs and 16 ROPs for the R9 M360.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the recorded data, the AMD FirePro W5000 is the stronger performer in raw compute. Its OpenCL score of 9803 beats the R9 M360’s 8211 by 19.4%, and it also leads in every architectural resource count: shading units, TMUs, ROPs, transistor count, die size, pixel rate, texture rate, FP32 throughput, and memory bandwidth. The 47th percentile ranking for the FirePro W5000 versus 42nd for the R9 M360 reinforces this gap, even though both sit in the lower half of all GPUs.

The R9 M360 does carry advantages in memory capacity, offering 4 GB versus 2 GB, and it has a higher memory clock (1125 MHz versus 800 MHz) along with a boost clock of 925 MHz. It also has a Vulkan benchmark score, which the FirePro W5000 lacks, suggesting the newer card may be more relevant in Vulkan workloads. However, the database provides no direct Vulkan comparison, so this cannot be quantified as a win.

For users seeking maximum compute throughput in OpenCL-based tasks, the FirePro W5000 is the clear choice from the data. Its higher bandwidth and wider memory bus make it better suited for memory-intensive operations, and its larger chip provides more parallel processing resources. The R9 M360, with its larger memory pool, may be preferable for tasks that require holding larger datasets locally, but it sacrifices bandwidth and compute density to achieve that capacity.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two GPUs in the database:

• Chip: Pitcairn (FirePro W5000) versus Tropo (R9 M360)
• Generation: FirePro GCN (Wx000) versus Gem System (R9 M300)
• Transistors: 2,800 million versus 1,500 million
• Die Size: 212 mm² versus 123 mm²
• Transistor Density: 13.2M / mm² versus 12.2M / mm²
• Memory Clock: 800 MHz (3.2 Gbps effective) versus 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective)
• Base Clock: Not listed versus 900 MHz
• Boost Clock: Not listed versus 925 MHz
• Memory Size: 2 GB versus 4 GB
• Memory Bus Width: 256 bit versus 128 bit
• Memory Bandwidth: 102.4 GB/s versus 72.00 GB/s
• Shading Units: 768 versus 512
• TMUs: 48 versus 32
• ROPs: 32 versus 16
• Pixel Rate: 26.40 GPixel/s versus 14.80 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 39.60 GTexel/s versus 29.60 GTexel/s
• FP32: 1,267.2 GFLOPS versus 947.2 GFLOPS
• TDP: 75 W versus not listed
• Slot Width: Single-slot versus not listed
• Power Connectors: None versus not listed
• Suggested PSU: 250 W versus not listed
• Display Outputs: 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort 1.2 versus not listed
• Dimensions: 183 mm (7.2 inches) length, 111 mm (4.4 inches) height versus not listed
• Release Date: 2012-08-06 versus 2015-05-04
• Predecessor: FirePro Terascale versus Solar System
• Successor: Radeon Pro Polaris versus Polaris Mobile
• Launch MSRP: 599 USD versus not listed
• OpenCL Score: 9803 versus 8211
• Vulkan Score: Not listed versus 8047
• Percentile: 47 versus 42

Where Each One Wins

The FirePro W5000 wins decisively in compute-oriented benchmarks. Its OpenCL score is 19.4% higher, and its FP32 throughput of 1,267.2 GFLOPS is 33.8% above the R9 M360’s 947.2 GFLOPS. The pixel rate advantage is even larger: 26.40 GPixel/s versus 14.80 GPixel/s, a 78.4% lead. Texture rate also favors the FirePro W5000 at 39.60 GTexel/s versus 29.60 GTexel/s, a 33.8% advantage. Memory bandwidth is another clear win, with 102.4 GB/s versus 72.00 GB/s, a 42.2% lead. The FirePro W5000 also holds a percentile advantage at 47 versus 42.

The R9 M360 wins on memory capacity, offering 4 GB versus 2 GB, which allows it to accommodate larger working sets. It also records a Vulkan score of 8047, a test absent for the FirePro W5000, so in Vulkan-specific scenarios it may be the only choice with data support. Its higher memory clock and the presence of a boost clock indicate a more flexible clock management scheme. The R9 M360 is also a later product, with a 2015 release date compared to 2012, which may matter for driver longevity and software support.

From a use-case perspective, the FirePro W5000 suits workloads that demand high bandwidth and compute density: OpenCL compute tasks, image processing, and tasks that stress pixel and texture fill rates. The R9 M360 better fits scenarios where memory capacity outweighs speed, such as holding large datasets in VRAM, and where Vulkan API coverage is required. The data does not show a scenario where the R9 M360 outperforms the FirePro W5000 in a direct matched test, but its unique Vulkan result and larger memory pool give it a distinct, if narrower, set of strengths.