AMD FirePro W5000 vs AMD Radeon R9 M375X Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains one direct benchmark comparison between the AMD FirePro W5000 and the AMD Radeon R9 M375X, and it is a decisive victory for the FirePro W5000. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the FirePro W5000 scores 9,803 points, while the Radeon R9 M375X trails at 8,273 points. That is a delta of 18.5% in favor of the FirePro W5000, a substantial margin for a single compute workload. The FirePro W5000 wins this head-to-head matchup 1 to 0, with no recorded benchmark where the Radeon R9 M375X takes the lead.

Looking at the broader context, the FirePro W5000's OpenCL score places it within a tightly packed cluster of rivals. It sits 0.2% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 (9,780 points), 0.8% ahead of the NVIDIA Tesla M10 (9,724 points), and 0.3% behind the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M (9,832 points). The delta to the Quadro 6000 (9,846 points) is only 0.4%. These are narrow margins, meaning the FirePro W5000's compute performance is essentially competitive with a range of mid-to-high-end workstation and desktop cards from the same era, despite its age. Its percentile ranking of 47 among all GPUs indicates it sits just below the median in the database's full spectrum of recorded graphics processors.

The Radeon R9 M375X, by contrast, posts an average benchmark score of 8,325 across its two recorded tests (OpenCL at 8,273 and Vulkan at 8,377). Its OpenCL result is 18.5% below the FirePro W5000, and its nearest rivals tell a similar story. The R9 M375X is 0.7% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro K1200 (8,265 points), but 1.2% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX (8,427 points), 1.3% behind the AMD Radeon 880M (8,436 points), and 1.6% behind the NVIDIA GeForce MX330 (8,458 points). The R9 M375X's percentile of 43 places it slightly lower in the overall distribution than the FirePro W5000. The Vulkan score of 8,377 is higher than its OpenCL score, but the database shows no direct Vulkan comparison between the two cards, so the only apples-to-apples measurement remains the OpenCL result, which strongly favors the FirePro W5000.

The performance gap in OpenCL is worth interpreting carefully. The FirePro W5000 achieves its 18.5% advantage despite having a lower peak FP32 figure of 1,267.2 GFLOPS compared to the R9 M375X's 1,299.2 GFLOPS. This means the FirePro W5000's advantage is not simply raw throughput; it likely stems from other architectural factors such as memory bandwidth and memory bus width. The FirePro W5000 has a 256-bit memory bus and 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth, while the R9 M375X is limited to a 128-bit bus and 72.00 GB/s. In OpenCL workloads that are memory-bound, that 42% bandwidth advantage (computed from the recorded figures: 102.4 versus 72.00 GB/s) would explain why the FirePro W5000 wins despite slightly lower theoretical FP32. The pixel rate also favors the FirePro W5000 at 26.40 GPixel/s versus 16.24 GPixel/s, a difference of roughly 63%, which could influence certain compute kernels that involve pixel or fragment processing.

The Verdict

Benchmark results indicate that the AMD FirePro W5000 is the stronger GPU in raw compute performance. Its OpenCL score of 9,803 is 18.5% higher than the Radeon R9 M375X's 8,273, and its percentile ranking of 47 versus 43 reinforces that the FirePro W5000 sits higher in the database's overall performance distribution. The FirePro W5000 also carries a workstation designation, with display outputs of 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2, a single-slot design, and no external power connectors, all of which are consistent with a professional-grade card designed for deployment in workstations. The Radeon R9 M375X, by contrast, lacks recorded display outputs, slot width, and power connector details, which is typical of a mobile-oriented GPU, though the database does not explicitly label it as such.

For users choosing between these two based strictly on the data, the FirePro W5000 is the choice when compute performance matters most. The 18.5% lead in OpenCL is the only head-to-head metric available, and it is unambiguous. The FirePro W5000 also has a launch MSRP of 599 USD, which can be stated once as historical context, but no further pricing analysis is warranted from the recorded data.

The Radeon R9 M375X is not without merit. Its Vulkan score of 8,377 suggests it can handle modern graphics APIs competently, and its FP32 output of 1,299.2 GFLOPS is slightly higher than the FirePro W5000's 1,267.2 GFLOPS. However, no Vulkan benchmark exists for the FirePro W5000 in the database, so a direct comparison in that API cannot be made. The only recorded head-to-head test favors the FirePro W5000, so the verdict from the data is clear: the FirePro W5000 wins the compute matchup, while the R9 M375X offers a higher peak FP32 figure that did not translate into a higher OpenCL score.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD FirePro W5000 wins in OpenCL compute performance, as measured by the 18.5% delta over the R9 M375X. It also wins on memory bandwidth, with 102.4 GB/s versus 72.00 GB/s, and on pixel throughput, with 26.40 GPixel/s versus 16.24 GPixel/s. These metrics point to advantages in workloads that stress memory access patterns, large data sets, or pixel-heavy compute kernels. The FirePro W5000's 256-bit memory bus is double the width of the R9 M375X's 128-bit bus, and its 2 GB GDDR5 memory is matched in capacity but paired with higher effective memory speed (3.2 Gbps versus 4.5 Gbps effective, though the wider bus more than compensates in total bandwidth). The FirePro W5000 also has more shading units (768 versus 640), more TMUs (48 versus 40), and more ROPs (32 versus 16), giving it structural advantages across most subcomponents.

The Radeon R9 M375X wins on texture rate, posting 40.60 GTexel/s against the FirePro W5000's 39.60 GTexel/s, a narrow margin. It also has a higher base clock of 925 MHz and a boost clock of 1015 MHz, whereas the FirePro W5000 has no recorded base or boost clock values, so a direct clock-speed comparison is not possible from the data. The R9 M375X's FP32 figure of 1,299.2 GFLOPS slightly exceeds the FirePro W5000's 1,267.2 GFLOPS, which could give it an edge in compute tasks that are purely ALU-bound rather than memory-bound. Its Vulkan score of 8,377 indicates functional Vulkan support, and both cards share the same DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170 API support, so software compatibility is identical across the two.

In practical terms, the FirePro W5000 is better suited for workstation-style compute tasks such as OpenCL acceleration, large memory transactions, or rendering workloads that benefit from high fill rates. The R9 M375X, with its higher texture rate and slightly higher FP32, might hold its own in texture-heavy or ALU-bound scenarios, but the database does not include a benchmark that isolates those strengths. The only recorded direct test favors the FirePro W5000.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The AMD FirePro W5000 scores 9,803 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the AMD Radeon R9 M375X scores 8,273, giving the FirePro W5000 an 18.5% advantage.

Q: Does the Radeon R9 M375X have any benchmark where it wins against the FirePro W5000?

A: No. The database records only one head-to-head benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, and the FirePro W5000 wins it. The R9 M375X does have a separate Vulkan score of 8,377, but the FirePro W5000 has no recorded Vulkan score for comparison.

Q: How do the memory specs compare?

A: The FirePro W5000 has 2 GB GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. The R9 M375X also has 2 GB GDDR5, but on a 128-bit bus with 72.00 GB/s bandwidth. The FirePro W5000's memory bandwidth is substantially higher.

Q: What are the architecture differences between the two?

A: Both are based on GCN 1.0 architecture and use a 28 nm process at TSMC. The FirePro W5000 uses the Pitcairn chip with 2,800 million transistors on a 212 mm² die. The R9 M375X uses the Tropo chip with 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units, TMUs, and ROPs?

A: The FirePro W5000 has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The R9 M375X has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The FirePro W5000 leads in all three categories.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same graphics APIs?

A: Yes. Both support DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170, according to the database.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs share the same GCN 1.0 architecture and the same 28 nm TSMC manufacturing process, but they diverge significantly in chip design and scale. The FirePro W5000 is built on the Pitcairn chip, which contains 2,800 million transistors on a die size of 212 mm². The Radeon R9 M375X uses the Tropo chip, with 1,500 million transistors on a smaller 123 mm² die. The transistor density reflects this difference: the FirePro W5000 achieves 13.2M transistors per mm², while the R9 M375X reaches 12.2M per mm². The larger Pitcairn die accommodates more execution resources, which is consistent with the FirePro W5000's higher counts of shading units (768 versus 640), TMUs (48 versus 40), and ROPs (32 versus 16).

The memory subsystem is another major architectural divergence. The FirePro W5000 uses a 256-bit memory bus with 2 GB of GDDR5 and a recorded memory clock of 800 MHz (3.2 Gbps effective), yielding 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The R9 M375X uses a 128-bit bus with 2 GB of GDDR5 and a memory clock of 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective), yielding 72.00 GB/s. Although the R9 M375X runs its memory at a higher effective data rate, the FirePro W5000's wider bus provides significantly more total bandwidth, a critical factor for compute workloads.

The FirePro W5000 also has a higher pixel rate of 26.40 GPixel/s versus 16.24 GPixel/s, and a slightly lower texture rate of 39.60 GTexel/s versus 40.60 GTexel/s. The FP32 output is close, with the R9 M375X at 1,299.2 GFLOPS and the FirePro W5000 at 1,267.2 GFLOPS. Neither card has recorded ray tracing cores, tensor cores, or FP16 performance in the database. The FirePro W5000 is a single-slot card with no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 250 W, while the R9 M375X has no recorded TDP, slot width, power connector, or PSU recommendation. The FirePro W5000's thermal envelope is listed at 75 W, while the R9 M375X has no TDP value in the database.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across several recorded specification fields. The FirePro W5000 has a transistor count of 2,800 million, while the R9 M375X has 1,500 million. The die sizes are 212 mm² versus 123 mm², and the transistor densities are 13.2M per mm² versus 12.2M per mm². The FirePro W5000 has no recorded base or boost clock, while the R9 M375X has a base clock of 925 MHz and a boost clock of 1015 MHz. Memory clocks differ as well: the FirePro W5000 runs at 800 MHz (3.2 Gbps effective), while the R9 M375X runs at 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective). The memory bus width is 256 bit for the FirePro W5000 and 128 bit for the R9 M375X, leading to bandwidth figures of 102.4 GB/s and 72.00 GB/s respectively.

Shading unit counts are 768 versus 640, TMUs are 48 versus 40, and ROPs are 32 versus 16. The pixel rate is 26.40 GPixel/s versus 16.24 GPixel/s, and the texture rate is 39.60 GTexel/s versus 40.60 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 1,267.2 GFLOPS versus 1,299.2 GFLOPS. The FirePro W5000 has a TDP of 75 W, while the R9 M375X has no recorded TDP. The FirePro W5000 is a single-slot card with no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 250 W; the R9 M375X has no values for any of these fields. The FirePro W5000 lists display outputs of 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2, while the R9 M375X has no recorded display outputs. Dimensions are recorded only for the FirePro W5000 at 183 mm (7.2 inches) in length and 111 mm (4.4 inches) in height; the R9 M375X has no dimension data. The FirePro W5000 has a launch MSRP of 599 USD, while the R9 M375X has no recorded launch MSRP. Both share the same bus interface (PCIe 3.0 x16), the same API set (DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.2.170), the same memory type (GDDR5), and the same memory capacity (2 GB).