AMD FirePro W5000 vs Intel Arc A380 Comparison

# FAQ

Q: How do the two cards compare in overall benchmark performance?

A: The Intel Arc A380 holds a decisive advantage in the recorded OpenCL benchmark. The Arc A380 scored 38,224, while the AMD FirePro W5000 scored 9,803. This represents a 74.4% delta in favor of the Intel card, meaning the Arc A380 is roughly four times faster in this specific compute workload.

Q: Which card has better driver and API support for modern games?

A: The Intel Arc A380 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), Vulkan 1.4, and OpenGL 4.6. The AMD FirePro W5000 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), Vulkan 1.2.170, and OpenGL 4.6. The Arc A380's DirectX 12 Ultimate and newer Vulkan version make it more suited for contemporary titles, while the FirePro W5000's DirectX 12 (11_1) is more limited.

Q: What are the memory specifications of each card?

A: The AMD FirePro W5000 has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, providing 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel Arc A380 has 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 96-bit bus, delivering 186.0 GB/s of bandwidth. Despite the narrower bus, the Arc A380 offers triple the capacity and nearly double the bandwidth.

Q: Which card has higher pixel and texture fill rates?

A: The Intel Arc A380 leads significantly in both metrics. It delivers 65.60 GPixel/s pixel rate and 131.2 GTexel/s texture rate, compared to the FirePro W5000's 26.40 GPixel/s and 39.60 GTexel/s. This indicates the Arc A380 can handle higher resolutions and more detailed textures more effectively.

Q: Are these cards still in production?

A: No, both cards are end-of-life products. The AMD FirePro W5000 was released on August 6, 2012, and the Intel Arc A380 was released on June 13, 2022. Both have successors: the FirePro W5000's successor is the Radeon Pro Polaris, while the Arc A380's successor is Battlemage.

Q: What are the physical dimensions and power requirements?

A: The FirePro W5000 measures 183 mm in length and 111 mm in height, is single-slot, and requires no power connectors. The Arc A380 measures 222 mm in length, 114 mm in height, and 42 mm in width, is dual-slot, and requires a single 8-pin power connector. Both have a 75 W TDP and a suggested PSU of 250 W.

Architecture Differences

The AMD FirePro W5000 is built on the Pitcairn chip using the GCN 1.0 architecture, part of the FirePro GCN (Wx000) generation. It uses a 28 nm process node from TSMC, with 2,800 million transistors packed into a 212 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 13.2 million per mm². This architecture was designed for professional workstation workloads, emphasizing compute performance and stability over gaming features. It has no dedicated ray tracing or tensor cores, as those technologies were not part of the GCN 1.0 design.

The Intel Arc A380 uses the DG2-128 chip with the Xe-HPG architecture, belonging to the Alchemist (Arc 3) generation. It is fabricated on a much more advanced 6 nm process node, also from TSMC, with 7,200 million transistors on a smaller 157 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 45.9 million per mm². The Xe-HPG architecture is Intel's dedicated gaming GPU design, featuring 8 ray tracing cores, which the FirePro W5000 lacks entirely. This architectural difference is fundamental: the FirePro W5000 is a workstation-era GPU from 2012, while the Arc A380 is a modern consumer gaming and compute card from 2022.

The two cards also differ in their compute resource allocation. The FirePro W5000 has 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 32 raster output units. The Arc A380 has 1024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 32 raster output units. The Arc A380 thus has 33% more shading units and 33% more TMUs, while matching the ROP count. This structural advantage translates directly into higher fill rates and compute throughput.

Memory architecture also differs fundamentally. The FirePro W5000 uses a 256-bit memory bus with GDDR5, while the Arc A380 uses a 96-bit bus with GDDR6. The Arc A380 compensates for its narrower bus with a much higher memory clock: 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective) versus the FirePro's 800 MHz (3.2 Gbps effective). The result is that the Arc A380 achieves 186.0 GB/s bandwidth versus 102.4 GB/s, plus it has 6 GB capacity versus 2 GB.

The bus interface differs as well: the FirePro W5000 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the Arc A380 uses PCIe 4.0 x8. The newer PCIe 4.0 standard provides higher bandwidth per lane, so the Arc A380's x8 configuration is competitive with the older x16 interface. Display outputs also differ: the FirePro W5000 offers 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2, while the Arc A380 provides 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 2.0.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available in the database is the Geekbench OpenCL test. In this compute workload, the Intel Arc A380 achieves a score of 38,224, while the AMD FirePro W5000 scores 9,803. The delta is 74.4% in favor of the Arc A380, meaning the Intel card outperforms the AMD card by a factor of approximately 3.9 in raw OpenCL compute performance.

This result is particularly striking because the FirePro W5000's nearest rivals in the database are all NVIDIA cards. The FirePro W5000 scores within 0.2% of the GeForce GTX 1070 (9,780), 0.3% of the Quadro M2000M (9,832), 0.4% of the Quadro 6000 (9,846), and 0.8% above the Tesla M10 (9,724). This puts the FirePro W5000 in a performance class around 9,700 to 9,850 for OpenCL compute, which is roughly a quarter of the Arc A380's score.

The Arc A380's nearest rivals paint a different picture. Its average benchmark score across all tests is 8,558, and it sits within 0.4% of the AMD FirePro W5170M (8,595), 1.1% above the Radeon HD 8870M (8,462), 1.2% above the GeForce MX330 (8,458), and 1.4% above the Radeon 880M (8,436). Note that the Arc A380's average score is lower than its OpenCL score because it includes multiple PassMark tests where scores are much lower, such as PassMark DirectX 9 at 73, DirectX 10 at 37, DirectX 11 at 38, and DirectX 12 at 35. These low DirectX scores likely reflect driver overhead or test-specific limitations rather than raw hardware capability.

In terms of other benchmarks recorded for the Arc A380, the Vulkan score is 36,736, which is close to its OpenCL score of 38,224. The PassMark G3D score is 6,252, and the PassMark GPU Compute score is 2,762. The PassMark G2D score is 610. These numbers show that the Arc A380's performance varies significantly across different test suites, with modern API tests (OpenCL, Vulkan) showing much higher scores than legacy DirectX tests.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the AMD FirePro W5000 and Intel Arc A380:

• Architecture: GCN 1.0 vs Xe-HPG
• Generation: FirePro GCN (Wx000) vs Alchemist (Arc 3)
• Process node: 28 nm vs 6 nm
• Transistors: 2,800 million vs 7,200 million
• Die size: 212 mm² vs 157 mm²
• Transistor density: 13.2M / mm² vs 45.9M / mm²
• Base clock: Not listed vs 2000 MHz
• Boost clock: Not listed vs 2050 MHz
• Memory clock: 800 MHz (3.2 Gbps effective) vs 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective)
• Memory size: 2 GB vs 6 GB
• Memory type: GDDR5 vs GDDR6
• Memory bus width: 256 bit vs 96 bit
• Memory bandwidth: 102.4 GB/s vs 186.0 GB/s
• Shading units: 768 vs 1024
• TMUs: 48 vs 64
• ROPs: 32 vs 32 (same)
• Ray tracing cores: None vs 8
• Pixel rate: 26.40 GPixel/s vs 65.60 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 39.60 GTexel/s vs 131.2 GTexel/s
• FP32: 1,267.2 GFLOPS vs 4.198 TFLOPS
• FP16: Not listed vs 8.397 TFLOPS (2:1)
• Slot width: Single-slot vs Dual-slot
• Power connectors: None vs 1x 8-pin
• Bus interface: PCIe 3.0 x16 vs PCIe 4.0 x8
• Display outputs: 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort 1.2 vs 1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 2.0
• DirectX support: 12 (11_1) vs 12 Ultimate (12_2)
• Vulkan support: 1.2.170 vs 1.4
• Dimensions: 183 mm x 111 mm vs 222 mm x 114 mm x 42 mm
• Release date: August 6, 2012 vs June 13, 2022
• Predecessor: FirePro Terascale vs Xe Graphics
• Successor: Radeon Pro Polaris vs Battlemage
• Launch MSRP: 599 USD vs 149 USD

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc A380 wins in essentially every measurable performance category. Its FP32 compute is 4.198 TFLOPS versus 1,267.2 GFLOPS, making it more than three times faster in single-precision floating-point operations. Its pixel rate is 65.60 GPixel/s versus 26.40 GPixel/s, and its texture rate is 131.2 GTexel/s versus 39.60 GTexel/s. Memory bandwidth is 186.0 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s, and capacity is 6 GB versus 2 GB. The Arc A380 also adds ray tracing cores, which the FirePro W5000 does not have.

The Arc A380 is the clear winner for modern gaming, particularly at 1080p with medium to high settings, due to its newer architecture, DirectX 12 Ultimate support, and ray tracing capability. It also wins for compute workloads that can leverage OpenCL or Vulkan, as demonstrated by its 38,224 OpenCL score versus 9,803 for the FirePro W5000. The 6 GB memory capacity is more suitable for modern game textures and larger datasets.

The AMD FirePro W5000 does have a few advantages, though they are narrower. It is a single-slot card with no power connectors required, making it easier to install in compact systems. Its 256-bit memory bus, while paired with slower GDDR5, may offer better memory efficiency in certain access patterns. The FirePro W5000's 2 GB memory might be sufficient for older or less demanding workloads. Its launch MSRP was 599 USD, which reflects its workstation positioning, though both cards are now end-of-life.

For legacy workstation applications that were designed around GCN 1.0-era features, the FirePro W5000 may have more mature driver support. Its DirectX 12 (11_1) support is lower than the Arc A380's DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), but for older OpenGL applications, both support OpenGL 4.6 equally. The FirePro W5000's smaller physical footprint (183 mm vs 222 mm length) could be an advantage in space-constrained builds.

The Verdict

The benchmark data presents an unambiguous picture: the Intel Arc A380 is the superior card in nearly every technical aspect. Its 74.4% lead in OpenCL compute, combined with higher fill rates, more memory, newer process node, and modern API support, makes it the obvious choice for anyone building a system for gaming or general compute tasks. The Arc A380's 8 ray tracing cores and DirectX 12 Ultimate support give it capabilities the FirePro W5000 simply cannot match, as the latter predates ray tracing entirely.

For users with legacy professional applications that were optimized for GCN architecture, the FirePro W5000 might still function, but its 2012-era technology limits its relevance. The 2 GB memory capacity is a hard constraint for modern workloads, and the 1,267.2 GFLOPS FP32 performance is less than a third of the Arc A380's 4.198 TFLOPS. The FirePro W5000's only clear advantages are its single-slot design and lack of power connectors, which matter only in very specific form-factor-constrained builds.

The database's percentile rankings reflect this: the FirePro W5000 sits at the 47th percentile of all GPUs, while the Arc A380 sits at the 44th percentile. These rankings are based on average benchmark scores across all recorded tests, and the Arc A380's lower percentile is influenced by its weak PassMark DirectX scores, which may not represent real-world gaming performance. In the head-to-head OpenCL test, the Arc A380's dominance is overwhelming.

Choosing between these two cards today is straightforward. For gaming, modern compute, or any workload that benefits from Vulkan 1.4 or DirectX 12 Ultimate, the Intel Arc A380 is the only rational pick. For extremely specific legacy workstation tasks where the FirePro W5000's GCN 1.0 architecture has known compatibility, and where physical size constraints matter, the FirePro W5000 retains a niche. Otherwise, the Arc A380's threefold FP32 advantage, doubled memory bandwidth, and triple memory capacity make it the decisive winner.