AMD FirePro W5000 vs NVIDIA GeForce MX330 Comparison

AMD FirePro W5000 vs NVIDIA GeForce MX330: a workstation veteran from 2012 against a mobile entry-level chip from 2020. The database records only one direct head-to-head benchmark, but the surrounding data reveals a clear split between professional compute capability and modern API support. The FirePro W5000 wins the sole recorded test by a decisive margin, yet the MX330 counters with architectural advantages that matter for contemporary software.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD FirePro W5000 dominates in raw OpenCL compute throughput. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 9803 outstrips the MX330's 7896 by 24.2%, a gap that reflects its larger GPU core configuration: 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs versus 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 16 ROPs on the MX330. The W5000 also enjoys a massive memory bandwidth advantage at 102.4 GB/s over the MX330's 56.06 GB/s, thanks to a 256-bit bus versus a 64-bit bus. For workloads that stress parallel floating-point execution or memory throughput, the FirePro is the clear victor.

The NVIDIA GeForce MX330 wins in efficiency and API modernity. Its 10 W TDP is dramatically lower than the W5000's 75 W, making it suitable for ultraportable designs where power draw is critical. It also supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, whereas the W5000 only reaches DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170. The MX330's Pascal architecture, built on Samsung's 14 nm process, packs 24.3 million transistors per square millimeter versus the W5000's 13.2M/mm² on TSMC's 28 nm node. This density advantage enables modern feature support in a far smaller package, though it does not translate into higher raw compute scores.

The data implies a use-case split: the FirePro W5000 serves legacy workstation tasks that value bandwidth and shader count, while the MX330 fits into thin-and-light laptops needing basic acceleration with minimal power consumption.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD FirePro W5000 records an average benchmark score of 9803, while the NVIDIA GeForce MX330 averages 8458 across its two recorded tests (OpenCL and Vulkan). The W5000 sits at the 47th percentile of all GPUs, the MX330 at the 43rd.

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

A: The W5000's 9803 score places it within 0.4% of the NVIDIA Quadro 6000 (9846) and 0.3% below the Quadro M2000M (9832). It edges out the GTX 1070 (9780) by 0.2% and the Tesla M10 (9724) by 0.8%.

Q: What benchmark does the MX330 win?

A: The MX330 has no recorded wins in the head-to-head comparison. It only participates in two tests: Geekbench OpenCL (7896) and Geekbench Vulkan (9019). The single overlapping test with the W5000, OpenCL, goes to the AMD card.

Q: Is the MX330 competitive with its peer group?

A: Yes, the MX330's average score of 8458 is nearly identical to the AMD Radeon HD 8870M (8462, 0% delta) and the AMD Radeon 880M (8436, 0.3% ahead). It trails the Intel Arc A380 (8558) by 1.2% but leads the GTX 675MX (8427) by 0.4%.

Q: What are the memory specifications of each card?

A: Both use 2 GB of GDDR5, but the W5000 has a 256-bit bus delivering 102.4 GB/s bandwidth, while the MX330 has a 64-bit bus delivering 56.06 GB/s. The W5000's memory runs at 800 MHz (3.2 Gbps effective), the MX330's at 1752 MHz (7 Gbps effective).

Q: Which card supports newer graphics APIs?

A: The MX330 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, both newer than the W5000's DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170. Both cards support OpenGL 4.6.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains exactly one direct comparison: Geekbench OpenCL. The AMD FirePro W5000 scores 9803 against the NVIDIA GeForce MX330's 7896, a 24.2% advantage. This is a substantial margin, reflecting the W5000's larger shader array and wider memory interface. The MX330's higher clock speeds (1531 MHz base, 1594 MHz boost versus the W5000's unlisted clocks) cannot compensate for having half the shading units and a quarter of the memory bus width.

Beyond the direct test, the average scores reinforce this picture. The W5000's single benchmark result of 9803 also serves as its average, while the MX330's average of 8458 combines its 7896 OpenCL score with a stronger 9019 Vulkan result. The Vulkan score suggests the MX330 performs better in modern API workloads, but the W5000 was never tested under Vulkan, so no cross-comparison exists in the data.

The nearest-rival data contextualizes the gap. The W5000 sits among professional cards like the Quadro 6000 (9846) and M2000M (9832), all within 0.4% of each other. The MX330 clusters with mobile and integrated parts like the Radeon HD 8870M (8462) and Radeon 880M (8436). The 24.2% delta between the two review subjects is larger than any delta within either rival group, indicating they occupy different performance tiers entirely.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs diverge sharply on process technology and physical design. The W5000 uses a 28 nm process at TSMC with 2,800 million transistors on a 212 mm² die. The MX330 uses Samsung's 14 nm process with 1,800 million transistors on a 74 mm² die. Transistor density favors the MX330 at 24.3M/mm² versus 13.2M/mm² for the W5000.

Clock behavior differs: the MX330 lists explicit base (1531 MHz) and boost (1594 MHz) clocks, while the W5000's base and boost clocks are unrecorded. Memory clocks also differ, with the W5000 at 800 MHz (3.2 Gbps effective) and the MX330 at 1752 MHz (7 Gbps effective), though the W5000's wider bus compensates with higher total bandwidth.

The memory subsystem is a major contrast: 2 GB GDDR5 on both, but the W5000 uses a 256-bit bus for 102.4 GB/s, while the MX330 uses a 64-bit bus for 56.06 GB/s. Compute resources favor the W5000: 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs versus 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Pixel rate is nearly identical (26.40 GPixel/s for W5000, 25.50 GPixel/s for MX330), as is texture rate (39.60 GTexel/s versus 38.26 GTexel/s). FP32 performance is also close: 1,267.2 GFLOPS versus 1,224.2 GFLOPS.

Power and physical specs differ dramatically. The W5000 draws 75 W with a suggested 250 W PSU, occupies a single slot, and measures 183 mm by 111 mm. The MX330 draws just 10 W, is an integrated GPU (IGP) with no dimensions listed, and requires no power connectors. The W5000 offers 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs; the MX330's outputs are portable-device dependent. Bus interfaces also differ: PCIe 3.0 x16 for the W5000 versus PCIe 3.0 x4 for the MX330.

Architecture Differences

The W5000 is built on AMD's GCN 1.0 architecture, chip codename Pitcairn, belonging to the FirePro GCN (Wx000) generation. It was released in August 2012, succeeding FirePro Terascale and preceding Radeon Pro Polaris. The MX330 uses NVIDIA's Pascal architecture with the GP108B chip, part of the GeForce MX (3xx) generation, released in February 2020. Its predecessor and successor fields are empty, marking it as a standalone entry.

The process node difference is fundamental: 28 nm for the W5000 versus 14 nm for the MX330. This explains the transistor density gap and the MX330's dramatically lower power consumption despite smaller absolute transistor count. The W5000's larger die and higher transistor count enable its wider memory bus and more compute units, but at the cost of power and physical size.

API support reflects the architectural generation gap. The W5000's GCN 1.0 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), meaning it lacks full DirectX 12 feature levels. The MX330's Pascal supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, indicating broader compatibility with modern game engines and compute APIs. The W5000's Vulkan 1.2.170 is workable but older. Both share OpenGL 4.6.

The MX330 lists FP16 performance at 19.13 GFLOPS (1:64 ratio), a negligible amount, while the W5000 has no FP16 data. Neither card features ray tracing or tensor cores, as both fields are null.

The Verdict

The data directs different buyers to each card. The AMD FirePro W5000 is the choice for anyone needing maximum OpenCL compute performance in a desktop workstation. Its 24.2% lead over the MX330 in the recorded benchmark, combined with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth and 768 shading units, makes it objectively stronger for parallel workloads. The 47th percentile ranking and proximity to cards like the Quadro 6000 (within 0.4%) place it in professional company.

The NVIDIA GeForce MX330 suits portable systems where power efficiency and modern API support outweigh raw throughput. Its 10 W TDP enables fanless or ultra-thin designs impossible with the 75 W W5000. The Vulkan 1.4 and DirectX 12 (12_1) support ensure compatibility with contemporary software, something the W5000's older API levels cannot guarantee.

Users with legacy workstation applications that leverage OpenCL and need high memory bandwidth should choose the W5000, recognizing its end-of-life status and 2012 release date. Users building or buying a modern thin laptop with modest GPU needs should pick the MX330, accepting its 43rd percentile ranking and lower compute scores in exchange for efficiency and platform fit. The 24.2% benchmark gap is decisive, but the architectural differences make each card the rational choice for its intended environment. Neither card excels as an all-rounder; the data supports them as specialized tools for different jobs.