AMD FirePro W5000 vs NVIDIA GeForce MX350 Comparison

NVIDIA GeForce MX350 and AMD FirePro W5000 are both end-of-life graphics cards, but they target different eras and use cases. The data shows a single head-to-head benchmark result, with the AMD FirePro W5000 leading in OpenCL performance, while the NVIDIA card counters with a notable advantage in Vulkan compute. The MX350 is a modern, low-power Pascal part, whereas the FirePro W5000 is an older, power-hungry workstation card with a wider memory bus. This analysis walks through the benchmarks, highlights where each card excels, and details the architectural and specification differences that define their respective positions.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test. In this benchmark, the AMD FirePro W5000 scores 9,803 points, while the NVIDIA GeForce MX350 scores 8,689 points. This gives the AMD card a decisive 11.4% advantage over the NVIDIA part. This is a substantial lead, indicating that the FirePro W5000 delivers meaningfully higher raw compute throughput in this cross-platform API. The data shows a clear winner in this specific test, with the AMD card outperforming its rival by a significant margin.

Looking at the broader benchmark landscape, the MX350 has additional data points. It scores 13,077 in the Geekbench Vulkan test, a result that is not available for the FirePro W5000. This Vulkan score is notably higher than its own OpenCL score, suggesting that the Pascal architecture is particularly efficient in this modern API. While this does not directly compare to the FirePro, it highlights a strength of the NVIDIA card that the AMD competitor cannot match, simply because no Vulkan result exists for the FirePro W5000.

The average benchmark scores further contextualize the rivalry. The MX350 posts an average score of 10,883, which is 10% higher than the FirePro W5000's average of 9,803. This average includes the MX350's strong Vulkan performance, which compensates for its deficit in OpenCL. The FirePro’s average is based solely on its OpenCL result, making the comparison between the two cards dependent on which API is being used. The data suggests that the FirePro wins the OpenCL workload, but the MX350 is the more balanced performer when considering its available benchmark results.

In terms of relative standing, the MX350 sits at the 49th percentile of all GPUs, slightly ahead of the FirePro W5000, which is at the 47th percentile. The nearest rivals for the MX350 include the AMD Radeon Pro 450, which it beats by 0.7%, and the NVIDIA Quadro K2200, which it leads by 1.1%. It trails the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER by 1.5% and the AMD Radeon RX 550 by 1.7%. For the FirePro W5000, its closest competitor is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070, which it edges out by 0.2%, while it lags behind the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M by 0.3% and the NVIDIA Quadro 6000 by 0.4%, but beats the NVIDIA Tesla M10 by 0.8%. These figures show both cards are tightly clustered with their immediate rivals.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD FirePro W5000 is the clear winner in OpenCL compute workloads. Its 11.4% lead over the MX350 in this specific test is the single biggest differentiator in the data. This suggests that for applications that rely heavily on OpenCL for general-purpose GPU computing, the older AMD card has a tangible performance edge. The FirePro also possesses a 256-bit memory bus, which provides 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth, a figure that dwarfs the MX350's 56.06 GB/s. This substantial bandwidth advantage likely benefits memory-intensive tasks, even if the direct benchmark does not isolate this factor.

The NVIDIA GeForce MX350 wins in the Vulkan API, where it scores 13,077, a result that is entirely absent for the FirePro W5000. This indicates that the MX350 is the superior choice for workloads that utilize Vulkan, which is a modern, low-overhead API commonly used in gaming and compute. The absence of any Vulkan data for the FirePro suggests it may not be well-suited for this newer standard. The MX350 also wins on efficiency, with a 20 W TDP compared to the FirePro's 75 W, meaning it delivers its performance at a fraction of the power draw.

The specification data reveals other areas of advantage. The MX350 has a higher FP32 throughput at 1.879 TFLOPS, compared to the FirePro's 1,267.2 GFLOPS. This suggests the NVIDIA card is faster at single-precision floating-point math, which is common in many graphics and compute tasks. However, the FirePro counters with a higher pixel rate of 26.40 GPixel/s versus the MX350's 23.49 GPixel/s, and a higher texture rate of 39.60 GTexel/s versus 46.98 GTexel/s for the MX350? The data shows the MX350 actually has a higher texture rate at 46.98 GTexel/s, indicating a win for NVIDIA in that specific metric. The FirePro does lead in pixel fill rate, however.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the data, the choice between these two cards depends heavily on the intended application. For users prioritizing OpenCL compute performance, the AMD FirePro W5000 is the stronger option. Its 11.4% lead over the MX350 in the head-to-head OpenCL test is a definitive advantage. The FirePro also offers significantly more memory bandwidth, which can be critical for certain professional workloads. This card is positioned for tasks that were common in its era, leveraging its 256-bit bus to move large amounts of data.

For users who need Vulkan support or prioritize power efficiency, the NVIDIA GeForce MX350 is the better pick. Its Vulkan score of 13,077 shows a capability that the FirePro simply does not have in the data. The MX350's 20 W TDP makes it a far more energy-efficient solution, suitable for compact systems where heat and power are concerns. Its higher FP32 compute rate also gives it an edge in single-precision tasks. The MX350 represents a modern approach to low-power computing, while the FirePro represents an older, more power-hungry design.

The data does not support a universal winner. The FirePro W5000 wins the only direct benchmark, but the MX350 has a higher average score across its available tests and a better overall percentile ranking. The FirePro is a specialized workstation part from 2012, while the MX350 is a 2020 mobile-oriented chip. The former will appeal to users with legacy OpenCL workflows, while the latter is more versatile for modern APIs and power-sensitive builds. The verdict is that the FirePro wins on raw OpenCL muscle, but the MX350 is the more modern and balanced performer.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher score in the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark?

A: The AMD FirePro W5000 has the higher OpenCL score, achieving 9,803 points compared to the NVIDIA GeForce MX350's 8,689 points, a difference of 11.4%.

Q: Is there a benchmark where the NVIDIA GeForce MX350 wins?

A: Yes, the MX350 has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 13,077, a test for which no result is listed for the AMD FirePro W5000.

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX350 has a higher average benchmark score of 10,883, compared to the AMD FirePro W5000's average of 9,803.

Q: How do the memory bandwidths compare between the two cards?

A: The AMD FirePro W5000 has a 256-bit memory bus providing 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth, while the NVIDIA GeForce MX350 has a 64-bit bus providing 56.06 GB/s.

Q: What is the difference in power consumption between the two GPUs?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX350 has a TDP of 20 W, while the AMD FirePro W5000 has a TDP of 75 W, making the MX350 significantly more power-efficient.

Q: Which card offers a higher FP32 (single-precision) compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX350 offers a higher FP32 performance at 1.879 TFLOPS, whereas the AMD FirePro W5000 delivers 1,267.2 GFLOPS.

Architecture Differences

The NVIDIA GeForce MX350 is built on the Pascal architecture using the GP107S chip, manufactured on a 14 nm process at Samsung. It contains 3,300 million transistors on a die size of 132 mm², yielding a transistor density of 25.0M per mm². In contrast, the AMD FirePro W5000 uses the older GCN 1.0 architecture with the Pitcairn chip, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. This chip contains 2,800 million transistors on a larger die of 212 mm², resulting in a lower density of 13.2M per mm².

The shader configurations differ notably. The MX350 has 640 shading units, 32 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 16 render output units (ROPs). The FirePro W5000 has more of each, with 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. Neither card features dedicated ray tracing cores or tensor cores. The API support also differs, with the MX350 supporting DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The FirePro W5000 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170.

The memory architecture is a major separation point. The MX350 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus, while the FirePro W5000 also has 2 GB of GDDR5 but on a much wider 256-bit bus. This leads to the FirePro's 102.4 GB/s bandwidth versus the MX350's 56.06 GB/s. The memory clocks are also different, with the MX350 running at 1752 MHz (7 Gbps effective) and the FirePro at 800 MHz (3.2 Gbps effective). The process technology and transistor density highlight the generational gap, with the MX350 being a more modern, denser design.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across several key specifications. The most obvious is the process node, where the MX350 uses a 14 nm process versus the FirePro W5000's 28 nm process. This is a direct contributor to the MX350's lower power draw. The transistor count and die size also differ, with the MX350 having 3,300 million transistors on a 132 mm² die, and the FirePro W5000 having 2,800 million on a 212 mm² die.

Clock speeds are another area of divergence. The MX350 has a base clock of 1354 MHz and a boost clock of 1468 MHz. The FirePro W5000 has no base or boost clock listed in the data. The memory clocks differ, with the MX350 at 1752 MHz (7 Gbps effective) and the FirePro at 800 MHz (3.2 Gbps effective). The memory bus width is a major difference: 64-bit for the MX350 and 256-bit for the FirePro W5000.

The power profiles are vastly different. The MX350 has a TDP of 20 W, while the FirePro W5000 has a TDP of 75 W and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The FirePro is a single-slot card with dimensions of 183 mm in length and 111 mm in height, while the MX350 has no listed dimensions or slot width. The bus interface also differs, with the MX350 using PCIe 3.0 x4 and the FirePro using PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs are "Portable Device Dependent" for the MX350, while the FirePro offers 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2. The FirePro has a launch MSRP of 599 USD, while the MX350 has no listed launch MSRP.