AMD FirePro W5100 vs AMD Radeon 660M Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon 660M leads with an average benchmark score of 13812, compared to 12847 for the AMD FirePro W5100. This places the 660M at the 55th percentile of all GPUs, while the W5100 sits at the 52nd percentile.

Q: How does the Radeon 660M's memory configuration differ from the FirePro W5100's?

A: The Radeon 660M uses system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth, while the FirePro W5100 has 4 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus with 96.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The 660M's memory clock is listed as "System Shared" whereas the W5100 runs at 1500 MHz with 6 Gbps effective.

Q: What are the pixel and texture throughput differences?

A: The Radeon 660M delivers 30.40 GPixel/s and 45.60 GTexel/s, whereas the FirePro W5100 provides 14.88 GPixel/s and 44.64 GTexel/s. The 660M is roughly twice as fast in pixel fill rate, though texture rates are nearly identical.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units and texture mapping units?

A: The FirePro W5100 has 768 shading units and 48 TMUs, compared to 384 shading units and 24 TMUs on the Radeon 660M. Despite this 2:1 advantage in core counts, the 660M still achieves higher FP32 throughput at 1,459.2 GFLOPS versus 1,428.5 GFLOPS.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in API support?

A: The Radeon 660M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The FirePro W5100 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170 — so the 660M has a newer DirectX feature level and a more recent Vulkan version.

Q: What is the transistor count and process node for each chip?

A: The Radeon 660M, based on the Rembrandt chip using RDNA 2.0 architecture, packs 13,100 million transistors on a 6 nm TSMC process. The FirePro W5100 uses the Bonaire chip with GCN 2.0 architecture, containing 2,080 million transistors on a 28 nm TSMC process.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data shows a clear split: the Radeon 660M wins both head-to-head tests — Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan — with a 2-0 record. The FirePro W5100 does not win a single comparison in this dataset.

For compute workloads measured by Geekbench OpenCL, the 660M's advantage is 8.3% (12876 versus 11888). For Vulkan workloads, the gap narrows slightly to 6.8% (14748 versus 13805). The 660M's wins suggest it handles both general-purpose compute and modern graphics APIs more effectively.

Where the FirePro W5100 could still be relevant is in its memory topology: it has 4 GB of dedicated GDDR5 with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth, whereas the 660M relies on system-shared memory with bandwidth that is "System Dependent." In a system with slow RAM, the W5100's fixed memory bandwidth could prove more consistent, though the benchmark data does not measure this scenario. The W5100 also has double the shading units (768 versus 384) and TMUs (48 versus 24), which might help in workloads that scale with raw core counts rather than architectural efficiency — but the actual benchmark scores favor the 660M.

The 660M's 6 nm process gives it a massive transistor density advantage: 63.0M per mm² versus 13.0M per mm². That density translates into a smaller die (208 mm² versus 160 mm²) with far more transistors, yet a lower TDP (40 W versus 50 W). This makes the 660M the more power-efficient choice on paper, though the W5100's single-slot form factor and four DisplayPort 1.2 outputs (versus portable-device-dependent outputs) give it a clear edge for multi-monitor professional setups.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from entirely different architectural lineages. The Radeon 660M uses RDNA 2.0, AMD's modern gaming-focused architecture, built on TSMC's 6 nm process. The FirePro W5100 uses GCN 2.0, an older compute-oriented design, fabricated on a 28 nm process.

The 660M's Rembrandt chip integrates 13,100 million transistors across a 208 mm² die, yielding a density of 63.0M transistors per mm². The W5100's Bonaire chip has 2,080 million transistors on a 160 mm² die, for a density of just 13.0M per mm². This six-generation process gap is the single biggest architectural differentiator — it explains how the 660M can deliver higher performance with fewer shading units.

The 660M includes 6 ray tracing cores, a feature entirely absent from the W5100, which has no RT cores listed. The 660M also supports FP16 compute at 2.918 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), while the W5100 has no FP16 figure listed. This makes the 660M better suited for workloads that leverage mixed-precision math, such as machine learning inference or certain rendering techniques.

Architecturally, the W5100 compensates with raw parallelism: 768 shading units and 48 TMUs versus 384 and 24, respectively. Yet its older GCN design runs at lower efficiency — the 660M achieves 1,459.2 GFLOPS FP32 from half the cores, while the W5100 manages 1,428.5 GFLOPS. The RDNA 2.0 architecture extracts nearly identical compute throughput from a fraction of the hardware.

The bus interface also differs: the 660M uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while the W5100 uses PCIe 3.0 x16. This gives the 660M a newer interconnect standard, though the W5100's full x16 lanes may offer more bandwidth in certain configurations. The 660M is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no slot width and no power connectors, whereas the W5100 is a single-slot discrete card that also requires no power connectors but lists a 250 W suggested PSU.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon 660M | AMD FirePro W5100 |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | RDNA 2.0 | GCN 2.0 |

| Process Node | 6 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 13,100 million | 2,080 million |

| Die Size | 208 mm² | 160 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 63.0M / mm² | 13.0M / mm² |

| Shading Units | 384 | 768 |

| TMUs | 24 | 48 |

| ROPs | 16 | 16 |

| RT Cores | 6 | None |

| Base Clock | 1500 MHz | Not listed |

| Boost Clock | 1900 MHz | Not listed |

| Memory Size | System Shared | 4 GB |

| Memory Type | System Shared | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | System Shared | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | System Dependent | 96.00 GB/s |

| Pixel Rate | 30.40 GPixel/s | 14.88 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 45.60 GTexel/s | 44.64 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 1,459.2 GFLOPS | 1,428.5 GFLOPS |

| FP16 | 2.918 TFLOPS (2:1) | Not listed |

| TDP | 40 W | 50 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | Single-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | None |

| Suggested PSU | Not listed | 250 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 4x DisplayPort 1.2 |

| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (12_0) |

| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.2.170 |

| Dimensions | Not listed | 173 mm length, 111 mm height |

The two GPUs share the same ROP count (16), OpenGL support (4.6), and production status (end-of-life). They also both use TSMC as the foundry and have no launch MSRP listed.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

In Geekbench OpenCL, the Radeon 660M scores 12876 against the FirePro W5100's 11888 — a delta of 8.3%. This is a substantial margin for a compute benchmark, especially considering the W5100 has double the shading units and TMUs. The 660M's architectural efficiency and higher clock speeds (1500 MHz base, 1900 MHz boost versus no listed clocks for the W5100) clearly overcome the core-count deficit.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the 660M again wins, scoring 14748 versus 13805 — a 6.8% advantage. Vulkan workloads tend to favor modern architectures with better driver overhead and feature support. The 660M's Vulkan 1.4 support versus the W5100's 1.2.170 likely contributes to this gap, along with the newer RDNA 2.0 design.

The 660M's average benchmark score of 13812 places it just 0.1% below the NVIDIA RTX A2000 Mobile (13821) and 0.5% above the AMD Radeon RX 7900 XT (13745). Its nearest rivals span a tight range: from the RX 570X at 13871 (-0.4%) to the Tesla K10 at 14029 (-1.5%). The W5100's average of 12847 sits 0.1% above the Radeon Pro 455 (12831) and 0.6% above the GeForce GTX 670 (12773), with the Radeon 740M at 12870 (-0.2%) as its closest competitor.

When comparing the two GPUs directly, the 660M is 7.5% faster on average (13812 versus 12847). The largest single-test gap is in OpenCL, where the 660M's 8.3% lead is nearly double its Vulkan margin. Neither benchmark shows the W5100 winning, and the data suggests the 660M's performance advantage is consistent across different API workloads.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD Radeon 660M wins both head-to-head benchmarks and holds a higher average score (13812 versus 12847), a higher percentile ranking (55th versus 52nd), and a 7.5% overall performance lead. Anyone choosing between these two for raw compute or graphics performance should select the 660M.

The 660M achieves this with fewer shading units (384 versus 768) and TMUs (24 versus 48), relying instead on a modern 6 nm RDNA 2.0 architecture with 6 ray tracing cores, FP16 support, and higher clocks (1500 MHz base, 1900 MHz boost). Its 1,459.2 GFLOPS FP32 output exceeds the W5100's 1,428.5 GFLOPS despite the core-count disadvantage. The 660M also draws less power (40 W versus 50 W) and supports newer APIs (DirectX 12 Ultimate, Vulkan 1.4).

The FirePro W5100's case rests on its dedicated memory and professional form factor. With 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus delivering 96.00 GB/s, it offers fixed bandwidth that the 660M's system-dependent shared memory cannot guarantee. The W5100 is also a single-slot card with four DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, making it the practical choice for multi-monitor professional workstations. Its 173 mm length and 111 mm height are compact, and it needs no power connectors, though it does list a 250 W suggested PSU.

For users who prioritize benchmark performance, modern API support, and power efficiency, the Radeon 660M is the clear winner. For those who need guaranteed memory bandwidth, a discrete card form factor, and multiple display outputs, the FirePro W5100 retains a niche — but the benchmark data shows it trails the 660M in every measured test. The verdict is straightforward: the 660M is the superior GPU by performance metrics, while the W5100's advantages are entirely in its memory and connectivity configuration.