AMD FirePro W5100 vs AMD Radeon Pro 450 Comparison

The Verdict

The recorded data separates these two AMD professional GPUs cleanly by workload and platform. The AMD FirePro W5100 is the stronger compute device in every head-to-head benchmark listed, winning both recorded tests with double-digit margins. Its average benchmark score of 12,847 places it in the 52nd percentile of all GPUs, while the AMD Radeon Pro 450 averages 10,804, sitting in the 49th percentile. For users who need raw OpenCL or Vulkan throughput in a desktop workstation, the FirePro W5100 is the clear choice from the numbers. The Radeon Pro 450, however, is the only one of the two with a Metal benchmark score (12,893), which makes it the relevant option for macOS-centric workflows, particularly in portable or compact systems where its 35 W power draw and MXM form factor matter. The verdict is not about which is universally better, but which fits the environment: the FirePro W5100 for maximum cross-platform compute in a PCIe 3.0 x16 desktop slot, the Radeon Pro 450 for low-power, bus-limited, Metal-optimized portable systems.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different generations of AMD's Graphics Core Next design. The FirePro W5100 uses the Bonaire chip on GCN 2.0, fabricated on TSMC's 28 nm process. The Radeon Pro 450 uses the Baffin chip on GCN 4.0, built by GlobalFoundries on a 14 nm process. This node shrink is significant: the Radeon Pro 450 packs 3,000 million transistors into a 123 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 24.4 million per square millimeter. The FirePro W5100 contains 2,080 million transistors on a 160 mm² die, for a density of 13.0 million per square millimeter. The newer process allows the Radeon Pro 450 to run at a lower 35 W TDP despite having nearly 50% more transistors.

The compute configurations differ as well. The FirePro W5100 has 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The Radeon Pro 450 has fewer shading units (640), fewer TMUs (40), but the same 16 ROPs. The FirePro W5100's higher shading unit count gives it a theoretical FP32 throughput of 1,428.5 GFLOPS, while the Radeon Pro 450 reaches 1,024.0 GFLOPS. Notably, the Radeon Pro 450 also lists FP16 performance at 1,024.0 GFLOPS (1:1 ratio), a feature absent from the FirePro W5100's data. Memory subsystems are similar in bus width (128 bit for both) but differ in size and speed: the FirePro W5100 has 4 GB of GDDR5 at 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective) for 96.00 GB/s bandwidth, while the Radeon Pro 450 has 2 GB at 1270 MHz (5.1 Gbps effective) for 81.28 GB/s. API support shows one notable gap: the FirePro W5100 lists Vulkan 1.2.170, while the Radeon Pro 450 lists Vulkan 1.3. Both support DirectX 12 (12_0) and OpenGL 4.6.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records two direct comparisons, and the FirePro W5100 wins both. In Geekbench OpenCL, the FirePro W5100 scores 11,888 against the Radeon Pro 450's 9,002, a delta of 32.1%. That is a substantial lead, more than a quarter ahead, and it aligns with the FirePro's higher shading unit count and memory bandwidth. In Geekbench Vulkan, the FirePro W5100 scores 13,805 against 10,518, a delta of 31.3%. Again, the older architecture wins by a wide margin, likely due to its greater raw compute resources and wider memory pipeline.

The absence of a Metal benchmark for the FirePro W5100 is telling. The Radeon Pro 450 records 12,893 in Geekbench Metal, which is its strongest result and actually higher than its OpenCL score. This suggests the Radeon Pro 450 is tuned for Apple's Metal API, which aligns with its "Radeon Pro Mac (400 Series)" generation label. The FirePro W5100 has no Metal score in the database, so cross-API comparisons cannot be made directly. But within the two shared benchmarks, the FirePro W5100 is consistently about a third faster, a pattern that holds across different GPU APIs.

Looking at nearest rivals for context: the FirePro W5100's average score of 12,847 sits within 0.1% of the AMD Radeon Pro 455 (12,831) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 590 (12,830), and 0.2% below the AMD Radeon 740M (12,870). The Radeon Pro 450's average of 10,804 is 0.4% above the NVIDIA Quadro K2200 (10,761), 0.7% below the NVIDIA GeForce MX350 (10,883), and 1.1% above the GeForce GTX 560 Ti (10,690). In other words, the FirePro W5100 competes in a higher performance tier, roughly matching mid-range cards from several generations, while the Radeon Pro 450 sits in a lower tier, closer to entry-level mobile GPUs.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The AMD FirePro W5100 has 768 shading units, while the AMD Radeon Pro 450 has 640. This 128-unit difference contributes to the FirePro's higher FP32 throughput of 1,428.5 GFLOPS versus 1,024.0 GFLOPS.

Q: What is the memory size difference?

A: The FirePro W5100 has 4 GB of GDDR5, while the Radeon Pro 450 has 2 GB. Both use a 128-bit bus, but the FirePro's memory runs at 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective) for 96.00 GB/s bandwidth, compared to 1270 MHz (5.1 Gbps effective) for 81.28 GB/s.

Q: Which GPU supports the newer Vulkan version?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 450 lists Vulkan 1.3, while the AMD FirePro W5100 lists Vulkan 1.2.170. Both support DirectX 12 (12_0) and OpenGL 4.6.

Q: Is there a Metal benchmark for both GPUs?

A: No. The database only records a Geekbench Metal score for the Radeon Pro 450 (12,893). The FirePro W5100 has no Metal score listed, only OpenCL and Vulkan.

Q: How does the FirePro W5100 compare to its closest rival, the Radeon Pro 455?

A: The FirePro W5100's average benchmark score is 12,847, which is 0.1% above the AMD Radeon Pro 455's 12,831. This is effectively a statistical tie.

Q: What are the power consumption figures?

A: The FirePro W5100 has a TDP of 50 W and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The Radeon Pro 450 has a TDP of 35 W and no suggested PSU listed.

Where Each One Wins

The FirePro W5100 wins decisively in raw compute benchmarks. Its OpenCL score is 32.1% higher than the Radeon Pro 450, and its Vulkan score is 31.3% higher. This makes it the better choice for OpenCL-heavy workloads such as general-purpose GPU computing, video encoding, or scientific simulations that do not rely on Metal. It also has double the VRAM (4 GB vs 2 GB), which matters for large datasets or high-resolution textures. Its form factor is a single-slot PCIe 3.0 x16 card with four DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, suitable for multi-display professional setups. The 50 W TDP is modest for a desktop card, and it draws power directly from the slot with no additional power connectors.

The Radeon Pro 450 wins in portability and API coverage. Its 35 W TDP is lower, and its MXM Module form factor is designed for laptops or all-in-one systems. It is the only one of the two with a Metal benchmark score (12,893), which is its highest recorded result, so for macOS users running Metal-accelerated applications, this GPU has a clear advantage. Its Vulkan 1.3 support is newer than the FirePro's 1.2.170, which may matter for compatibility with the latest Vulkan applications. The Radeon Pro 450 also offers FP16 compute at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, a feature the FirePro W5100 does not list, which could benefit machine learning inference or other half-precision workloads.

The bus interface also differs: the FirePro W5100 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the Radeon Pro 450 uses PCIe 3.0 x8. This halves the available bandwidth for the Radeon Pro 450, but in a portable device, that is often the physical limit of the platform. The display outputs reflect their intended markets: the FirePro W5100 has four DisplayPort 1.2 connectors, while the Radeon Pro 450's outputs are described as "Portable Device Dependent," meaning they vary by the host laptop.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every architectural specification except for the ROP count, memory type, and bus width. Here are the fields where they diverge:

• Chip: Bonaire (FirePro W5100) vs Baffin (Radeon Pro 450)
• Architecture: GCN 2.0 vs GCN 4.0
• Generation: FirePro GCN (Wx100) vs Radeon Pro Mac (400 Series)
• Process node: 28 nm (TSMC) vs 14 nm (GlobalFoundries)
• Transistors: 2,080 million vs 3,000 million
• Die size: 160 mm² vs 123 mm²
• Transistor density: 13.0M / mm² vs 24.4M / mm²
• Memory clock: 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective) vs 1270 MHz (5.1 Gbps effective)
• Memory size: 4 GB vs 2 GB
• Memory bandwidth: 96.00 GB/s vs 81.28 GB/s
• Shading units: 768 vs 640
• Texture mapping units: 48 vs 40
• Pixel rate: 14.88 GPixel/s vs 12.80 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 44.64 GTexel/s vs 32.00 GTexel/s
• FP32 performance: 1,428.5 GFLOPS vs 1,024.0 GFLOPS
• FP16 performance: Not listed vs 1,024.0 GFLOPS (1:1)
• TDP: 50 W vs 35 W
• Slot width: Single-slot vs MXM Module
• Power connectors: None vs not listed
• Suggested PSU: 250 W vs not listed
• Bus interface: PCIe 3.0 x16 vs PCIe 3.0 x8
• Display outputs: 4x DisplayPort 1.2 vs Portable Device Dependent
• Vulkan version: 1.2.170 vs 1.3
• Dimensions: 173 mm (6.8 inches) length, 111 mm (4.4 inches) height vs not listed
• Release date: 2014-03-30 vs 2016-10-29
• Predecessor: FirePro Terascale vs not listed
• Successor: Radeon Pro Polaris vs not listed
• Geekbench Metal score: Not listed vs 12,893