AMD FirePro W5100 vs AMD Radeon Pro 5500M Comparison

The AMD Radeon Pro 5500M and AMD FirePro W5100 represent two distinct eras of AMD professional graphics, separated by a five-year gap in architectural design. The benchmark data shows a decisive performance advantage for the newer Radeon Pro 5500M, which leads in every common test metric, but the FirePro W5100 still holds relevance in specific legacy or power-constrained scenarios. The following analysis breaks down where each card wins, the architectural reasons behind the performance gap, and the implications for potential users.

Where Each One Wins

The Radeon Pro 5500M is the clear victor in raw computational workloads. In the head-to-head benchmarks, it wins both Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan tests by a wide margin. With a 161.5% higher score in OpenCL and a 154.5% higher score in Vulkan, the 5500M is more than twice as fast in these synthetic compute scenarios. Its average benchmark score of 11528, while slightly lower than the FirePro W5100's 12847, is misleading because the 5500M has a much larger set of benchmark results, including DirectX and Passmark tests where the W5100 has no data. The 5500M's percentile rank of 51 places it right at the median of all GPUs, while the W5100 sits at the 52nd percentile, indicating they are broadly comparable in overall standing despite the 5500M's newer architecture.

The FirePro W5100's only advantage is in its efficiency profile, not its performance. It consumes 50 W compared to the 5500M's 85 W, making it a lower-power option for systems with strict thermal or power budgets. The W5100 also offers a fixed set of display outputs with 4x DisplayPort 1.2, while the 5500M's outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent," meaning the W5100 is more suitable for fixed workstation setups with multiple monitors. In terms of physical footprint, the W5100 is a single-slot card measuring 173 mm in length, whereas the 5500M's dimensions are not specified, but its mobile-oriented design suggests it is intended for laptops rather than desktop workstations.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is substantial. The Radeon Pro 5500M uses the Navi 14 chip built on RDNA 1.0 architecture, manufactured on a 7 nm process at TSMC. This contrasts sharply with the FirePro W5100's Bonaire chip, which uses the older GCN 2.0 architecture on a 28 nm process. The transistor counts tell the story: the 5500M packs 6,400 million transistors on a 158 mm² die, yielding a density of 40.5 million transistors per square millimeter. The W5100 has only 2,080 million transistors on a slightly larger 160 mm² die, resulting in a density of just 13.0 million per square millimeter. This 3x difference in transistor density directly explains the 5500M's performance advantage.

The memory subsystems also differ markedly. The 5500M features 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, achieving 192.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The W5100 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on the same 128-bit bus, but only reaches 96.00 GB/s. Both run their memory at 1500 MHz, but the 5500M uses 12 Gbps effective data rate compared to the W5100's 6 Gbps, doubling the bandwidth. The compute resources follow the same pattern: the 5500M has 1536 shading units, 96 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, while the W5100 has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 16 ROPs — exactly half the resources in each category. This translates to a pixel rate of 46.40 GPixel/s for the 5500M versus 14.88 GPixel/s for the W5100, and a texture rate of 139.2 GTexel/s versus 44.64 GTexel/s.

The FP32 compute output is 4.454 TFLOPS for the 5500M, compared to 1,428.5 GFLOPS for the W5100. The 5500M also supports FP16 with a 2:1 ratio, delivering 8.909 TFLOPS, while the W5100 has no listed FP16 capability. The 5500M uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while the W5100 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, though this interface difference is less impactful than the core resource disparity. In terms of API support, both support DirectX 12 and OpenGL 4.6, but the 5500M supports Vulkan 1.4 while the W5100 is limited to Vulkan 1.2.170. The 5500M's DirectX support is 12_1, slightly ahead of the W5100's 12_0.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two common benchmarks between the cards are Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan, and the results are lopsided. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Radeon Pro 5500M scores 31088 against the FirePro W5100's 11888, a delta of 161.5%. This means the 5500M is roughly 2.6 times faster in this compute test, which is consistent with its doubled shading units and higher memory bandwidth. The Vulkan test shows a similar trend: the 5500M scores 35134 versus 13805 for the W5100, a 154.5% difference. The slightly smaller delta in Vulkan suggests the W5100's GCN architecture handles Vulkan workloads relatively better per unit of compute resource, but the absolute gap remains overwhelming.

Beyond these two tests, the 5500M has a broader benchmark profile that the W5100 lacks entirely. The 5500M's Passmark scores show 36 in DirectX 10, 42 in DirectX 11, 29 in DirectX 12, 96 in DirectX 9, 648 in G2D, 6732 in G3D, and 3240 in GPU Compute. The W5100 has no results for any of these tests, which limits direct comparison but also indicates the 5500M is more thoroughly tested across a wider range of workloads. The 5500M's Geekbench Metal score of 38235 further demonstrates its strength in Apple ecosystem applications, a metric not available for the W5100.

It is worth remembering the average benchmark scores for these cards are close, with the 5500M at 11528 and the W5100 at 12847. This is due to the W5100 having only two benchmark results, both of which are relatively high for its architecture, while the 5500M's average is dragged down by its weaker DirectX and Passmark scores. In the nearest rivals list, the 5500M sits close to the NVIDIA Tesla K20c (0.4% ahead), AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT (0.8% behind), and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 (1.3% behind). The W5100 is nearly identical to the AMD Radeon Pro 455 (0.1% ahead) and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 590 (0.1% ahead), showing it performs at a level comparable to older mid-range cards.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in compute workloads?

A: The Radeon Pro 5500M is significantly faster. In Geekbench OpenCL it scores 31088 versus 11888 for the FirePro W5100, a 161.5% advantage. In Geekbench Vulkan, the 5500M scores 35134 versus 13805, a 154.5% advantage.

Q: What is the memory capacity and bandwidth difference?

A: The 5500M has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory with 192.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the W5100 has 4 GB of GDDR5 with 96.00 GB/s. Both use a 128-bit bus, but the 5500M's 12 Gbps effective memory clock doubles the bandwidth.

Q: Which card uses less power?

A: The FirePro W5100 has a 50 W TDP, while the Radeon Pro 5500M has an 85 W TDP. The W5100 also includes a suggested PSU rating of 250 W, whereas no such rating is listed for the 5500M.

Q: Do both cards support the same API levels?

A: Both support DirectX 12 and OpenGL 4.6. The 5500M supports Vulkan 1.4 and DirectX 12_1, while the W5100 supports Vulkan 1.2.170 and DirectX 12_0. The 5500M also supports FP16 compute, which the W5100 does not.

Q: Which card has more display outputs?

A: The FirePro W5100 has 4x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, while the Radeon Pro 5500M's outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent," meaning it relies on the host device for display connectivity.

Q: How do these cards compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The 5500M's average score of 11528 is 0.4% above the NVIDIA Tesla K20c and 2.4% above the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M. The W5100's average of 12847 is 0.1% above the AMD Radeon Pro 455 and 0.6% above the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear choice for most users: the AMD Radeon Pro 5500M is the superior card in every measurable performance category. Its 161.5% lead in OpenCL and 154.5% lead in Vulkan, combined with double the memory capacity and bandwidth, make it the only sensible option for compute-intensive workloads such as rendering, simulation, or machine learning inference. The 5500M's 8 GB of GDDR6 memory is particularly important for modern datasets that exceed the W5100's 4 GB capacity, and its FP16 support at 8.909 TFLOPS opens up mixed-precision workflows that the W5100 cannot handle.

The FirePro W5100 is not without merit, but its advantages are narrow. Its 50 W TDP makes it suitable for legacy systems with limited power delivery, and its 4x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs provide a fixed multi-monitor setup that the mobile-oriented 5500M lacks. The W5100 also has a slightly higher percentile rank at 52 versus 51, though this is a marginal difference. For users running older software that relies on GCN 2.0-specific optimizations or who need a low-profile, single-slot card for a compact workstation, the W5100 remains a functional choice.

However, the architectural gap is decisive. The 5500M's 7 nm RDNA 1.0 design with 6,400 million transistors delivers 4.454 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, a 3.1x increase over the W5100's 1,428.5 GFLOPS. The 5500M also benefits from PCIe 4.0 and Vulkan 1.4 support, ensuring better compatibility with modern software stacks. The W5100, released in March 2014, is a product of its time; its 28 nm process and GCN 2.0 architecture are simply outmatched. For any new deployment, the Radeon Pro 5500M is the data-backed recommendation. For maintaining an existing system with strict power limits, the FirePro W5100 can still serve, but users should expect performance roughly 60% lower in compute tasks.