AMD FirePro W5100 vs AMD Radeon R9 M275X Comparison

AMD FirePro W5100 vs AMD Radeon R9 M275X

The database records two distinct AMD graphics solutions from the same 28 nm TSMC generation, yet they target different workloads. The FirePro W5100 is a workstation-oriented card, while the Radeon R9 M275X is a mobile-class part. Across the two recorded head-to-head benchmarks, the FirePro W5100 wins both, with a modest 6.1% lead in OpenCL and a commanding 38.5% lead in Vulkan. These results position the W5100 as the stronger compute performer, but the R9 M275X still holds relevance in specific scenarios due to its higher boost clocks and different architectural lineage.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD FirePro W5100 dominates in both recorded benchmark categories, making it the clear winner in raw compute throughput. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the W5100 scores 11,888 against the R9 M275X's 11,200, a 6.1% advantage. This gap widens dramatically in the Geekbench Vulkan test, where the W5100 scores 13,805 versus 9,964, a 38.5% lead. The data indicates that the W5100 is particularly strong in API-level compute workloads that leverage modern graphics interfaces, likely due to its newer GCN 2.0 architecture and higher shading unit count.

The Radeon R9 M275X, while losing both benchmarks, does not fall catastrophically behind in OpenCL. Its 11,200 score is within striking distance of the W5100's 11,888, suggesting that in legacy compute APIs the two are more evenly matched. However, the Vulkan result shows a structural disadvantage for the R9 M275X, likely tied to its GCN 1.0 architecture and lower FP32 throughput. For users prioritizing OpenCL compatibility over peak performance, the R9 M275X may suffice, but for any Vulkan-based workload, the W5100 is decisively superior.

In terms of overall average benchmark score, the W5100 records 12,847, placing it in the 52nd percentile of all GPUs. The R9 M275X averages 10,582, sitting in the 49th percentile. This 21.4% difference in average score (calculated from the recorded values) underscores the W5100's higher tier of performance, though both cards remain in the middle of the overall GPU distribution.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs stem from different generations of AMD's Graphics Core Next architecture. The FirePro W5100 uses the Bonaire chip built on GCN 2.0, while the Radeon R9 M275X uses the Venus chip on the original GCN 1.0. Both are fabricated on TSMC's 28 nm process, but the Bonaire die is larger at 160 mm² versus 123 mm² for Venus. Transistor counts follow suit: 2,080 million for Bonaire and 1,500 million for Venus, giving the W5100 a higher transistor density of 13.0 million per mm² compared to 12.2 million per mm².

The compute resources differ significantly. The W5100 packs 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The R9 M275X has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This translates to a pixel rate of 14.88 GPixel/s for the W5100 versus 14.80 GPixel/s for the R9 M275X, nearly identical. However, the texture rate diverges: 44.64 GTexel/s for the W5100 versus 37.00 GTexel/s for the R9 M275X, a 20.6% advantage for the W5100. FP32 performance is 1,428.5 GFLOPS for the W5100 versus 1,184.0 GFLOPS for the R9 M275X, a 20.6% lead as well.

Memory configurations differ in capacity and bandwidth. The W5100 carries 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 96.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The R9 M275X has 2 GB of GDDR5 on the same 128-bit bus, but at a lower effective speed of 4.5 Gbps, producing 72.00 GB/s. The W5100's memory clock is recorded at 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective), while the R9 M275X runs at 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective). Finally, the R9 M275X has explicit base and boost clocks of 900 MHz and 925 MHz, respectively, while the W5100's clocks are not recorded in the database.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench OpenCL test shows the FirePro W5100 scoring 11,888 against the R9 M275X's 11,200. This 688-point gap translates to a 6.1% delta. While the W5100 wins, the margin is modest, suggesting that both GPUs are capable of handling OpenCL compute tasks with similar efficiency, and the R9 M275X's higher boost clock (925 MHz versus unspecified for the W5100) may partially compensate for its fewer shading units.

The Geekbench Vulkan test tells a different story. The W5100 scores 13,805, while the R9 M275X manages only 9,964. The 3,841-point difference represents a 38.5% delta, a substantial margin that indicates architectural superiority rather than a minor clock advantage. The W5100's GCN 2.0 architecture with 768 shading units and newer API support (DirectX 12_0 versus 11_1) likely explains this result. Vulkan workloads tend to scale with raw compute throughput and driver efficiency, both of which favor the W5100.

Looking at the nearest rivals in the database provides additional context. The W5100's average score of 12,847 places it within 0.2% of the AMD Radeon 740M (12,870) and 0.1% of both the AMD Radeon Pro 455 (12,831) and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 590 (12,830). The R9 M275X's average of 10,582 is 1% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 550X (10,481) but 1% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti (10,690) and 1.7% behind the NVIDIA Quadro K2200 (10,761). These figures show the W5100 competing with much newer or higher-tier parts, while the R9 M275X sits among older mainstream GPUs.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear hierarchy: the AMD FirePro W5100 is the superior GPU in every recorded benchmark. For compute-intensive workloads, especially those leveraging Vulkan, the W5100's 38.5% lead over the R9 M275X makes it the only sensible choice. Its 4 GB memory capacity versus 2 GB also provides double the frame buffer, which matters for large datasets or high-resolution textures, though the database does not record memory-dependent benchmarks.

The Radeon R9 M275X is not without merit. Its OpenCL score trails by only 6.1%, and its boost clock of 925 MHz is higher than the W5100's unspecified clock, suggesting that in clock-sensitive legacy applications, it could perform comparably. Its smaller die (123 mm²) and lower transistor count (1,500 million) also imply lower power draw, though no TDP is recorded for the R9 M275X, while the W5100 is rated at 50 W.

For workstation users, the W5100's 4x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs and single-slot design with no power connectors make it a practical choice for multi-monitor setups. The R9 M275X lacks recorded display outputs or physical dimensions, reflecting its mobile-oriented nature. The W5100's DirectX 12 (12_0) support versus the R9 M275X's DirectX 12 (11_1) also matters for modern gaming or compute APIs. Ultimately, the W5100 wins on performance, memory, and connectivity, while the R9 M275X offers a lower-spec alternative for those constrained by physical space or power, though neither metric is recorded for the R9 M275X.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD FirePro W5100 averages 12,847 across all recorded benchmarks, while the AMD Radeon R9 M275X averages 10,582, a difference of 21.4% in favor of the W5100.

Q: How large is the Vulkan performance gap between the two?

A: In the Geekbench Vulkan test, the FirePro W5100 scores 13,805 versus the R9 M275X's 9,964, representing a 38.5% advantage for the W5100.

Q: What are the memory capacities and bandwidths?

A: The FirePro W5100 has 4 GB of GDDR5 with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth. The Radeon R9 M275X has 2 GB of GDDR5 with 72.00 GB/s bandwidth. Both use a 128-bit bus.

Q: Do the two GPUs support the same DirectX version?

A: No. The FirePro W5100 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the Radeon R9 M275X supports DirectX 12 (11_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.170.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units and TMUs?

A: The FirePro W5100 has 768 shading units and 48 TMUs. The Radeon R9 M275X has 640 shading units and 40 TMUs. Both have 16 ROPs.

Q: What is the transistor density difference?

A: The FirePro W5100's Bonaire chip has 2,080 million transistors on a 160 mm² die, yielding 13.0 million per mm². The R9 M275X's Venus chip has 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, yielding 12.2 million per mm².

Specification Differences

| Field | AMD FirePro W5100 | AMD Radeon R9 M275X |

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

| Architecture | GCN 2.0 | GCN 1.0 |

| Chip | Bonaire | Venus |

| Process Node | 28 nm (TSMC) | 28 nm (TSMC) |

| Transistors | 2,080 million | 1,500 million |

| Die Size | 160 mm² | 123 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 13.0M / mm² | 12.2M / mm² |

| Base Clock | Not recorded | 900 MHz |

| Boost Clock | Not recorded | 925 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective) | 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 2 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 96.00 GB/s | 72.00 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 768 | 640 |

| TMUs | 48 | 40 |

| ROPs | 16 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 14.88 GPixel/s | 14.80 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 44.64 GTexel/s | 37.00 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 1,428.5 GFLOPS | 1,184.0 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 50 W | Not recorded |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | Not recorded |

| Power Connectors | None | Not recorded |

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | Not recorded |

| Display Outputs | 4x DisplayPort 1.2 | Not recorded |

| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 (11_1) |

| Dimensions (Length) | 173 mm (6.8 inches) | Not recorded |

| Dimensions (Height) | 111 mm (4.4 inches) | Not recorded |

| Release Date | 2014-03-30 | 2014-01-27 |

| Predecessor | FirePro Terascale | Solar System |

| Successor | Radeon Pro Polaris | Polaris Mobile |