GPU Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded head-to-head data pits the AMD FirePro W5100 against the AMD Radeon RX 550 in two compute-oriented workloads, and the results are consistently in favor of the older professional card. In Geekbench OpenCL, the FirePro W5100 scores 11,888 against the RX 550’s 11,063, a 7.5% advantage. The gap widens further in Geekbench Vulkan, where the FirePro W5100 posts 13,805 versus the RX 550’s 12,270, a 12.5% margin. Across the two shared tests, the FirePro W5100 wins both, giving it a clean 2-0 sweep in direct comparisons.

These deltas are not trivial in the context of the broader database. The FirePro W5100’s average benchmark score sits at 12,847, placing it at the 52nd percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon Pro 455 at 12,831 (a 0.1% difference) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 590 at 12,830 (also 0.1%), meaning the W5100 is essentially tied with those cards in aggregate performance. The RX 550, by contrast, has an average score of 11,075, which lands it at the 50th percentile. Its closest neighbors are the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000D Blackwell Max-Q at 11,088 (a 0.1% deficit for the RX 550) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER at 11,047 (a 0.3% advantage for the RX 550). So while both cards sit near the middle of the performance distribution, the FirePro W5100 is clearly a step ahead in raw compute throughput as measured by these workloads.

The Vulkan result is particularly telling. A 12.5% lead in a modern API suggests the FirePro W5100’s architecture handles asynchronous compute or driver-level scheduling more effectively than the RX 550’s newer design, at least in this specific test. The OpenCL gap, while smaller, still reinforces the same narrative: the FirePro W5100 delivers more shader work per clock or per core in general-purpose compute, despite having fewer total shading units than one might expect given its age.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different generations of AMD’s Graphics Core Next (GCN) architecture. The FirePro W5100 is built on GCN 2.0, using the Bonaire chip, and belongs to the FirePro GCN (Wx100) generation. The Radeon RX 550 uses GCN 4.0 with the Lexa chip, part of the Polaris (RX 500) generation. That generational leap shows up immediately in the manufacturing process: the W5100 is fabbed on a 28 nm node at TSMC, while the RX 550 moves to a 14 nm node at GlobalFoundries. The die sizes reflect this: the W5100 measures 160 mm² with 2,080 million transistors (a density of 13.0 million per mm²), whereas the RX 550 shrinks to 103 mm² with 2,200 million transistors (a density of 21.4 million per mm²). The RX 550 packs more transistors into a smaller area, a direct benefit of the newer process.

Shading resources differ markedly. The FirePro W5100 carries 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 16 raster operations pipelines (ROPs). The RX 550 has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and the same 16 ROPs. That means the W5100 has 50% more shading units and 50% more TMUs, which explains its higher texture rate of 44.64 GTexel/s versus the RX 550’s 37.86 GTexel/s. However, the RX 550 compensates with higher clocks: its base is 1100 MHz and boost is 1183 MHz, while the W5100’s clocks are not listed in the database. The RX 550’s pixel rate is 18.93 GPixel/s, ahead of the W5100’s 14.88 GPixel/s, thanks to those higher frequencies across the same 16 ROPs.

Memory configurations also diverge. The FirePro W5100 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, running at 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective), yielding 96.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The RX 550 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on the same 128-bit bus, but at 1750 MHz (7 Gbps effective), giving it 112.0 GB/s. So the RX 550 has higher bandwidth but half the capacity. The W5100’s larger frame buffer suggests a focus on professional workloads where multiple displays or high-resolution textures demand more memory, while the RX 550’s narrower capacity points toward entry-level gaming.

Other architectural features differ as well. The RX 550 supports FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32 (both listed at 1,211.4 GFLOPS), whereas the W5100 has no FP16 entry in the database. The RX 550’s Vulkan API version is 1.3, compared to the W5100’s 1.2.170. Both support DirectX 12 (12_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The RX 550 also lists a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface, while the W5100 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, which could affect bandwidth in some scenarios despite the W5100’s lower memory bandwidth.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The AMD FirePro W5100 scores 11,888 versus the AMD Radeon RX 550’s 11,063, a 7.5% lead for the W5100.

Q: How does the Vulkan performance compare?

A: The FirePro W5100 wins again, scoring 13,805 against the RX 550’s 12,270, a 12.5% margin in favor of the W5100.

Q: What are the memory sizes and bandwidths?

A: The FirePro W5100 has 4 GB of GDDR5 with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth, while the RX 550 has 2 GB of GDDR5 with a higher 112.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The FirePro W5100 has 768 shading units, while the RX 550 has 512, a 50% difference in the W5100’s favor.

Q: What is the process node difference?

A: The FirePro W5100 uses a 28 nm process at TSMC, while the RX 550 uses a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries, allowing the RX 550 to fit more transistors per mm² (21.4M versus 13.0M).

Q: Are both cards end-of-life?

A: Yes, both the FirePro W5100 (released March 2014) and the RX 550 (released April 2017) are marked as end-of-life in the database.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two cards, per the recorded data:

• Architecture: GCN 2.0 (FirePro W5100) versus GCN 4.0 (RX 550)
• Chip: Bonaire (W5100) versus Lexa (RX 550)
• Process Node: 28 nm (W5100) versus 14 nm (RX 550)
• Foundry: TSMC (W5100) versus GlobalFoundries (RX 550)
• Transistors: 2,080 million (W5100) versus 2,200 million (RX 550)
• Die Size: 160 mm² (W5100) versus 103 mm² (RX 550)
• Transistor Density: 13.0M / mm² (W5100) versus 21.4M / mm² (RX 550)
• Memory Size: 4 GB (W5100) versus 2 GB (RX 550)
• Memory Clock: 1500 MHz / 6 Gbps effective (W5100) versus 1750 MHz / 7 Gbps effective (RX 550)
• Bandwidth: 96.00 GB/s (W5100) versus 112.0 GB/s (RX 550)
• Shading Units: 768 (W5100) versus 512 (RX 550)
• TMUs: 48 (W5100) versus 32 (RX 550)
• Pixel Rate: 14.88 GPixel/s (W5100) versus 18.93 GPixel/s (RX 550)
• Texture Rate: 44.64 GTexel/s (W5100) versus 37.86 GTexel/s (RX 550)
• FP32: 1,428.5 GFLOPS (W5100) versus 1,211.4 GFLOPS (RX 550)
• FP16: None listed (W5100) versus 1,211.4 GFLOPS (1:1) (RX 550)
• Base Clock: None listed (W5100) versus 1100 MHz (RX 550)
• Boost Clock: None listed (W5100) versus 1183 MHz (RX 550)
• Slot Width: Single-slot (W5100) versus Dual-slot (RX 550)
• Bus Interface: PCIe 3.0 x16 (W5100) versus PCIe 3.0 x8 (RX 550)
• Display Outputs: 4x DisplayPort 1.2 (W5100) versus 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0b, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a (RX 550)
• Vulkan Version: 1.2.170 (W5100) versus 1.3 (RX 550)
• Length: 173 mm / 6.8 inches (W5100) versus 145 mm / 5.7 inches (RX 550)
• Release Date: March 2014 (W5100) versus April 2017 (RX 550)
• Predecessor: FirePro Terascale (W5100) versus Arctic Islands (RX 550)
• Successor: Radeon Pro Polaris (W5100) versus Vega (RX 550)

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the AMD FirePro W5100 outperforms the AMD Radeon RX 550 in both recorded compute tests. The W5100 leads by 7.5% in OpenCL and 12.5% in Vulkan, and its average benchmark score of 12,847 is 15.9% higher than the RX 550’s 11,075. The W5100 also holds a higher percentile ranking (52nd versus 50th), indicating slightly better standing relative to all GPUs in the database.

For users prioritizing raw compute throughput, the W5100 is the clear choice, despite its older architecture. Its 768 shading units and 1,428.5 GFLOPS of FP32 performance provide a substantial edge over the RX 550’s 512 units and 1,211.4 GFLOPS. The W5100’s 4 GB memory capacity also makes it more suitable for workloads that need larger working sets, even if its bandwidth is lower.

However, the RX 550 is not without merits. Its 14 nm process and 112.0 GB/s bandwidth show efficiency gains, and its higher pixel rate (18.93 versus 14.88 GPixel/s) suggests better fill-rate performance in certain rasterization tasks. The RX 550 also supports FP16 at 1:1, which could matter for applications that leverage half-precision math. Its smaller physical footprint (145 mm versus 173 mm) and dual-slot design may fit different chassis constraints. The RX 550 has a launch MSRP of 79 USD, which is noted in the database, but pricing is not part of this analysis.

The verdict from the data: pick the FirePro W5100 if compute performance and memory capacity are paramount. Pick the RX 550 if you need the newer feature set, higher bandwidth, or a more compact card, and accept the compute deficit.

Where Each One Wins

AMD FirePro W5100 wins on compute-heavy tasks. The 12.5% Vulkan advantage and 7.5% OpenCL lead indicate stronger general-purpose GPU compute, likely benefiting workloads like OpenCL-based rendering, scientific simulation, or any shader-heavy professional application. The 4 GB memory capacity also gives it an edge for datasets that exceed 2 GB, a limit the RX 550 would hit.

AMD Radeon RX 550 wins on bandwidth and fill-rate efficiency. Its 112.0 GB/s bandwidth is 16.7% higher than the W5100’s 96.00 GB/s, and its pixel rate of 18.93 GPixel/s is 27.2% higher. For tasks that rely on memory throughput or pixel output, such as certain post-processing effects or high-resolution texture streaming, the RX 550 could perform relatively better, even if its aggregate compute scores lag.

The W5100 wins on display connectivity. Four DisplayPort 1.2 outputs versus the RX 550’s single DVI, HDMI 2.0b, and DisplayPort 1.4a combination means the W5100 supports more simultaneous displays, a typical requirement for professional multi-monitor setups. The RX 550’s newer DisplayPort 1.4a standard offers higher per-port bandwidth, but the W5100’s sheer number of outputs is a practical advantage.

The RX 550 wins on architectural modernity. The 14 nm process, higher transistor density, and Vulkan 1.3 support suggest better long-term driver compatibility with newer applications. The W5100’s Vulkan 1.2.170 is older, and its GCN 2.0 design may lack optimizations present in GCN 4.0, even if the measured scores do not reflect that in these tests.

The W5100 wins on FP32 throughput. At 1,428.5 GFLOPS, it is 17.9% ahead of the RX 550’s 1,211.4 GFLOPS, reinforcing its compute advantage. The RX 550 counters with FP16 at 1,211.4 GFLOPS (1:1), a feature the W5100 lacks entirely, which could be decisive for machine learning inference or other half-precision workloads.

The RX 550 wins on physical size. At 145 mm long versus 173 mm, it is shorter, and its dual-slot design may offer different cooling options. The W5100’s single-slot profile, however, is better for dense multi-GPU configurations, though the database does not specify such a use case.