AMD FirePro W5100 vs AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT Comparison

The Verdict

The AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT is the clear winner in every recorded head-to-head measurement. Across the two shared benchmark tests, it dominates the AMD FirePro W5100 by a wide margin. The data shows a 295.1% advantage in Geekbench OpenCL and a 220.1% advantage in Geekbench Vulkan. If the choice is between these two end-of-life cards, the RX 5500 XT is the only sensible pick for anyone prioritizing raw compute or modern API performance.

The FirePro W5100, however, still has a niche. Its 50 W power draw, single-slot design, and lack of external power connectors make it attractive for compact or legacy workstation builds where power delivery is constrained. It also offers four DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, which suits multi-monitor setups that do not require high-bandwidth modern display features. For users with older PCIe 3.0 motherboards and modest power supplies, the W5100 remains a functional, low-profile option. But benchmark results indicate that the RX 5500 XT is in a different performance class entirely, so the W5100 should only be chosen when its physical or power characteristics are mandatory.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different eras of AMD GPU design. The RX 5500 XT uses the Navi 14 chip built on RDNA 1.0 architecture, manufactured on a 7 nm process at TSMC. The FirePro W5100 uses the Bonaire chip with GCN 2.0 architecture, built on a 28 nm process, also at TSMC. The process node difference is stark: 7 nm versus 28 nm. This contributes to a transistor density of 40.5M per mm² for the RX 5500 XT versus 13.0M per mm² for the W5100. The RX 5500 XT packs 6,400 million transistors on a 158 mm² die, while the W5100 has 2,080 million transistors on a 160 mm² die. Despite nearly identical die sizes, the newer card fits over three times more transistors into the same area.

Core configuration also diverges sharply. The RX 5500 XT has 1,408 shading units, 88 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The W5100 has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The RX 5500 XT has roughly double the shader count and double the ROP count. Clock speeds reinforce the gap: the RX 5500 XT runs at a 1607 MHz base and 1845 MHz boost, while the W5100 has no recorded base or boost clocks in the database.

Memory architecture shows similar generational leaps. The RX 5500 XT uses 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 224.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The W5100 uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on the same 128-bit bus, but only reaches 96.00 GB/s. That is a 133% bandwidth advantage for the newer card. The RX 5500 XT also has a higher memory clock at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) versus 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective) for the W5100.

Feature support differs as well. The RX 5500 XT supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The W5100 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The RX 5500 XT also uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while the W5100 uses PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs are also different: the RX 5500 XT has one HDMI 2.0b and three DisplayPort 1.4a ports, whereas the W5100 has four DisplayPort 1.2 ports.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 5500 XT wins in every compute scenario recorded in the shared benchmarks. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 46,965 versus 11,888 for the W5100, a 295.1% margin. This makes it suitable for OpenCL-based workloads such as rendering, physics simulation, or general GPU compute tasks. In Geekbench Vulkan, the RX 5500 XT scores 44,191 versus 13,805, a 220.1% margin. Vulkan is increasingly relevant for modern game engines and compute APIs, so the RX 5500 XT is the better choice for any current or forward-looking software stack.

The RX 5500 XT also has a 57th percentile ranking among all GPUs, versus the 52nd percentile for the W5100. Its average benchmark score is 14,692, compared to 12,847 for the W5100. In its nearest rival comparison, the RX 5500 XT sits within 0.4% of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770, 1.1% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro M2000, 2% ahead of the GeForce GTX 965M, and 2.1% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX Vega 11. The W5100, by contrast, is essentially tied with the AMD Radeon Pro 455 (0.1% ahead), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 590 (0.1% ahead), and the AMD Radeon 740M (0.2% behind), while sitting 0.6% ahead of the GeForce GTX 670.

The W5100 does retain advantages in physical design. It is a single-slot card with no power connectors, drawing only 50 W. The RX 5500 XT is a dual-slot card with one 8-pin connector and a 130 W power draw. The W5100 also has a shorter length at 173 mm versus 180 mm for the RX 5500 XT. For systems with tight space or limited power supply headroom, the W5100 is the easier fit.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in OpenCL compute?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT scores 46,965 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 295.1% higher than the FirePro W5100's score of 11,888.

Q: Which card is faster in Vulkan workloads?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT scores 44,191 in Geekbench Vulkan, a 220.1% advantage over the FirePro W5100's 13,805.

Q: Do both cards have the same amount of memory?

A: Yes, both have 4 GB of VRAM. The RX 5500 XT uses GDDR6 with 224.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the W5100 uses GDDR5 with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card has better API support?

A: The RX 5500 XT supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The W5100 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170.

Q: Which card consumes less power?

A: The FirePro W5100 draws 50 W and requires no external power connectors. The RX 5500 XT draws 130 W and requires one 8-pin connector.

Q: Which card has a higher overall benchmark average?

A: The RX 5500 XT has an average benchmark score of 14,692, compared to 12,847 for the W5100.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records exactly two common benchmark tests between the AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT and the AMD FirePro W5100. The RX 5500 XT wins both, and by very large margins.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the RX 5500 XT scores 46,965. The W5100 scores 11,888. The delta is 295.1%. This is not a marginal difference; it is nearly a four-fold gap. The RX 5500 XT's compute advantage is driven by its newer architecture, higher shader count (1,408 versus 768), and significantly higher memory bandwidth (224.0 GB/s versus 96.00 GB/s). OpenCL performance is a strong proxy for general GPU compute tasks, and the data shows the W5100 is simply outclassed here.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the RX 5500 XT scores 44,191. The W5100 scores 13,805. The delta is 220.1%. This is a slightly smaller advantage than OpenCL but still a dominant one. Vulkan is a low-overhead API that scales with raw hardware throughput, and the RX 5500 XT's RDNA 1.0 architecture is much better suited to it than the older GCN 2.0 design. The W5100's Vulkan score is closer to its OpenCL score, but the RX 5500 XT pulls away due to its higher clock speeds and newer instruction pipeline.

Looking at the broader benchmark context, the RX 5500 XT also has standalone scores that the W5100 lacks. In 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, the RX 5500 XT scores 1,032. In Geekbench Metal, it scores 54,842. In PassMark tests, it records 9,083 in G3D, 4,446 in GPU Compute, 133 in DirectX 9, 56 in DirectX 11, 46 in DirectX 10, and 40 in DirectX 12. These numbers further illustrate the RX 5500 XT's superiority in modern workloads, though no comparable W5100 scores exist in the database for these tests.

The nearest rival data reinforces the positioning. The RX 5500 XT's average score of 14,692 places it just 0.4% below the GeForce GTX 770 and 1.1% above the Quadro M2000. The W5100's average of 12,847 puts it just 0.6% above the GeForce GTX 670. The gap between the two cards is roughly equivalent to the gap between a mid-range Pascal-era gaming card and an older Kepler-era flagship. In absolute terms, the RX 5500 XT is the stronger card by every measured metric in the shared test set.