AMD FirePro W5100 vs AMD Radeon RX 5500M Comparison

The AMD Radeon RX 5500M and AMD FirePro W5100 are both end-of-life GPUs from AMD, but they target completely different eras and use cases. The RX 5500M is a modern mobile gaming part built on RDNA 1.0, while the W5100 is a professional workstation card from 2014 built on GCN 2.0. Benchmark data shows a decisive performance gap, but the W5100 still holds relevance for legacy professional workflows. This analysis breaks down the numbers from the FACT PACK to show exactly where each card stands.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking result comes from the Geekbench OpenCL test. The RX 5500M scores 38,725, while the W5100 manages just 11,888. That is a delta of 225.7% in favor of the RX 5500M — more than triple the compute output. For context, this is not a marginal generational improvement; it is a complete annihilation. The RX 5500M’s RDNA architecture delivers 4.632 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the W5100 sits at 1,428.5 GFLOPS. These numbers translate directly into real-world compute tasks: rendering, simulation, and any GPU-accelerated workload will finish significantly faster on the RX 5500M.

The Geekbench Vulkan test tells a similar story, though the gap narrows slightly. The RX 5500M scores 35,693 versus the W5100’s 13,805, a delta of 158.6%. Vulkan is a modern API that the older GCN 2.0 architecture was not designed for, and the results show it. The RX 5500M’s Vulkan support is listed as 1.4, while the W5100 only reaches 1.2.170. This means any modern game or application using Vulkan will favor the RX 5500M by a wide margin, and the benchmark confirms it.

There are only two shared benchmarks in the FACT PACK: Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. The RX 5500M wins both, giving it a 2-0 record in head-to-head comparisons. The W5100 has zero wins. However, the RX 5500M also has additional benchmark data that the W5100 lacks entirely — Passmark scores, Geekbench Metal, and compute tests. The RX 5500M scores 5,848 in Passmark G3D and 2,316 in GPU compute, but no comparable numbers exist for the W5100, so a direct comparison is impossible there. What the data does show is that the RX 5500M sits at the 54th percentile of all GPUs, while the W5100 is at the 52nd percentile. Both are mid-pack performers, but the RX 5500M edges ahead.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 5500M wins everywhere the data covers. In OpenCL compute, it is 225.7% faster. In Vulkan, it is 158.6% faster. The RX 5500M also has a texture rate of 144.8 GTexel/s versus 44.64 GTexel/s for the W5100, and a pixel rate of 52.64 GPixel/s versus 14.88 GPixel/s. These are not subtle differences; they represent a fundamental architectural advantage. The RX 5500M is built on a 7 nm process with 6,400 million transistors, while the W5100 uses a 28 nm process with 2,080 million transistors. The density difference is stark: 40.5M transistors per mm² for the RX 5500M versus 13.0M for the W5100.

The W5100 does have one clear advantage: power consumption. Its TDP is 50 W, compared to 85 W for the RX 5500M. For a workstation with multiple GPUs or a constrained power budget, the W5100 is the more efficient choice. It also has a single-slot form factor and four DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, making it a practical option for multi-monitor professional setups. The RX 5500M, being a mobile part, has display outputs listed as "Portable Device Dependent," meaning it relies on the laptop’s built-in display connections.

In terms of raw compute per watt, the W5100 actually delivers more performance relative to its power draw — 1,428.5 GFLOPS at 50 W works out to 28.57 GFLOPS per watt, while the RX 5500M’s 4.632 TFLOPS at 85 W yields 54.49 GFLOPS per watt. The RX 5500M is still more efficient, but the W5100’s lower absolute power makes it viable in legacy systems with weak power supplies. The W5100 also has a suggested PSU of 250 W, while the RX 5500M has no suggested PSU listed in the data.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two cards is generational. The RX 5500M uses the Navi 14 chip with RDNA 1.0 architecture, produced on a 7 nm process by TSMC. The W5100 uses the Bonaire chip with GCN 2.0 architecture, on a 28 nm process, also from TSMC. The transistor counts tell the story: 6,400 million for the RX 5500M versus 2,080 million for the W5100. Despite the die sizes being similar — 158 mm² for the RX 5500M and 160 mm² for the W5100 — the RX 5500M packs over three times the transistors into roughly the same physical space.

The shading unit count is equally lopsided. The RX 5500M has 1,408 shading units, 88 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The W5100 has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. That is nearly double the shading units and exactly double the TMUs and ROPs. The RX 5500M also supports FP16 compute at 9.265 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), while the W5100 has no FP16 data listed in the pack. This makes the RX 5500M significantly better suited for machine learning inference and other half-precision workloads.

Memory architecture also diverges. Both cards have 4 GB and a 128-bit bus, but the RX 5500M uses GDDR6 at 14 Gbps effective, yielding 224.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The W5100 uses GDDR5 at 6 Gbps effective, giving it 96.00 GB/s. That is a 2.33x bandwidth advantage for the RX 5500M, which directly impacts texture-heavy workloads and high-resolution rendering. The RX 5500M also uses a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface, while the W5100 uses PCIe 3.0 x16. In practice, the x8 link on the newer standard often outperforms the older x16 link, especially for data transfer-heavy tasks.

FAQ

Q: Does the RX 5500M have any benchmark advantage over the W5100 in OpenCL?

A: Yes, the RX 5500M scores 38,725 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 11,888 for the W5100, a delta of 225.7%.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between the two cards?

A: The RX 5500M has 224.0 GB/s of bandwidth using GDDR6, while the W5100 has 96.00 GB/s using GDDR5. Both use a 128-bit memory bus.

Q: Which card consumes less power?

A: The W5100 has a TDP of 50 W, while the RX 5500M has a TDP of 85 W. The W5100 also has a suggested PSU of 250 W, while the RX 5500M lists no suggested PSU.

Q: Can the W5100 run modern Vulkan applications?

A: The W5100 supports Vulkan 1.2.170, but its Geekbench Vulkan score is 13,805, far below the RX 5500M’s 35,693. The RX 5500M supports Vulkan 1.4.

Q: Are both cards still in production?

A: No, both are marked as end-of-life in the data. The RX 5500M was released in 2019, while the W5100 was released in 2014.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The RX 5500M has 1,408 shading units, while the W5100 has 768. The RX 5500M also has 88 TMUs and 32 ROPs, versus 48 TMUs and 16 ROPs for the W5100.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon RX 5500M | AMD FirePro W5100 |

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

| Architecture | RDNA 1.0 | GCN 2.0 |

| Process Node | 7 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 6,400 million | 2,080 million |

| Die Size | 158 mm² | 160 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 40.5M / mm² | 13.0M / mm² |

| Shading Units | 1408 | 768 |

| TMUs | 88 | 48 |

| ROPs | 32 | 16 |

| FP32 Performance | 4.632 TFLOPS | 1,428.5 GFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 9.265 TFLOPS (2:1) | None listed |

| Texture Rate | 144.8 GTexel/s | 44.64 GTexel/s |

| Pixel Rate | 52.64 GPixel/s | 14.88 GPixel/s |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Speed | 14 Gbps effective | 6 Gbps effective |

| Memory Bandwidth | 224.0 GB/s | 96.00 GB/s |

| TDP | 85 W | 50 W |

| Slot Width | Not listed | Single-slot |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 4x DisplayPort 1.2 |

| Vulkan Version | 1.4 | 1.2.170 |

| DirectX Version | 12 (12_1) | 12 (12_0) |

| Release Date | 2019-10-06 | 2014-03-30 |

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD Radeon RX 5500M is the faster card by every measurable metric in the FACT PACK. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks, with a 225.7% advantage in OpenCL and a 158.6% advantage in Vulkan. It has more shading units, more TMUs, more ROPs, more memory bandwidth, and nearly three times the transistor count. If raw performance is the only criterion, the RX 5500M is the obvious choice.

However, the W5100 is not without merit. Its 50 W TDP makes it a low-power option for legacy workstations, and its single-slot design with four DisplayPort outputs suits multi-monitor professional setups. The RX 5500M, as a mobile part, lacks those fixed display outputs and demands more power. The W5100 also has a suggested PSU of 250 W, which means it can drop into older systems without a power supply upgrade.

The RX 5500M’s 54th percentile ranking versus the W5100’s 52nd percentile shows both are around the middle of the performance pack, but the gap between them is substantial. The RX 5500M’s nearest rivals — the AMD FirePro M6100 and AMD Radeon HD 8950M — sit within 0.1% of its average score of 13,356, while the W5100’s nearest rival, the AMD Radeon Pro 455, is 0.1% behind its average of 12,847. The RX 5500M is the better all-around performer for gaming, compute, and modern APIs.

For users who need a modern GPU with strong compute, memory bandwidth, and Vulkan support, the RX 5500M is the clear pick. For those maintaining older professional workstations where power constraints are critical and multi-display output is a priority, the W5100 remains a functional, if dated, option. The data shows no scenario where the W5100 outperforms the RX 5500M in raw speed, but its efficiency and form factor give it a niche. Choose the RX 5500M for performance; choose the W5100 if power draw and legacy compatibility matter more.