AMD FirePro W5100 vs AMD Radeon RX 580 Comparison

AMD Radeon RX 580 vs AMD FirePro W5100: a matchup between a late-generation consumer gaming card and an older professional workstation part. The data shows a clear generational and architectural divide, with the RX 580 dominating in raw compute while the W5100 offers a lower-power, single-slot professional form factor. Benchmark results indicate the RX 580 is the performance king, but the W5100’s profile serves a specific niche.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head comparison is brief but decisive, with the RX 580 winning both available tests by a massive margin. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RX 580 scores 37,453 against the W5100’s 11,888, a delta of 215%. This is not a marginal victory; it is a complete overhaul. The RX 580 more than triples the W5100’s compute output in this API, reflecting its far larger shader array and higher memory bandwidth.

The Vulkan result is even more lopsided. The RX 580 posts 45,173, while the W5100 manages only 13,805, yielding a 227.2% advantage. This suggests the RX 580’s newer GCN 4.0 architecture handles modern low-level APIs far more efficiently than the W5100’s older GCN 2.0 design. For any workload leveraging Vulkan, the RX 580 is in a different league entirely.

Looking at the broader benchmark context, the RX 580’s average benchmark score is 12,928, placing it at the 53rd percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Ti Mobile (12,940, -0.1%), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER (12,986, -0.4%), and the AMD Radeon 740M (12,870, +0.5%). The W5100, with an average score of 12,847, sits at the 52nd percentile, and its closest competitor is the AMD Radeon Pro 455 (12,831, +0.1%). Interestingly, the two cards are nearly tied in this aggregate metric, with the RX 580 only 0.6% ahead of the W5100. This is a statistical anomaly driven by the W5100’s sparse benchmark footprint—it only has two recorded scores, both low—while the RX 580’s average is pulled up by strong DirectX and Passmark results.

The individual RX 580 scores tell a fuller story. In Passmark G3D, it hits 8,813, and in Geekbench Metal, it reaches 45,235. Its Passmark GPU Compute score is 3,488, and it manages 46 in Passmark DirectX 10, 60 in DirectX 11, 43 in DirectX 12, and 124 in DirectX 9. The W5100 has no such results in the data, so its aggregate score is artificially low. In the only two tests where both cards appear, the RX 580 wins by over 200%. Any performance comparison between these two must weight the head-to-head results far more heavily than the average score.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap is vast. The RX 580 uses the Polaris 20 chip built on GlobalFoundries’ 14 nm process, packing 5,700 million transistors into a 232 mm² die. The W5100 uses the Bonaire chip on TSMC’s 28 nm node, with just 2,080 million transistors on a 160 mm² die. The RX 580’s transistor density is 24.6M per mm², versus 13.0M per mm² for the W5100, highlighting the process advantage of the newer part.

The RX 580 features 2,304 shading units, 144 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The W5100 is far leaner, with 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This roughly 3:1 ratio in shader count explains the RX 580’s massive compute lead. The RX 580’s pixel rate is 42.88 GPixel/s and texture rate is 193.0 GTexel/s, while the W5100 manages only 14.88 GPixel/s and 44.64 GTexel/s, respectively. FP32 performance is 6.175 TFLOPS for the RX 580 versus 1,428.5 GFLOPS (approximately 1.43 TFLOPS) for the W5100—a 4.3x difference. The RX 580 also supports FP16 at a 1:1 ratio, a feature the W5100 lacks entirely.

Memory is another differentiator. The RX 580 has 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The W5100 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, yielding just 96.00 GB/s. Clock speeds tell a similar story: the RX 580 runs at 1257 MHz base and 1340 MHz boost, with memory at 2000 MHz (8 Gbps effective). The W5100’s core clocks are not listed, but its memory runs at 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective). The RX 580’s higher clocks and wider bus give it a decisive bandwidth advantage.

API support also differs. Both support DirectX 12 (12_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but the RX 580 offers Vulkan 1.3, while the W5100 is limited to Vulkan 1.2.170. Display outputs reflect their intended uses: the RX 580 has 1x HDMI 2.0b and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a, while the W5100 provides 4x DisplayPort 1.2. The RX 580 is a dual-slot card requiring a 1x 8-pin power connector and a 450 W power supply, whereas the W5100 is a single-slot card with no power connector and a 250 W suggested PSU. The RX 580’s TDP is 185 W, while the W5100 sips at 50 W. Physically, the RX 580 is 241 mm long (9.5 inches), while the W5100 is 173 mm (6.8 inches) long and 111 mm (4.4 inches) tall.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in compute workloads?

A: The RX 580 wins decisively. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 37,453 versus 11,888 for the W5100, a 215% advantage. In Geekbench Vulkan, it scores 45,173 versus 13,805, a 227.2% lead.

Q: Why does the W5100 have a similar average benchmark score to the RX 580?

A: The W5100’s average score of 12,847 is based on only two benchmarks—Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan—both of which are low. The RX 580’s average of 12,928 includes many higher DirectX and Passmark scores, so the aggregate is misleading without context.

Q: What are the key memory differences?

A: The RX 580 has 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth. The W5100 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth. The RX 580 also runs faster memory at 2000 MHz (8 Gbps effective) versus 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective).

Q: Which card is more power-efficient?

A: The W5100 is far more efficient in absolute terms, with a 50 W TDP and no power connector, requiring only a 250 W power supply. The RX 580 has a 185 W TDP, needs a 1x 8-pin connector, and a 450 W power supply.

Q: Are there API support differences?

A: Yes. Both support DirectX 12 (12_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but the RX 580 supports Vulkan 1.3, while the W5100 only supports Vulkan 1.2.170. The RX 580 also has newer display outputs (HDMI 2.0b and DisplayPort 1.4a) versus the W5100's DisplayPort 1.2 only.

Q: What is the physical size difference?

A: The RX 580 is a dual-slot card measuring 241 mm (9.5 inches) in length. The W5100 is a single-slot card measuring 173 mm (6.8 inches) long and 111 mm (4.4 inches) tall.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous for performance: pick the RX 580. It wins every head-to-head benchmark by over 200%, offers triple the shading units, over four times the FP32 throughput, and more than double the memory bandwidth. For any gaming, rendering, or compute task, the RX 580 is the superior choice. Its 53rd percentile ranking and average score of 12,928 place it on par with modern mid-range parts like the GTX 1660 SUPER.

The W5100, however, has a distinct role. Its 50 W TDP, single-slot design, and lack of power connectors make it ideal for compact, low-power workstations where space and heat are constraints. Its 52nd percentile ranking and average score of 12,847 are respectable for an older part, and its 4 GB of VRAM is sufficient for basic professional tasks. The W5100’s 4x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs also suit multi-monitor setups.

Strictly from the data, the RX 580 is the choice for anyone prioritizing performance. The W5100 is only sensible for users who need a low-profile, power-sipping card with professional display outputs and cannot accommodate a dual-slot, 185 W board. The RX 580’s launch MSRP of 229 USD reflects its consumer positioning, while the W5100’s workstation heritage is evident in its form factor and power envelope. For most buyers, the RX 580 is the obvious winner.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon RX 580 | AMD FirePro W5100 |

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

| Chip | Polaris 20 | Bonaire |

| Architecture | GCN 4.0 | GCN 2.0 |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 28 nm |

| Foundry | GlobalFoundries | TSMC |

| Transistors | 5,700 million | 2,080 million |

| Die Size | 232 mm² | 160 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 24.6M / mm² | 13.0M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1257 MHz | Not listed |

| Boost Clock | 1340 MHz | Not listed |

| Memory Clock | 2000 MHz (8 Gbps effective) | 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 8 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 256.0 GB/s | 96.00 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 2304 | 768 |

| TMUs | 144 | 48 |

| ROPs | 32 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 42.88 GPixel/s | 14.88 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 193.0 GTexel/s | 44.64 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 6.175 TFLOPS | 1,428.5 GFLOPS |

| FP16 | 6.175 TFLOPS (1:1) | Not listed |

| TDP | 185 W | 50 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | Single-slot |

| Power Connectors | 1x 8-pin | None |

| Suggested PSU | 450 W | 250 W |

| Display Outputs | 1x HDMI 2.0b, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a | 4x DisplayPort 1.2 |

| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.2.170 |

| Length | 241 mm (9.5 inches) | 173 mm (6.8 inches) |

| Height | Not listed | 111 mm (4.4 inches) |