AMD FirePro W5100 vs AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT Comparison

The AMD FirePro W5100 and AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT represent two very different eras of AMD GPU design, separated by nearly eight years of architectural evolution. The data shows a decisive overall victory for the newer RX 6500 XT, which wins both head-to-head benchmark comparisons, yet the FirePro W5100 retains a narrow edge in overall percentile ranking. The RX 6500 XT is the clear choice for raw compute performance, while the FirePro W5100 offers a lower power draw and professional display outputs.

The Verdict

From the benchmark data, the AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT is the superior performer in every measured test. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, it scores 48,289 against the FirePro W5100’s 11,888, a delta of -75.4% from the RX 6500 XT’s perspective. The Vulkan test shows a similar story: 54,724 for the RX 6500 XT versus 13,805 for the FirePro W5100, a -74.8% difference. The RX 6500 XT’s average benchmark score of 11,842 is lower than the FirePro W5100’s 12,847, however, because the newer card’s average includes multiple PassMark tests with low scores, such as 38 in DirectX 12 and 60 in DirectX 10. The FirePro W5100’s percentile ranking of 52 versus the RX 6500 XT’s 51 indicates that, despite losing the head-to-head, the older card sits marginally higher relative to all GPUs in the database.

For users prioritizing compute throughput, the RX 6500 XT is the only rational pick. Its OpenCL score is over four times higher, and its Vulkan score is nearly four times higher. For those constrained by power delivery, the FirePro W5100’s 50 W TDP versus the RX 6500 XT’s 107 W makes it the lower-draw option, but that is its only practical advantage in this comparison. The data does not support choosing the FirePro W5100 for performance reasons; it is only suitable for legacy professional environments needing its specific 4x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs and single-slot form factor.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures and process nodes. The FirePro W5100 uses the Bonaire chip based on GCN 2.0 architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It contains 2,080 million transistors on a 160 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 13.0M per mm². In contrast, the RX 6500 XT uses the Navi 24 chip based on RDNA 2.0 architecture, also built by TSMC but on a 6 nm process. It packs 5,400 million transistors into a smaller 107 mm² die, achieving a much higher density of 50.5M per mm².

The compute configurations differ substantially. The FirePro W5100 has 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 16 raster operation pipelines. The RX 6500 XT doubles the ROP count to 32 and increases TMUs to 64, with 1,024 shading units. The RX 6500 XT also introduces 16 ray tracing cores, a feature entirely absent from the older GCN part. Memory technologies are different generations: the FirePro W5100 uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, while the RX 6500 XT uses 4 GB of GDDR6 on a narrower 64-bit bus. Despite the narrower bus, the RX 6500 XT achieves higher memory bandwidth at 143.9 GB/s versus 96.00 GB/s. The RX 6500 XT supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while the FirePro W5100 maxes out at DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.2.170.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 6500 XT wins in all compute and graphics workloads represented by the head-to-head tests. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 48,289 indicates strong general-purpose compute performance, which would benefit tasks like image processing, physics simulations, and data-parallel workloads. The Vulkan score of 54,724 suggests it handles modern graphics APIs with high efficiency, making it suitable for contemporary gaming and 3D rendering applications. The RX 6500 XT also has higher pixel and texture rates: 90.08 GPixel/s and 180.2 GTexel/s, respectively, versus the FirePro W5100’s 14.88 GPixel/s and 44.64 GTexel/s.

The FirePro W5100’s advantages are limited to non-performance areas. Its 50 W TDP is less than half the RX 6500 XT’s 107 W, and it requires no external power connectors, while the RX 6500 XT needs a single 6-pin connector. The FirePro W5100 is single-slot and outputs four DisplayPort 1.2 connections, whereas the RX 6500 XT is dual-slot with one HDMI 2.1 and one DisplayPort 1.4a. The FirePro W5100’s suggested power supply is 250 W versus 300 W for the RX 6500 XT. In terms of API support, the FirePro W5100 supports OpenGL 4.6, the same as the RX 6500 XT, so there is no advantage there.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD FirePro W5100 has an average benchmark score of 12,847, while the AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT has an average score of 11,842. This is despite the RX 6500 XT winning both head-to-head tests.

Q: How does the memory bandwidth compare between the two cards?

A: The RX 6500 XT has higher memory bandwidth at 143.9 GB/s, achieved with GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus. The FirePro W5100 has 96.00 GB/s bandwidth using GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus.

Q: What is the difference in shading units?

A: The RX 6500 XT has 1,024 shading units, while the FirePro W5100 has 768. The RX 6500 XT also has 64 texture mapping units and 32 ROPs, versus 48 TMUs and 16 ROPs on the FirePro W5100.

Q: Which card supports ray tracing?

A: Only the AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT supports ray tracing, with 16 dedicated ray tracing cores. The FirePro W5100 has no ray tracing hardware.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The FirePro W5100 has a 50 W TDP and requires no power connectors, with a suggested power supply of 250 W. The RX 6500 XT has a 107 W TDP, needs one 6-pin power connector, and suggests a 300 W power supply.

Q: How do the release dates differ?

A: The FirePro W5100 was released on March 30, 2014, while the RX 6500 XT was released on January 18, 2022. Both are now end-of-life products.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two Geekbench tests provided in the head-to-head data show a dominant performance from the RX 6500 XT. In the OpenCL test, the RX 6500 XT scores 48,289, which is 36,401 points higher than the FirePro W5100’s 11,888. The delta percentage of -75.4% indicates that the FirePro W5100’s score is only about a quarter of the RX 6500 XT’s. This is an enormous gap, reflecting the architectural leap from GCN 2.0 on 28 nm to RDNA 2.0 on 6 nm. The RX 6500 XT’s FP32 compute of 5.765 TFLOPS versus the FirePro W5100’s 1,428.5 GFLOPS (approximately 1.43 TFLOPS) directly explains this result.

The Vulkan test shows an even larger absolute difference. The RX 6500 XT scores 54,724 versus 13,805 for the FirePro W5100, a delta of -74.8%. The RX 6500 XT’s Vulkan 1.4 support and 16 ray tracing cores likely contribute to its superior performance in this modern API, while the FirePro W5100 is limited to Vulkan 1.2.170. The RX 6500 XT’s texture rate of 180.2 GTexel/s is over four times the FirePro W5100’s 44.64 GTexel/s, which would impact fill-rate-bound workloads. Similarly, the pixel rate of 90.08 GPixel/s versus 14.88 GPixel/s shows a sixfold advantage for the newer card.

The RX 6500 XT also has a significant clock speed advantage, with a base clock of 2310 MHz and boost of 2815 MHz, compared to the FirePro W5100, which has no listed base or boost clocks but runs its memory at 1500 MHz. The RX 6500 XT’s memory runs at 2248 MHz with 18 Gbps effective speed. These clock differences, combined with the architectural improvements, account for the benchmark results. The FirePro W5100’s only comparable metric is its transistor density, which is far lower at 13.0M per mm² versus 50.5M per mm² for the RX 6500 XT, indicating the massive efficiency gains of the newer process node.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every specification field. The FirePro W5100 uses a 28 nm process, while the RX 6500 XT uses a 6 nm process. Transistor counts are 2,080 million versus 5,400 million, with die sizes of 160 mm² and 107 mm² respectively. The FirePro W5100 has no listed base or boost clocks, while the RX 6500 XT has a base clock of 2310 MHz, boost of 2815 MHz, and game clock of 2610 MHz. Memory configurations differ in type (GDDR5 versus GDDR6), bus width (128-bit versus 64-bit), and bandwidth (96.00 GB/s versus 143.9 GB/s), though both have 4 GB capacity.

Compute unit counts show the RX 6500 XT with more resources: 1,024 shading units versus 768, 64 TMUs versus 48, and 32 ROPs versus 16. The RX 6500 XT has 16 ray tracing cores; the FirePro W5100 has none. Pixel rates are 14.88 GPixel/s versus 90.08 GPixel/s, and texture rates are 44.64 GTexel/s versus 180.2 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 1,428.5 GFLOPS versus 5.765 TFLOPS, and the RX 6500 XT additionally has FP16 capability at 11.53 TFLOPS. The FirePro W5100 has a 50 W TDP versus 107 W, is single-slot versus dual-slot, and has no power connectors versus one 6-pin. The bus interface differs: PCIe 3.0 x16 for the FirePro W5100, PCIe 4.0 x4 for the RX 6500 XT. Display outputs are four DisplayPort 1.2 ports versus one HDMI 2.1 and one DisplayPort 1.4a. The RX 6500 XT has a launch MSRP of 199 USD. The FirePro W5100’s predecessor is FirePro Terascale with successor Radeon Pro Polaris, while the RX 6500 XT’s predecessor is Navi with successor Navi III.