AMD FirePro W5100 vs NVIDIA GeForce MX350 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data records two head-to-head comparisons between the AMD FirePro W5100 and the NVIDIA GeForce MX350, and the AMD card wins both. The most decisive margin comes in Geekbench OpenCL, where the FirePro W5100 scores 11,888 against the MX350’s 8,689, a 36.8% advantage. That is not a close contest; it is a substantial performance gap that places the two cards in different performance tiers despite their similar physical footprints.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the FirePro W5100 again leads, scoring 13,805 versus the MX350’s 13,077, a 5.6% margin. While this is a much narrower win, it still represents a consistent advantage across both API workloads. The Vulkan results are close enough that real-world differences could vary by driver or workload, but the recorded data shows the AMD card ahead in both tests.

The average benchmark score reinforces the OpenCL outcome. The FirePro W5100 averages 12,847 across its benchmark suite, while the MX350 averages 10,883. That is a 18.0% difference in the aggregate, which aligns with the OpenCL result but understates the Vulkan gap relative to the individual test scores.

Looking at the wider database context, the FirePro W5100 sits at the 52nd percentile among all GPUs, while the MX350 sits at the 49th percentile. The FirePro’s nearest rivals in the database include the AMD Radeon Pro 455 (average score 12,831, delta +0.1%), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 590 (12,830, +0.1%), and the AMD Radeon 740M (12,870, -0.2%). The MX350’s nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon Pro 450 (10,804, +0.7%) and the NVIDIA Quadro K2200 (10,761, +1.1%), but it trails the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER (11,047, -1.5%) and the AMD Radeon RX 550 (11,075, -1.7%).

These rival placements tell a clear story: the FirePro W5100 competes with mid-range desktop and workstation GPUs from several generations, while the MX350 competes with entry-level mobile and desktop parts. The 36.8% OpenCL gap and 5.6% Vulkan gap are the headline numbers, but the percentile difference (52nd vs 49th) and the rival deltas both confirm that the FirePro holds the higher overall position in the database.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD FirePro W5100 wins both recorded benchmark tests, so the use-case split is straightforward. In OpenCL workloads, which typically include compute-oriented tasks such as rendering, physics simulation, and general-purpose GPU compute, the FirePro leads by a wide 36.8% margin. This suggests that applications heavily reliant on OpenCL compute performance will see a meaningful advantage with the AMD card.

In Vulkan workloads, which cover modern game engines and some compute applications, the FirePro leads by a smaller 5.6%. This is a more competitive area, and the MX350 is not far behind. For Vulkan-based tasks, the performance difference may be within the noise of driver optimizations or specific application settings, but the recorded data still favors the AMD card.

The NVIDIA GeForce MX350 does not win any head-to-head test in the database. Its strengths lie elsewhere, primarily in its power characteristics. The MX350 has a TDP of 20 W compared to the FirePro’s 50 W, which makes it a more suitable choice for thin-and-light laptops where thermal and power budgets are tight. However, the benchmark data does not show any performance test where the MX350 comes out ahead.

For users prioritizing raw benchmark scores, the FirePro W5100 is the clear choice. For users prioritizing low power consumption in a portable device, the MX350 has a structural advantage that the benchmarks do not capture. The data does not include any power-efficiency metric, so the TDP figures must be interpreted separately from the performance scores.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different manufacturers and different eras. The AMD FirePro W5100 uses the Bonaire chip built on GCN 2.0 architecture, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 2,080 million transistors into a 160 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 13.0 million per square millimeter. The NVIDIA GeForce MX350 uses the GP107S chip on the Pascal architecture, manufactured on a 14 nm process at Samsung. It contains 3,300 million transistors in a 132 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 25.0 million per square millimeter.

The process node difference is significant: 28 nm versus 14 nm. The smaller node allows the MX350 to pack more transistors into a smaller die, which partly explains its lower TDP of 20 W against the FirePro’s 50 W. However, the FirePro compensates with a larger memory bus and more memory capacity.

Memory configurations diverge sharply. The FirePro W5100 has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 96.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The MX350 has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 64-bit bus, delivering 56.06 GB/s of bandwidth. The FirePro has 71.2% more memory bandwidth, which directly impacts compute-heavy workloads that stream large datasets.

Core counts also differ. The FirePro has 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The MX350 has 640 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The FirePro has 20% more shading units and 50% more TMUs, while ROP counts match at 16. The pixel rate tells a different story: the MX350 achieves 23.49 GPixel/s versus the FirePro’s 14.88 GPixel/s, a 57.9% advantage for the NVIDIA card. The texture rate is closer: the MX350 hits 46.98 GTexel/s versus 44.64 GTexel/s, a 5.2% edge.

The FP32 performance flips the advantage back to the MX350. The NVIDIA card delivers 1.879 TFLOPS against the FirePro’s 1,428.5 GFLOPS (approximately 1.43 TFLOPS), a 31.6% lead. The MX350 also lists FP16 performance of 29.36 GFLOPS at a 1:64 ratio, while the FirePro has no recorded FP16 figure.

Clock behavior differs as well. The FirePro has no base or boost clock recorded, only a memory clock of 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective). The MX350 has a base clock of 1354 MHz, a boost clock of 1468 MHz, and a memory clock of 1752 MHz (7 Gbps effective). The MX350’s higher clocks contribute to its pixel and texture rate advantages.

The bus interface also differs: the FirePro uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the MX350 uses PCIe 3.0 x4. The FirePro’s wider bus offers more host bandwidth, though the MX350’s x4 interface is typical for a low-power laptop part.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher benchmark score in OpenCL?

A: The AMD FirePro W5100 scores 11,888 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the NVIDIA GeForce MX350 scores 8,689. The FirePro leads by 36.8%.

Q: Is the Vulkan performance gap large between the two?

A: No, it is modest. The FirePro W5100 scores 13,805 versus the MX350’s 13,077, a 5.6% difference. The OpenCL gap is much larger.

Q: How much memory bandwidth does each card have?

A: The FirePro W5100 has 96.00 GB/s over a 128-bit bus with 4 GB of GDDR5. The MX350 has 56.06 GB/s over a 64-bit bus with 2 GB of GDDR5.

Q: What are the TDP ratings for these cards?

A: The FirePro W5100 has a TDP of 50 W, while the MX350 has a TDP of 20 W. The MX350 is designed for much lower power consumption.

Q: Which card has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The MX350 delivers 1.879 TFLOPS, while the FirePro W5100 delivers 1,428.5 GFLOPS. The MX350 leads by approximately 31.6%.

Q: Do both cards support DirectX 12?

A: Yes, but with different feature levels. The FirePro supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the MX350 supports DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan support is 1.2.170 for the FirePro and 1.4 for the MX350.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every core specification. The process node is 28 nm for AMD versus 14 nm for NVIDIA. Transistor count is 2,080 million for AMD versus 3,300 million for NVIDIA. Die size is 160 mm² for AMD versus 132 mm² for NVIDIA, resulting in transistor densities of 13.0M/mm² versus 25.0M/mm².

Clock specifications diverge: the FirePro has no recorded base or boost clock, while the MX350 has a base of 1354 MHz and a boost of 1468 MHz. Memory clocks are 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective) for AMD versus 1752 MHz (7 Gbps effective) for NVIDIA. Memory size is 4 GB versus 2 GB, bus width is 128-bit versus 64-bit, and bandwidth is 96.00 GB/s versus 56.06 GB/s.

Shading units are 768 versus 640, TMUs are 48 versus 32, and ROPs match at 16. Pixel rate is 14.88 GPixel/s versus 23.49 GPixel/s, texture rate is 44.64 GTexel/s versus 46.98 GTexel/s, and FP32 is 1,428.5 GFLOPS versus 1.879 TFLOPS. The MX350 has a recorded FP16 of 29.36 GFLOPS, while the FirePro has none.

TDP is 50 W versus 20 W. The FirePro is single-slot with 173 mm length and 111 mm height, while the MX350 has no recorded dimensions and is described as portable device dependent. The FirePro has four DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, while the MX350 has portable-device-dependent outputs. The bus interface is PCIe 3.0 x16 for AMD versus PCIe 3.0 x4 for NVIDIA. The FirePro has a suggested PSU of 250 W, while the MX350 has none. The FirePro lists a predecessor (FirePro Terascale) and successor (Radeon Pro Polaris), while the MX350 lists neither.

Release dates differ by nearly six years: the FirePro launched on 2014-03-30, the MX350 on 2020-02-09. Both are end-of-life, but the FirePro predates the MX350 by a full generation cycle.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the AMD FirePro W5100 outperforms the NVIDIA GeForce MX350 in both recorded tests. The OpenCL margin of 36.8% is decisive, and the Vulkan margin of 5.6%, while smaller, still favors the AMD card. The FirePro also holds a higher database percentile (52nd versus 49th) and a higher average benchmark score (12,847 versus 10,883).

Users should pick the AMD FirePro W5100 if their primary concern is compute performance in OpenCL or Vulkan workloads. The card offers 4 GB of memory, a 128-bit bus, 96.00 GB/s of bandwidth, and 768 shading units. It is a workstation-class part with four DisplayPort outputs, making it suitable for professional display setups or compute tasks that benefit from higher memory capacity and bandwidth.

Users should pick the NVIDIA GeForce MX350 if power consumption is the dominant constraint. The 20 W TDP is less than half the FirePro’s 50 W, and the 14 nm process node at Samsung enables a much denser transistor layout (25.0M/mm² versus 13.0M/mm²). The MX350 also delivers higher pixel rate (23.49 GPixel/s versus 14.88 GPixel/s) and higher FP32 compute (1.879 TFLOPS versus 1,428.5 GFLOPS), making it a better fit for lightweight gaming or media tasks where the FirePro’s compute advantage is not relevant.

The data does not show any test where the MX350 wins, so the choice is not about performance parity. It is about workload priorities: raw compute throughput and memory bandwidth versus power efficiency and pixel throughput. The FirePro wins the benchmarks; the MX350 wins the efficiency profile. For any user who can tolerate 50 W and wants the higher benchmark scores, the FirePro W5100 is the correct selection. For a portable, low-power device where benchmark performance is secondary, the MX350 is the logical alternative.