AMD FirePro W5130M vs AMD Radeon R5 M255 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single direct comparison available between these two mobile GPUs is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and it favors the AMD FirePro W5130M. The FirePro posts a score of 4904 against the Radeon R5 M255’s 4650, a decisive 5.5% advantage. This is not a marginal gap; in benchmark terms, it places the FirePro in a distinct performance tier above its competitor.

Context from the nearest rivals reinforces the FirePro’s standing. Its 4904 OpenCL score sits within 0.1% of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 8 GB (4901) and 0.2% of the NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 (4893). More tellingly, it edges out the AMD Radeon R7 M265 (4929) and Radeon R7 M360 (4931) by 0.5% in the opposite direction — meaning the FirePro is essentially tied with those higher-tier R7 parts. The R5 M255, by contrast, trails the NVIDIA GeForce 940MX (4844) by 1.2% and sits slightly ahead of the AMD Radeon R5 M335 (4752) by 0.8%. Its average benchmark score across all tests is 4788, versus the FirePro’s 4904 — a 2.4% overall deficit.

The Radeon R5 M255 does have one additional data point: a Geekbench Vulkan score of 4925. However, no corresponding Vulkan result exists for the FirePro, so a direct comparison in that API is impossible from the available data. What the numbers do show is that in the only shared workload, the FirePro wins outright. The delta is consistent with what the architecture differences suggest — more shading units, higher memory bandwidth, and a faster pixel fill rate all contribute to the OpenCL result.

Neither GPU is a performance leader by modern standards. The FirePro’s percentile rank of 29 and the R5 M255’s rank of 28 place both in the lower third of all GPUs. But within this modest segment, the FirePro holds a clear, measurable edge in compute throughput.

Where Each One Wins

Benchmark results indicate the AMD FirePro W5130M wins the only head-to-head test available, giving it a 1-0 advantage in wins. That means for any workload represented by Geekbench OpenCL — typically compute-heavy tasks like image processing, physics simulation, or general-purpose GPU acceleration — the FirePro is the stronger choice. Its 947.2 GFLOPS of FP32 performance is substantially higher than the R5 M255’s 721.9 GFLOPS, a 31% theoretical compute advantage that aligns with the 5.5% real-world benchmark delta.

The Radeon R5 M255 has no benchmark victories in this comparison. However, it does offer one feature the FirePro lacks: a Vulkan score of 4925, which suggests it has been validated for that API in a way the FirePro has not. The FirePro’s Vulkan support is listed as 1.2.170, identical to the R5 M255, but without a benchmark result, its real-world Vulkan performance remains unknown. For users specifically targeting Vulkan workloads, the R5 M255 at least has demonstrated capability.

In terms of raw specifications, the FirePro wins on nearly every front that matters for compute. It has 512 shading units versus 384, 32 texture mapping units versus 24, and 16 ROPs versus 8. Its pixel rate of 14.80 GPixel/s is nearly double the R5 M255’s 7.520 GPixel/s. Its texture rate of 29.60 GTexel/s beats 22.56 GTexel/s. Memory bandwidth is the biggest single gap: 64.00 GB/s versus 32.00 GB/s, a 100% advantage for the FirePro, driven by GDDR5 memory versus DDR3.

The R5 M255 does match or slightly exceed the FirePro on clock speeds. Its base clock of 925 MHz and boost of 940 MHz are both higher than the FirePro’s 900 MHz base and 925 MHz boost. It also has a marginally higher transistor count (1,550 million versus 1,500 million) and a slightly larger die (125 mm² versus 123 mm²). But these small advantages do not translate into a win in the one benchmark where both are measured.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different generations of AMD’s Graphics Core Next architecture. The FirePro W5130M is built on GCN 1.0, while the Radeon R5 M255 uses GCN 3.0. This is a significant generational split, though both are fabricated on the same 28 nm TSMC process node.

The chips themselves differ. The FirePro uses the Tropo chip, while the R5 M255 uses Topaz. Despite the architectural gap, the physical characteristics are remarkably similar. The FirePro’s die measures 123 mm² with 1,500 million transistors, yielding a density of 12.2 million transistors per mm². The R5 M255’s die is 125 mm² with 1,550 million transistors, a density of 12.4 million per mm². The R5 M255 is slightly larger in both dimensions, but the difference is negligible.

The core configuration diverges sharply. The FirePro fields 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The R5 M255 is cut down to 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs — a 25% reduction in shaders and TMUs, and a 50% reduction in ROPs. This explains the FirePro’s massive lead in pixel rate (14.80 vs 7.520 GPixel/s) and its smaller lead in texture rate (29.60 vs 22.56 GTexel/s).

Memory architecture is another major differentiator. Both cards use a 128-bit bus, but the FirePro pairs it with 2 GB of GDDR5 running at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective), producing 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The R5 M255 uses 2 GB of DDR3 at the same 1000 MHz clock but only 2 Gbps effective, halving bandwidth to 32.00 GB/s. For memory-bound workloads, this is a decisive factor.

Clock speeds favor the R5 M255. Its base of 925 MHz and boost of 940 MHz are both higher than the FirePro’s 900 MHz base and 925 MHz boost. The R5 M255 also lists FP16 performance at 721.9 GFLOPS (1:1 ratio with FP32), while the FirePro has no FP16 figure. DirectX support differs too: the FirePro supports DirectX 12 (11_1), while the R5 M255 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), which is a more complete implementation of the feature set.

The bus interface also differs. The FirePro uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the R5 M255 is limited to PCIe 3.0 x8. This halves the available bandwidth to the host system for the R5 M255, which can matter for data transfer-intensive workloads even if it does not directly affect on-chip compute.

Both cards support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.170, so API compatibility is otherwise identical.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear winner for compute-oriented tasks. The AMD FirePro W5130M outperforms the AMD Radeon R5 M255 by 5.5% in the only shared benchmark, and its architectural advantages — 512 shading units versus 384, 16 ROPs versus 8, and 64.00 GB/s of GDDR5 bandwidth versus 32.00 GB/s of DDR3 — make that result unsurprising. The FirePro also posts a higher average benchmark score (4904 versus 4788) and a higher percentile rank (29 versus 28).

For users running OpenCL workloads, the FirePro is the straightforward recommendation. Its 947.2 GFLOPS of FP32 compute and double the memory bandwidth of the R5 M255 give it a substantial theoretical edge that the benchmark confirms. The FirePro also benefits from a wider PCIe interface (x16 versus x8), which reduces host-side bottlenecks.

The Radeon R5 M255 is not without merit. Its higher clock speeds (925 MHz base, 940 MHz boost) and more modern GCN 3.0 architecture with DirectX 12 (12_0) support suggest it may handle newer graphics features more gracefully. It also has a Vulkan benchmark score (4925) that demonstrates real-world capability in that API, whereas the FirePro has no Vulkan result at all.

However, the R5 M255’s advantages are mostly on paper. The benchmark that exists shows it losing, and its reduced core configuration and half memory bandwidth are fundamental limitations that clock speed cannot overcome. The R5 M255’s nearest rival comparisons place it roughly on par with the NVIDIA GeForce 940MX (1.2% behind) and slightly ahead of the AMD Radeon R5 M335 (0.8% ahead) — but the FirePro sits in a higher bracket, matching the R7 series and coming within 0.1% of a much newer NVIDIA RTX 5060 Ti 8 GB in OpenCL.

Choose the FirePro W5130M for compute-heavy applications, professional workloads, or any task that stresses memory bandwidth. Choose the Radeon R5 M255 only if Vulkan support is a specific requirement and the absence of a benchmark result for the FirePro in that API is a concern. For everything else, the FirePro is the data-backed pick.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The AMD FirePro W5130M scores 4904, which is 5.5% higher than the AMD Radeon R5 M255’s 4650.

Q: How does the FirePro compare to the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 8 GB?

A: The FirePro’s OpenCL score of 4904 is within 0.1% of the RTX 5060 Ti 8 GB’s 4901, making them effectively tied in this benchmark.

Q: Does the Radeon R5 M255 have any benchmark advantage over the FirePro?

A: The R5 M255 has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 4925, but no Vulkan benchmark exists for the FirePro, so no direct comparison can be made.

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

A: The FirePro has 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth using GDDR5 memory, exactly double the R5 M255’s 32.00 GB/s with DDR3 memory.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The FirePro has 512 shading units, while the R5 M255 has 384 — a 25% difference in the FirePro’s favor.

Q: Are both GPUs the same physical size?

A: They are very close. The FirePro’s die is 123 mm² with 1,500 million transistors, while the R5 M255’s die is 125 mm² with 1,550 million transistors.