AMD FirePro W5130M vs AMD Radeon R5 M335 Comparison

AMD FirePro W5130M and AMD Radeon R5 M335 are both end-of-life mobile graphics solutions built on the same GCN 1.0 architecture and 28 nm process, yet they target very different segments of the laptop market. The FirePro W5130M is a professional workstation part, while the R5 M335 is an entry-level consumer GPU. Benchmark data shows the FirePro holds a measurable performance edge, but the two cards diverge significantly in memory technology, bus width, and compute resources.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, where the AMD FirePro W5130M posts a score of 4904 against the AMD Radeon R5 M335's 4745. That translates to a 3.4% victory for the FirePro W5130M, which is a modest but consistent lead. While 3.4% is not a dramatic gap, it is worth remembering this is a synthetic compute benchmark measuring raw GPGPU throughput, and the FirePro's advantage here aligns with its larger silicon and wider memory interface.

Context from the nearest rivals section reinforces that both cards sit in a similar performance tier. The FirePro W5130M's average score of 4904 places it just 0.1% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 8 GB (4901) and 0.2% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 (4893). It trails the AMD Radeon R7 M265 (4929) and AMD Radeon R7 M360 (4931) by 0.5% each. This clustering shows that the FirePro is essentially at parity with a set of older and newer mid-range parts, despite its professional branding.

The Radeon R5 M335, with an average benchmark score of 4752, sits slightly lower in the rankings. It is 0.5% ahead of the AMD Radeon R8 M445DX (4727) and 1.5% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro P400 (4684), but it falls 0.7% short of the AMD Radeon R5 M255 (4788) and 0.8% behind the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 12 GB (4791). The appearance of the RTX 3080 12 GB in this list is unusual—it is a vastly more powerful desktop card—but the deltaPct values are all within a narrow band, indicating that the R5 M335's score is not directly comparable to that high-end part in real-world workloads.

The FirePro W5130M also holds a slight percentile advantage over the R5 M335: it ranks in the 29th percentile of all GPUs, while the R5 M335 sits in the 28th. That one-percentile difference is small but consistent with the OpenCL score gap. In practical terms, benchmark results indicate that the FirePro W5130M is the faster of the two, but neither card is positioned to compete with modern discrete GPUs.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The AMD FirePro W5130M scores 4904 versus 4745 for the AMD Radeon R5 M335, a 3.4% advantage for the FirePro.

Q: Do both cards support the same DirectX and Vulkan versions?

A: Yes, both list DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170 in their API support.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The FirePro W5130M uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth, while the R5 M335 uses 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus with 14.40 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Are these GPUs still in production?

A: No, both are marked as end-of-life. The FirePro W5130M was released on October 1, 2015, and the R5 M335 on October 20, 2015.

Q: How do the two compare in transistor count and die size?

A: The FirePro W5130M has 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, while the R5 M335 has 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The FirePro W5130M has 512 shading units, compared to 320 on the Radeon R5 M335.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built on the same GCN 1.0 architecture and fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process node, but they are fundamentally different chips. The FirePro W5130M uses the Tropo chip, while the R5 M335 uses the Exo chip. The Tropo is a substantially larger and more complex design: it integrates 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.2 million per mm². The Exo chip in the R5 M335 is much smaller, with 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die and a nearly identical transistor density of 12.3 million per mm². This means the FirePro's advantage comes not from denser packing but from having more than twice the raw transistor budget to work with.

The compute resources scale accordingly. The FirePro W5130M packs 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 16 raster output units (ROPs). The R5 M335 is cut down to 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. That is a 60% increase in shading units for the FirePro, along with double the ROP count. Pixel rate and texture rate reflect this: the FirePro delivers 14.80 GPixel/s and 29.60 GTexel/s, while the R5 M335 manages 8.240 GPixel/s and 20.60 GTexel/s. FP32 compute throughput is 947.2 GFLOPS for the FirePro versus 659.2 GFLOPS for the R5 M335.

Clock speeds also differ. The FirePro W5130M has a base clock of 900 MHz and a boost clock of 925 MHz. The R5 M335 does not list base or boost clocks in the data. Memory clocks are closer, but the effective data rate differs: the FirePro's memory runs at 1000 MHz with 4 Gbps effective, while the R5 M335 runs at 900 MHz with 1800 Mbps effective. The FirePro also uses a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, whereas the R5 M335 is limited to PCIe 3.0 x8.

Specification Differences

The two cards diverge on nearly every measurable specification. The FirePro W5130M uses a 128-bit memory bus with GDDR5 memory, delivering 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The R5 M335 uses a 64-bit bus with DDR3 memory, yielding only 14.40 GB/s. That is a 4.4x bandwidth advantage for the FirePro, which is significant for any memory-bound workload.

Shading units, TMUs, and ROPs all favor the FirePro: 512 vs 320, 32 vs 20, and 16 vs 8, respectively. Pixel rate is 14.80 GPixel/s versus 8.240 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 29.60 GTexel/s versus 20.60 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 947.2 GFLOPS versus 659.2 GFLOPS. The FirePro also has a higher base clock (900 MHz) and boost clock (925 MHz), while the R5 M335 has no listed base or boost clocks.

The memory type is a major differentiator: GDDR5 versus DDR3. The FirePro's memory runs at 1000 MHz with 4 Gbps effective, while the R5 M335's runs at 900 MHz with 1800 Mbps effective. Bus interface also differs: PCIe 3.0 x16 versus PCIe 3.0 x8. Power connectors are listed as "None" for the R5 M335, while the FirePro has no power connector data. Display outputs are "Portable Device Dependent" for the R5 M335, with no display output data for the FirePro.

Transistor count and die size are also different: 1,500 million on 123 mm² for the FirePro versus 690 million on 56 mm² for the R5 M335. The FirePro's generation is listed as "FirePro Mobile (Wx100M)", while the R5 M335 is "Gem System (R5 M300)". Their predecessors and successors also differ: the FirePro succeeds "FirePro Mobility" and is succeeded by "Radeon Pro Mobile", while the R5 M335 succeeds "Solar System" and is succeeded by "Polaris Mobile".

The Verdict

The benchmark data clearly favors the AMD FirePro W5130M. It wins the only head-to-head test, posting a 3.4% higher Geekbench OpenCL score, and it holds a one-percentile advantage in overall GPU rankings (29th versus 28th). Its hardware specifications are uniformly superior: more shading units, more TMUs, more ROPs, higher pixel and texture rates, higher FP32 throughput, and a much wider and faster memory subsystem.

The Radeon R5 M335 is not without merit, but its strengths are limited to efficiency and simplicity. It uses a smaller die (56 mm² versus 123 mm²) with fewer transistors (690 million versus 1,500 million), which likely translates to lower power consumption, though no TDP figures are available in the data. It also uses DDR3 memory, which is cheaper and simpler to integrate, but the 14.40 GB/s bandwidth is a severe bottleneck compared to the FirePro's 64.00 GB/s.

For users choosing between these two, the decision hinges on workload. The FirePro W5130M is the better choice for any compute-oriented task, whether that is OpenCL acceleration, professional rendering, or GPU-assisted productivity. Its 512 shading units and 16 ROPs give it a clear edge in parallel processing and pixel throughput. The R5 M335, with its 320 shading units and 8 ROPs, is more suited to light consumer workloads where the FirePro's extra bandwidth and compute resources would go unused.

The FirePro's professional lineage—it belongs to the FirePro Mobile (Wx100M) generation and is succeeded by Radeon Pro Mobile—suggests it was designed for workstation laptops, and the data supports that positioning. The R5 M335, part of the Gem System (R5 M300) generation, is an entry-level part. Neither card is competitive by modern standards, and both are end-of-life, but within their shared performance tier, the FirePro W5130M is the stronger product. Its 3.4% benchmark lead and consistently higher specifications make it the recommended pick for anyone prioritizing raw GPU capability over the R5 M335's smaller footprint.