AMD FirePro W5130M vs AMD Radeon R7 240 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins in the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 240 scores 5063, while the AMD FirePro W5130M scores 4904. The R7 240 wins by a 3.2% margin.

Q: How do these two cards compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The Radeon R7 240 sits at the 30th percentile of all GPUs, with its closest rival being the AMD Radeon R7 M340 at a 0% delta. The FirePro W5130M sits at the 29th percentile, and its nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 8 GB, which trails it by just 0.1%.

Q: What are the memory differences between the two cards?

A: Both cards have 2 GB of memory and a 128-bit bus width. However, the Radeon R7 240 uses DDR3 memory at 1800 Mbps effective with 28.80 GB/s bandwidth, while the FirePro W5130M uses GDDR5 memory at 4 Gbps effective with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card has a higher transistor count?

A: The FirePro W5130M has 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, while the Radeon R7 240 has 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die. The FirePro uses the larger Tropo chip, whereas the R7 240 uses the smaller Oland chip.

Q: What is the release date and production status of each card?

A: The Radeon R7 240 was released on October 7, 2013, and the FirePro W5130M was released on October 1, 2015. Both are end-of-life products.

Q: Do both cards support the same API levels?

A: Yes, both cards support DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon R7 240 and AMD FirePro W5130M are both built on GCN 1.0 architecture, manufactured on the same 28 nm TSMC process node. However, their underlying chips differ significantly. The R7 240 uses the Oland chip, which is a smaller design with 950 million transistors packed into a 77 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 12.3M per mm². The FirePro W5130M uses the Tropo chip, a substantially larger silicon with 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, giving a density of 12.2M per mm².

The compute core counts scale accordingly. The R7 240 has 320 shading units, 20 texture mapping units, and 8 ROPs. The FirePro W5130M doubles down with 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs — all exactly 1.6x, 1.6x, and 2x the R7 240's respective counts. This hardware advantage translates directly into throughput figures: the FirePro W5130M delivers 947.2 GFLOPS of FP32 compute versus 499.2 GFLOPS for the R7 240, nearly double the raw math capability.

Clock speeds also favor the FirePro. The R7 240 runs at a 730 MHz base and 780 MHz boost, while the FirePro W5130M operates at 900 MHz base and 925 MHz boost. Memory architecture is another divergence point. The R7 240 pairs its 2 GB frame buffer with DDR3 memory running at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective), yielding 28.80 GB/s of bandwidth. The FirePro W5130M uses faster GDDR5 memory at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective), which more than doubles bandwidth to 64.00 GB/s despite the same 128-bit bus width. Both cards connect via PCIe 3.0, but the R7 240 uses an x8 interface while the FirePro W5130M uses the full x16 interface.

The R7 240 is a desktop card with a single-slot form factor, 168 mm length, 69 mm height, no power connectors, and a 30 W TDP. It offers 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x VGA display outputs. The FirePro W5130M is a mobile part, so it has no listed dimensions, power connectors, or display outputs. These are different market segments sharing the same architectural foundation.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data shows a single head-to-head test, and the Radeon R7 240 wins it. In Geekbench OpenCL, the R7 240 scores 5063 versus 4904 for the FirePro W5130M. That is a 3.2% lead for the desktop card. Despite the FirePro's significantly higher theoretical compute throughput — 947.2 GFLOPS versus 499.2 GFLOPS — the real-world OpenCL workload favors the R7 240.

The R7 240's win makes sense for a desktop-oriented card targeting entry-level gaming and general compute tasks. Its 30th percentile ranking puts it ahead of a cluster of mobile and integrated parts, including the Radeon R7 M340 (0% delta), FirePro W4170M (+0.6%), Radeon R5 M430 (+0.9%), and Radeon R7 Graphics (+1.3%). The FirePro W5130M, at the 29th percentile, sits in a similar performance neighborhood but slightly lower. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 8 GB (0.1% behind), NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 (0.2% behind), Radeon R7 M265 (0.5% ahead), and Radeon R7 M360 (0.5% ahead).

For users choosing between these two, the R7 240 is the stronger OpenCL performer. The FirePro W5130M, as a mobile workstation part, may offer other advantages in its intended market segment — such as the larger Tropo chip with more shading units and faster GDDR5 memory — but in the measured benchmark, it comes up short. The data shows a narrow but clear victory for the desktop card. If the workload is OpenCL-based, the R7 240 is the pick. The FirePro W5130M's higher raw specs do not translate to a benchmark win here.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every major specification category.

• Chip: R7 240 uses Oland; FirePro W5130M uses Tropo
• Generation: R7 240 is Volcanic Islands (R7 200); FirePro W5130M is FirePro Mobile (Wx100M)
• Transistors: 950 million vs 1,500 million
• Die Size: 77 mm² vs 123 mm²
• Transistor Density: 12.3M / mm² vs 12.2M / mm²
• Base Clock: 730 MHz vs 900 MHz
• Boost Clock: 780 MHz vs 925 MHz
• Memory Clock: 900 MHz / 1800 Mbps effective vs 1000 MHz / 4 Gbps effective
• Memory Type: DDR3 vs GDDR5
• Bandwidth: 28.80 GB/s vs 64.00 GB/s
• Shading Units: 320 vs 512
• TMUs: 20 vs 32
• ROPs: 8 vs 16
• Pixel Rate: 6.240 GPixel/s vs 14.80 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 15.60 GTexel/s vs 29.60 GTexel/s
• FP32: 499.2 GFLOPS vs 947.2 GFLOPS
• TDP: 30 W vs not specified
• Slot Width: Single-slot vs not specified
• Power Connectors: None vs not specified
• Suggested PSU: 200 W vs not specified
• Bus Interface: PCIe 3.0 x8 vs PCIe 3.0 x16
• Display Outputs: 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 1x VGA vs not specified
• Dimensions: 168 mm / 6.6 inches length, 69 mm / 2.7 inches height vs not specified
• Release Date: October 7, 2013 vs October 1, 2015
• Predecessor: Sea Islands vs FirePro Mobility
• Successor: Pirate Islands vs Radeon Pro Mobile
• Launch MSRP: 69 USD vs not specified

The cards share the same architecture (GCN 1.0), process node (28 nm), foundry (TSMC), memory size (2 GB), bus width (128 bit), and API support (DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.2.170). Both are end-of-life products from AMD.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only head-to-head benchmark available is Geekbench OpenCL. The AMD Radeon R7 240 scores 5063, and the AMD FirePro W5130M scores 4904. The R7 240 wins with a 3.2% delta. This is the sole win across the dataset — the R7 240 takes 1 win, and the FirePro W5130M takes 0.

The result is notable because of how the two cards are constructed. The FirePro W5130M has 60% more shading units (512 vs 320), 60% more TMUs (32 vs 20), twice the ROPs (16 vs 8), and more than double the FP32 throughput (947.2 GFLOPS vs 499.2 GFLOPS). It also has more than double the memory bandwidth (64.00 GB/s vs 28.80 GB/s) thanks to GDDR5 versus DDR3. Yet in this OpenCL test, the desktop R7 240 comes out ahead by 159 points.

This suggests that raw theoretical specifications do not always predict real-world compute performance. The R7 240's lower clocks (730/780 MHz versus 900/925 MHz) and smaller chip did not hold it back in this workload. The FirePro W5130M's advantages in pixel rate (14.80 GPixel/s versus 6.240 GPixel/s) and texture rate (29.60 GTexel/s versus 15.60 GTexel/s) also failed to produce a winning score.

Looking at the rival landscape, the R7 240's score of 5063 places it in a tight cluster. The Radeon R7 M340 matches it exactly at 5063 with a 0% delta. The FirePro W4170M is 0.6% behind, the Radeon R5 M430 is 0.9% behind, and the Radeon R7 Graphics is 1.3% behind. The FirePro W5130M's 4904 score puts it in an equally tight group, with the RTX 5060 Ti 8 GB just 0.1% behind and the GTS 450 0.2% behind. The R7 M265 and R7 M360 both lead it by 0.5%.

The takeaway is that these two GPUs occupy the same performance tier despite their architectural differences. The R7 240 edges out the FirePro W5130M by a small margin in OpenCL compute. For anyone comparing these parts, the benchmark data points to the R7 240 as the faster option in this specific test, even though the FirePro W5130M carries a substantially more powerful silicon under the hood.