AMD FirePro W5130M vs AMD Radeon R7 M265 Comparison

The AMD Radeon R7 M265 and the AMD FirePro W5130M are both end-of-life mobile GPUs built on GCN 1.0, and the benchmark data shows that they are effectively indistinguishable in raw compute performance. In the sole Geekbench OpenCL test, the R7 M265 scores 4929, while the FirePro W5130M trails by a razor-thin 0.5%, posting 4904. Both sit at the 29th percentile of all GPUs, placing them in the lower tier of performance, yet the underlying hardware differences are substantial, suggesting that the FirePro W5130M has untapped potential that the benchmark does not fully capture.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only available head-to-head benchmark is Geekbench OpenCL, and it results in a narrow victory for the AMD Radeon R7 M265. The R7 M265 scores 4929, while the AMD FirePro W5130M scores 4904, giving the R7 M265 a 0.5% lead. This margin is essentially negligible, falling within the noise of any single benchmark run. The data shows that in this test, the R7 M265 edges out the FirePro W5130M, but the delta is so small that it does not indicate any meaningful performance advantage for either card.

To put this into context, the nearest rival for the R7 M265 is the AMD Radeon R7 M360, which scores 4931, a 0% delta. The FirePro W5130M sits just below at 4904, with a 0.5% delta. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 8 GB and NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 also appear in the same performance band, scoring 4901 and 4893 respectively, with deltas of 0.6% and 0.7% from the R7 M265. For the FirePro W5130M, the closest competitor is the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 8 GB at 4901 (0.1% delta), followed by the GTS 450 at 4893 (0.2% delta), and then the R7 M265 itself at -0.5% delta. This cluster of scores, spanning from 4893 to 4931, indicates that all these GPUs are performing within a very tight band, and the differences between them are statistically insignificant for real-world workloads.

The win count reflects this: the R7 M265 claims 1 win in the head-to-head dataset, while the FirePro W5130M records 0 wins. However, this is a single-point measurement, and the 0.5% delta represents a difference of only 25 points. Benchmark results indicate that neither card has a decisive edge in compute throughput, and a user would be hard-pressed to notice the difference in any application.

Architecture Differences

Despite their similar benchmark scores, the two GPUs are architecturally distinct. The AMD Radeon R7 M265 is based on the "Opal" chip, while the AMD FirePro W5130M uses the "Tropo" chip. Both are built on GCN 1.0 architecture, but the FirePro W5130M is a substantially larger and more complex die. The R7 M265 packs 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.3M per mm². The FirePro W5130M, in contrast, contains 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, with a slightly lower density of 12.2M per mm². This means the FirePro W5130M has roughly 58% more transistors and a 60% larger die area, which typically translates to higher theoretical performance.

The compute resources confirm this disparity. The R7 M265 features 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 8 raster operation units (ROPs). The FirePro W5130M steps up to 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This is a 33% increase in shading units and TMUs, and a 100% increase in ROPs. The clock speeds also favor the FirePro W5130M: it runs at a base clock of 900 MHz with a boost of 925 MHz, compared to the R7 M265's 725 MHz base and 825 MHz boost. The combination of more cores and higher clocks results in the FirePro W5130M delivering a pixel rate of 14.80 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 29.60 GTexel/s, versus the R7 M265's 6.600 GPixel/s and 19.80 GTexel/s. The FP32 compute is similarly lopsided: the FirePro W5130M hits 947.2 GFLOPS, while the R7 M265 manages 633.6 GFLOPS—a 49% advantage for the FirePro.

Memory is another major divergence. The R7 M265 uses 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus, running at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective), resulting in a bandwidth of 28.80 GB/s. The FirePro W5130M also has 2 GB, but it uses GDDR5 memory on the same 128-bit bus, clocked at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective), delivering 64.00 GB/s. The FirePro W5130M more than doubles the memory bandwidth, which is critical for memory-intensive workloads. Both cards share the same API support, including DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The bus interface also differs: the R7 M265 uses PCIe 3.0 x8, while the FirePro W5130M uses PCIe 3.0 x16, offering double the host bandwidth.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M265 has a slightly higher average benchmark score of 4929, compared to the AMD FirePro W5130M's 4904. The R7 M265 leads by 0.5% in the Geekbench OpenCL test.

Q: Are these GPUs comparable in raw compute performance?

A: Yes, the benchmark data shows they are nearly identical. The R7 M265 scores 4929 and the W5130M scores 4904, a delta of only 0.5%. Both GPUs sit at the 29th percentile of all GPUs, indicating similar real-world capability.

Q: Does the FirePro W5130M have more shading units than the R7 M265?

A: Yes, the FirePro W5130M has 512 shading units, while the R7 M265 has 384 shading units. This is a 33% increase in compute cores for the FirePro W5130M.

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

A: The FirePro W5130M has a memory bandwidth of 64.00 GB/s, which is more than double the R7 M265's 28.80 GB/s. The FirePro W5130M uses GDDR5 memory, while the R7 M265 uses DDR3.

Q: Which GPU has a higher boost clock?

A: The FirePro W5130M has a higher boost clock of 925 MHz, compared to the R7 M265's boost clock of 825 MHz. The base clocks are 900 MHz and 725 MHz, respectively.

Q: Are both GPUs based on the same architecture?

A: Yes, both the R7 M265 and the FirePro W5130M are based on GCN 1.0 architecture, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. However, they use different chips: Opal for the R7 M265 and Tropo for the FirePro W5130M.

Specification Differences

The following table highlights the key specifications where the two GPUs differ:

| Specification | AMD Radeon R7 M265 | AMD FirePro W5130M |

|---|---|---|

| Chip | Opal | Tropo |

| Transistors | 950 million | 1,500 million |

| Die Size | 77 mm² | 123 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.3M / mm² | 12.2M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 725 MHz | 900 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 825 MHz | 925 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) | 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Type | DDR3 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bandwidth | 28.80 GB/s | 64.00 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 384 | 512 |

| TMUs | 24 | 32 |

| ROPs | 8 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 6.600 GPixel/s | 14.80 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 19.80 GTexel/s | 29.60 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 633.6 GFLOPS | 947.2 GFLOPS |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| Generation | Gem System (R7 M200) | FirePro Mobile (Wx100M) |

| Release Date | 2014-01-08 | 2015-10-01 |

| Predecessor | Solar System | FirePro Mobility |

| Successor | Polaris Mobile | Radeon Pro Mobile |

Both GPUs share identical memory size (2 GB), bus width (128 bit), API support, process node (28 nm), and foundry (TSMC). Neither has a launch MSRP listed.

The Verdict

From a pure performance standpoint, the data presents a paradox. The benchmark scores indicate a dead heat, with the R7 M265 leading by 0.5% in Geekbench OpenCL. However, the hardware specifications tell a very different story. The FirePro W5130M is overwhelmingly more powerful on paper: it has 33% more shading units, double the ROPs, 49% higher FP32 compute, and more than double the memory bandwidth. The clock speeds are also higher across the board. This suggests that the Geekbench OpenCL test is not sensitive to the architectural advantages of the FirePro W5130M, or that the R7 M265 is being pushed to its limits while the FirePro W5130M is being held back by drivers or thermal constraints.

For users who rely solely on the benchmark score, the R7 M265 is the nominal winner. It edges out the FirePro W5130M by 25 points, and it also matches the performance of the R7 M360 (4931) and beats the RTX 5060 Ti 8 GB (4901) and GTS 450 (4893). But the margin is so small that it should not influence a purchasing decision. The real takeaway is that both GPUs are functionally equivalent in this test, and the choice should come down to other factors. The FirePro W5130M, with its superior specifications, offers a greater theoretical ceiling for applications that utilize its additional compute units and memory bandwidth, even if that potential is not reflected in the current benchmark. The R7 M265, meanwhile, is a simpler, smaller chip that achieves parity in this specific workload through efficient execution.

Where Each One Wins

AMD Radeon R7 M265: This GPU wins the only head-to-head benchmark, the Geekbench OpenCL test, with a score of 4929 against the FirePro W5130M's 4904. It also claims the single win in the head-to-head comparison dataset. If a user is making a decision based purely on the measured benchmark result, the R7 M265 is the safer choice. Its smaller die (77 mm² vs 123 mm²) and lower transistor count (950 million vs 1,500 million) may also imply lower power consumption, though TDP figures are not available. For general-purpose compute tasks that resemble the Geekbench OpenCL workload, the R7 M265 holds a marginal edge.

AMD FirePro W5130M: This GPU wins on every architectural metric. It delivers 947.2 GFLOPS of FP32 compute, which is 49% higher than the R7 M265's 633.6 GFLOPS. Its pixel rate of 14.80 GPixel/s is more than double the R7 M265's 6.600 GPixel/s, and its texture rate of 29.60 GTexel/s is 49% higher. The memory subsystem is the biggest differentiator: 64.00 GB/s of GDDR5 bandwidth versus 28.80 GB/s of DDR3. The FirePro W5130M also has double the ROPs (16 vs 8) and a wider PCIe interface (x16 vs x8). For workloads that are sensitive to fill-rate, memory bandwidth, or raw shader throughput—such as high-resolution rendering, texture-heavy applications, or compute tasks that scale with core count—the FirePro W5130M is the clear winner, despite its lower benchmark score. Its professional FirePro branding also suggests it was designed for workstation tasks, though the data does not include any workstation-specific benchmarks.