GPU Comparison

The AMD FirePro W5170M and AMD Radeon 880M represent two distinct eras of mobile graphics, separated by a decade of architectural evolution. The data shows a clear generational divide: the Radeon 880M dominates every shared benchmark, while the FirePro W5170M holds only historical relevance. The benchmark results indicate that the Radeon 880M’s modern RDNA 3.5 design delivers performance that the older GCN 1.0 part cannot approach, making the comparison less about competition and more about technological progression.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two GPUs share only two benchmark results in the data: Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. In both cases, the AMD Radeon 880M wins decisively. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Radeon 880M scores 31,285 points against the FirePro W5170M’s 8,140 points. This represents a 74% delta in favor of the newer part, meaning the Radeon 880M is roughly 3.8 times faster in this compute-heavy workload. The gap is even more pronounced in the Geekbench Vulkan test, where the Radeon 880M scores 40,006 points versus the FirePro W5170M’s 9,050 points, a 77.4% delta. That translates to a 4.4x performance advantage for the Radeon 880M in graphics API workloads.

The magnitude of these wins is staggering. A 74% delta in OpenCL and a 77.4% delta in Vulkan are not incremental improvements; they are generational leaps. The FirePro W5170M’s average benchmark score of 8,595 places it in the 44th percentile of all GPUs, while the Radeon 880M’s average of 8,436 sits in the 43rd percentile. Despite the Radeon 880M winning every head-to-head test, its average score is slightly lower due to the inclusion of additional benchmarks in its result set, such as Passmark tests where it scores lower (e.g., 31 in DirectX 10, 32 in DirectX 12). This highlights that the shared benchmark suite favors the newer architecture, but the broader benchmark set tells a more nuanced story.

The deltaPct values in the head-to-head data are negative for the FirePro W5170M, indicating it is the loser by those percentages. The Radeon 880M’s Vulkan score of 40,006 is particularly notable, as it exceeds its own OpenCL score by over 8,700 points, suggesting strong optimization for modern graphics APIs. Conversely, the FirePro W5170M’s Vulkan score of 9,050 is only slightly higher than its OpenCL score, reflecting the older architecture’s less efficient Vulkan implementation. Benchmark results indicate that the Radeon 880M’s advantage is not just in raw compute but also in API efficiency, a critical factor for modern gaming and professional workloads.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the AMD Radeon 880M than the AMD FirePro W5170M in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The Radeon 880M scores 31,285 points, while the FirePro W5170M scores 8,140 points, giving the Radeon 880M a 74% lead in this test.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each GPU, and how do they rank?

A: The FirePro W5170M has an average benchmark score of 8,595, placing it in the 44th percentile of all GPUs. The Radeon 880M has an average score of 8,436, placing it in the 43rd percentile.

Q: Which GPU wins in the Vulkan benchmark, and by how much?

A: The AMD Radeon 880M wins the Geekbench Vulkan test with a score of 40,006 versus the FirePro W5170M’s 9,050, a delta of 77.4% in favor of the Radeon 880M.

Q: Are there any benchmarks where the FirePro W5170M outperforms the Radeon 880M?

A: No. In the two head-to-head benchmark results available (Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan), the Radeon 880M wins both. The FirePro W5170M has zero wins in the head-to-head data.

Q: How does the Radeon 880M’s Passmark scores compare to its Geekbench scores?

A: The Radeon 880M’s Passmark scores are significantly lower than its Geekbench scores. For instance, it scores 31 in Passmark DirectX 10, 73 in DirectX 11, and 7615 in Passmark G3D, whereas its Geekbench OpenCL score is 31,285 and Vulkan score is 40,006.

Q: What is the percentile ranking difference between the two GPUs?

A: The FirePro W5170M ranks in the 44th percentile of all GPUs, while the Radeon 880M ranks in the 43rd percentile, a difference of just one percentile point despite the large performance gap in shared benchmarks.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon 880M wins in every benchmark where both are tested. This makes its use case clear: any workload leveraging OpenCL or Vulkan will see dramatically better performance on the Radeon 880M. The 77.4% Vulkan delta suggests the Radeon 880M is particularly well-suited for modern graphics APIs, making it a better choice for gaming or compute tasks that rely on Vulkan. Its higher shading unit count (768 versus 640) and texture mapping units (48 versus 40) contribute to its superior throughput in these tasks. Additionally, the Radeon 880M’s support for DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4 means it can handle the latest software features, whereas the FirePro W5170M is limited to DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170.

The FirePro W5170M’s use case is more historical. As an end-of-life product from 2014, it may still function in legacy systems where its 2 GB GDDR5 memory and MXM module form factor are required. Its 44th percentile ranking is actually slightly higher than the Radeon 880M’s 43rd percentile, which could indicate that in the full spectrum of GPUs, the older part holds up reasonably well in specific legacy benchmarks. However, this is misleading given the head-to-head results. The FirePro W5170M’s nearest rival is the Intel Arc A380 with a delta of 0.4%, suggesting it sits in a similar performance class to that entry-level discrete GPU, but the Radeon 880M’s nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX with a delta of 0.1%, indicating the newer part is competitive with older high-end mobile GPUs.

For users with modern software, the Radeon 880M is the only sensible choice. Its 15 W TDP and IGP slot width make it suitable for thin-and-light laptops, while its performance in OpenCL and Vulkan ensures it can handle productivity and gaming tasks. The FirePro W5170M, with no TDP listed and a power connector of none, might draw less power but offers far less performance. The data suggests that the Radeon 880M is the winner for any current or future workload, while the FirePro W5170M remains relevant only for legacy applications that do not utilize modern APIs.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every specification. The FirePro W5170M features 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, while the Radeon 880M has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This gives the Radeon 880M a 20% advantage in shading units and a 20% advantage in TMUs, though both have the same ROP count. Clock speeds are starkly different: the FirePro W5170M runs at a base of 900 MHz and boost of 925 MHz, while the Radeon 880M runs at a base of 400 MHz and boost of 2900 MHz. The much higher boost clock on the Radeon 880M, combined with more shading units, explains its massive performance lead.

Memory configurations are fundamentally different. The FirePro W5170M uses 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 72.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The Radeon 880M uses system shared memory, with a bus width and bandwidth labeled as "System Shared" and "System Dependent," respectively. This means the Radeon 880M’s memory performance depends entirely on the host system’s RAM, which can be a bottleneck in some scenarios, but also allows for much larger memory pools than 2 GB. The FirePro W5170M’s dedicated memory offers predictable bandwidth, but its 72 GB/s is far lower than what modern system memory can provide.

The pixel rate and texture rate also differ significantly. The FirePro W5170M delivers 14.80 GPixel/s and 37.00 GTexel/s, while the Radeon 880M delivers 46.40 GPixel/s and 139.2 GTexel/s. This is a 3.1x advantage in pixel rate and a 3.8x advantage in texture rate for the Radeon 880M. The FP32 compute performance tells a similar story: the FirePro W5170M offers 1,184.0 GFLOPS, while the Radeon 880M offers 4.454 TFLOPS, a 3.8x difference. The Radeon 880M also has FP16 performance of 4.454 TFLOPS (1:1), while the FirePro W5170M has no FP16 data available.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide is the root cause of the performance gap. The FirePro W5170M uses the GCN 1.0 architecture on a 28 nm process node, while the Radeon 880M uses RDNA 3.5 on a 4 nm node. This process shrink from 28 nm to 4 nm allows for a dramatic increase in transistor density: the FirePro W5170M has 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die (12.2M / mm²), while the Radeon 880M has 34,000 million transistors on a 233 mm² die (145.9M / mm²). The Radeon 880M’s transistor density is nearly 12 times higher, enabling far more complex compute units.

The Radeon 880M also introduces hardware features that the FirePro W5170M lacks. It includes 12 ray tracing cores, while the FirePro W5170M has none. This makes the Radeon 880M capable of hardware-accelerated ray tracing, a feature that is entirely absent on the older part. The Radeon 880M also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while the FirePro W5170M is limited to DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170. The newer API support means the Radeon 880M can run the latest games and applications that require these features, whereas the FirePro W5170M is locked out of them.

The bus interface is another key difference: the FirePro W5170M uses MXM-A (3.0) and is an MXM Module, while the Radeon 880M is an IGP using PCIe 4.0 x8. The Radeon 880M’s integrated design means it shares power and memory with the CPU, which is reflected in its 15 W TDP, whereas the FirePro W5170M has no TDP listed. The FirePro W5170M is end-of-life and was released in 2014, while the Radeon 880M is active and was released in 2024. The Radeon 880M’s successor is listed as none, while the FirePro W5170M’s successor is Radeon Pro Mobile. These factors combine to show that the Radeon 880M is a modern, feature-rich part, while the FirePro W5170M is a legacy product from an older generation.