AMD FirePro W5170M vs AMD Radeon R7 250 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database includes a single direct benchmark comparison between these two GPUs, and it favors the FirePro W5170M decisively. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the FirePro W5170M scores 8,140 points against 7,557 for the Radeon R7 250, a difference of 7.7 percent. That is a meaningful gap for two GPUs built on the same 28 nm process node, and it reflects real architectural and specification differences rather than a near-tie.

Looking at the broader picture, the FirePro W5170M’s average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 8,595, which places it in the 44th percentile of all GPUs in the database. The Radeon R7 250, with only one recorded benchmark, averages 7,557 and sits in the 41st percentile. The three-point percentile gap is modest, but the raw score difference is consistent. The FirePro’s OpenCL result of 8,140 also lands above its own average? No, it sits slightly below it, suggesting that its Vulkan result of 9,050 is the stronger of the two recorded tests and pulls the average upward. That Vulkan figure is not available for the R7 250, so a full comparison of modern API performance is impossible from the data alone.

What can be said with confidence is that the FirePro W5170M outperforms the R7 250 in the one test they share, and it does so by a margin that is unlikely to be noise. A 7.7 percent lead in OpenCL is substantial enough to shift real workloads, especially compute tasks that scale well across shading units. The R7 250’s closest rival in the database is the Intel Arc A310, with an average score of 7,550, just 0.1 percent behind. The FirePro W5170M’s nearest competitor, the NVIDIA Quadro P2200, scores 8,686, which is 1.1 percent higher. This places the FirePro in a slightly higher performance tier than the R7 250, even though both are entry-level parts from the same generation.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL compute workloads?

A: The AMD FirePro W5170M scores 8,140 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the AMD Radeon R7 250 scores 7,557. That is a 7.7 percent advantage for the FirePro.

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

A: Yes. Both report DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170 in their API listings.

Q: How do the memory subsystems compare?

A: The FirePro W5170M uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 72.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The R7 250 uses 1 GB of DDR3 on the same 128-bit bus, delivering only 28.80 GB/s. The FirePro offers 2.5 times the memory bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The FirePro W5170M has 640 shading units, compared to 512 on the R7 250. It also has 40 texture mapping units versus 32, while both share 16 ROPs.

Q: Are these GPUs from the same architecture generation?

A: Yes, both are built on GCN 1.0 architecture and use the 28 nm TSMC process. They even share the same 1,500 million transistor count and 123 mm² die size.

Q: What is the R7 250’s closest rival in the database?

A: The Intel Arc A310, with an average score of 7,550, is just 0.1 percent behind the R7 250’s 7,557. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is 1.1 percent behind at 7,472.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built on AMD’s GCN 1.0 architecture and fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process node. They share the exact same transistor count of 1,500 million and an identical die size of 123 mm², resulting in the same transistor density of 12.2 million transistors per square millimeter. This means the fundamental silicon technology is identical; the differences come from how the chips are configured and paired with memory.

The FirePro W5170M uses the Tropo chip, while the R7 250 uses Cape Verde. Despite the different names, both are GCN 1.0 designs with the same physical resources. The FirePro enables 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The R7 250 enables fewer of those resources: 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and still 16 ROPs. The ROP count matching explains why both GPUs have an identical pixel rate of 14.80 GPixel/s. The texture rate differs, however, with the FirePro at 37.00 GTexel/s versus 29.60 GTexel/s for the R7 250, a direct result of the extra TMUs.

The memory architecture is where the gap widens. The FirePro W5170M pairs its chip with 2 GB of GDDR5 running at an effective 4.5 Gbps, producing 72.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The R7 250 uses 1 GB of DDR3 at an effective 1,800 Mbps, yielding just 28.80 GB/s. Both use a 128-bit memory bus, so the bandwidth difference comes entirely from the memory type and clock speed. The GDDR5 solution on the FirePro is clearly the more capable configuration for bandwidth-hungry workloads.

The FP32 compute output reflects both the shading unit count and clock speeds. The FirePro W5170M achieves 1,184.0 GFLOPS, while the R7 250 manages 947.2 GFLOPS. That is a 25 percent advantage for the FirePro in raw floating-point throughput. The FirePro also clocks higher, with a base of 900 MHz and a boost of 925 MHz, whereas the R7 250 has no base or boost clock listed in the database. The memory clock is also higher on the FirePro at 1,125 MHz versus 900 MHz for the R7 250.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs diverge in several key specification fields. The FirePro W5170M is a mobile part using an MXM Module slot width and an MXM-A (3.0) bus interface, while the R7 250 is a desktop card with a Single-slot design and a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface. The FirePro’s display outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent," whereas the R7 250 offers 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x DisplayPort 1.2.

Memory capacity differs: the FirePro has 2 GB, the R7 250 has 1 GB. Memory type differs as well, GDDR5 versus DDR3. The FirePro’s memory runs at 1,125 MHz with an effective 4.5 Gbps, while the R7 250’s memory runs at 900 MHz with an effective 1,800 Mbps. Bandwidth is 72.00 GB/s for the FirePro and 28.80 GB/s for the R7 250.

The FirePro has 640 shading units and 40 TMUs; the R7 250 has 512 and 32, respectively. Both have 16 ROPs. The FirePro’s pixel rate is 14.80 GPixel/s, matching the R7 250, but its texture rate is 37.00 GTexel/s versus 29.60 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 1,184.0 GFLOPS for the FirePro and 947.2 GFLOPS for the R7 250.

The R7 250 has a listed TDP of 55 W and a suggested PSU of 250 W, while the FirePro W5170M has no TDP listed. The R7 250 measures 168 mm in length (6.6 inches); the FirePro has no dimensions listed. The R7 250 requires no power connectors, and the FirePro also uses none. The R7 250 uses a chip named Cape Verde, while the FirePro uses Tropo. The R7 250 belongs to the Volcanic Islands (R7 200) generation, and the FirePro belongs to the FirePro Mobile (Wx100M) generation. The R7 250 was released in 2013, and the FirePro W5170M in 2014.

Where Each One Wins

The FirePro W5170M wins in every measurable category where data exists. It has a higher OpenCL score, more shading units, more TMUs, higher clocks, more memory, faster memory, and substantially higher bandwidth. Its FP32 throughput is 25 percent higher than the R7 250’s. For compute workloads, professional applications, or any task that leverages OpenCL, the FirePro is the clear choice based on the recorded data.

The R7 250’s advantages are more subtle and practical. As a desktop card with a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface and dedicated display outputs, it is easier to install in a standard desktop system. It has a listed TDP of 55 W and requires only a 250 W power supply, making it a low-power drop-in option. Its single-slot design and lack of power connectors simplify installation. It also has a defined 168 mm length, which helps with case compatibility. None of these are performance wins, but they are usability wins for a desktop builder.

In terms of nearest rivals, the FirePro W5170M sits close to the NVIDIA Quadro P2200, which is 1.1 percent faster, and the Intel Arc A380, which is 0.4 percent faster. The R7 250 sits near the Intel Arc A310, which is 0.1 percent faster, and the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100, which is 0.3 percent faster. This suggests the FirePro competes in a slightly higher performance bracket than the R7 250, despite both being entry-level offerings.

The Verdict

The data points to a straightforward conclusion: the AMD FirePro W5170M is the stronger GPU in every performance metric recorded. It beats the R7 250 by 7.7 percent in OpenCL, offers 25 percent more FP32 throughput, and delivers 2.5 times the memory bandwidth. Its 640 shading units and 40 TMUs give it a clear compute advantage over the R7 250’s 512 and 32. For anyone prioritizing raw performance, especially in OpenCL-based workloads, the FirePro W5170M is the obvious pick.

The R7 250 is not without merit, but its strengths lie outside of performance. It is a compact, low-power desktop card with a 55 W TDP, a 250 W suggested PSU, and no auxiliary power connectors. It fits in standard desktop cases and offers fixed display outputs. For a basic desktop system that needs a modest GPU without the complexity of a mobile MXM module, the R7 250 serves a purpose. However, the FirePro W5170M’s mobile form factor means it is not a direct replacement in a desktop build. The choice ultimately depends on the platform: the FirePro for mobile workstations and compute tasks, the R7 250 for simple desktop graphics. Based purely on the numbers, the FirePro W5170M is the superior performer.