AMD FirePro W5170M vs AMD Radeon R7 350 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD FirePro W5170M leads with an average benchmark score of 8595, while the AMD Radeon R7 350 trails at 7425. That places the FirePro at the 44th percentile of all GPUs, versus the R7 350 at the 40th percentile.

Q: How do the two compare in OpenCL performance?

A: The FirePro W5170M scores 8140 in Geekbench OpenCL, beating the R7 350's 7792 by 4.5%. This is a clear but modest advantage in compute workloads.

Q: What about Vulkan performance?

A: The gap widens substantially in Vulkan. The FirePro W5170M scores 9050, which is 28.2% ahead of the R7 350's 7057. This is the largest single benchmark difference between the two cards.

Q: Do they use the same architecture?

A: Yes, both are built on GCN 1.0 architecture, fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process. Both chips are 123 mm² with 1,500 million transistors.

Q: Are the memory specifications identical?

A: Yes. Both cards feature 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus with 72.00 GB/s bandwidth and 4.5 Gbps effective memory speed.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The FirePro W5170M has 640 shading units, while the R7 350 has 512. The FirePro also has more texture mapping units (40 vs 32), though both share 16 ROPs.

The Verdict

The data points to a single conclusion: the AMD FirePro W5170M is the stronger GPU in every recorded benchmark. It wins both head-to-head tests, taking OpenCL by 4.5% and Vulkan by 28.2%. Its average score of 8595 sits 15.8% above the R7 350's 7425.

For users prioritizing compute performance, especially Vulkan-based workloads, the FirePro W5170M is the clear choice. The 28.2% Vulkan delta is decisive, not marginal. The R7 350 does not close the gap in any measured test.

That said, the R7 350 has its own merits. It is a single-slot desktop card with a 55 W TDP and a suggested 250 W PSU, while the FirePro W5170M comes as an MXM module with no specified TDP. The R7 350 also offers fixed display outputs (1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 1x DisplayPort 1.2), whereas the FirePro's outputs are listed as portable device dependent.

The pick depends on form factor and workload. If the system accepts an MXM module and the task leans on Vulkan, the FirePro W5170M is the superior option. If a low-power desktop card with standard outputs is required, the R7 350 is the practical fit, even if its compute scores are lower.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two recorded head-to-head tests show a consistent winner. In Geekbench OpenCL, the FirePro W5170M scores 8140 against the R7 350's 7792, a 4.5% margin. This is a solid but not overwhelming lead in general compute throughput.

The Vulkan test is where the FirePro separates itself. It scores 9050, while the R7 350 manages 7057. That 28.2% delta is the standout result in this comparison. The FirePro's Vulkan advantage is nearly seven times larger than its OpenCL advantage, suggesting its architecture handles modern low-level graphics APIs with far greater efficiency.

Looking at the broader database context, the FirePro W5170M's average score of 8595 places it just 1.1% below the NVIDIA Quadro P2200 (8686) and 0.4% above the Intel Arc A380 (8558). It also runs 1.6% ahead of both the AMD Radeon HD 8870M and the NVIDIA GeForce MX330 (8462 and 8458 respectively).

The R7 350's average of 7425 sits in a tighter cluster. It is 0.2% below the Intel UHD Graphics 750 (7441), 0.3% below the AMD Radeon HD 8850M (7447), 0.6% below the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (7472), and 1.7% below the Intel Arc A310 (7550). The R7 350 is competitive within its peer group, but the FirePro operates in a higher tier.

In short, the FirePro W5170M wins both tests outright. The Vulkan gap is the headline number, but even the smaller OpenCL margin keeps the R7 350 behind across the board.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in several physical and compute specifications, despite sharing memory and process technology.

The FirePro W5170M uses the Tropo chip, while the R7 350 uses Cape Verde. Both are GCN 1.0, but the compute resources differ. The FirePro carries 640 shading units and 40 TMUs, while the R7 350 has 512 shading units and 32 TMUs. Both have 16 ROPs.

Clock speeds also differ. The FirePro has a base clock of 900 MHz and a boost clock of 925 MHz. The R7 350's base and boost clocks are not recorded in the database. Memory clocks are identical at 1125 MHz with 4.5 Gbps effective.

The resulting throughput figures reflect these differences. The FirePro achieves 14.80 GPixel/s pixel rate and 37.00 GTexel/s texture rate, with FP32 performance of 1,184.0 GFLOPS. The R7 350 delivers 12.80 GPixel/s, 25.60 GTexel/s, and 819.2 GFLOPS.

Form factor and interface are major differentiators. The FirePro is an MXM Module with an MXM-A (3.0) bus interface and no power connectors. The R7 350 is a Single-slot card with a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, also with no power connectors. The R7 350 has a recorded TDP of 55 W and a suggested PSU of 250 W, while the FirePro has no TDP or PSU data.

The R7 350 measures 168 mm (6.6 inches) in length and offers 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs. The FirePro's display outputs are listed as portable device dependent.

Release timing differs as well. The FirePro launched in August 2014, while the R7 350 came in July 2016. Both are end-of-life, with the FirePro succeeding FirePro Mobility and preceding Radeon Pro Mobile, while the R7 350 succeeds Volcanic Islands and precedes Arctic Islands.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built on GCN 1.0 architecture from AMD, fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process. The die size is identical at 123 mm², and both pack 1,500 million transistors, yielding the same transistor density of 12.2M per mm².

The core difference lies in execution resources. The FirePro W5170M's Tropo chip enables 640 shading units and 40 TMUs, while the R7 350's Cape Verde chip provides 512 shading units and 32 TMUs. ROP count is equal at 16.

These resource differences translate directly into throughput. The FirePro's FP32 rating of 1,184.0 GFLOPS is 44.5% higher than the R7 350's 819.2 GFLOPS. Texture rate follows a similar pattern: 37.00 GTexel/s versus 25.60 GTexel/s.

Memory architecture is identical on paper. Both use 2 GB of GDDR5 over a 128-bit bus, with 72.00 GB/s bandwidth. The memory clock is also the same at 1125 MHz and 4.5 Gbps effective. This means the performance gap comes entirely from the compute pipeline, not from memory throughput.

API support is also identical. Both support DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. Neither has ray tracing or tensor cores.

The generation labels differ: the FirePro belongs to the FirePro Mobile (Wx100M) generation, while the R7 350 belongs to Pirate Islands (R7 300). The R7 350 has a defined power envelope of 55 W and a suggested 250 W PSU, while the FirePro's power profile is not recorded.

Where Each One Wins

The FirePro W5170M wins in every measured benchmark, so its advantages are straightforward. It leads in OpenCL by 4.5% and in Vulkan by 28.2%. Its average score of 8595 is higher across the board, and it sits at the 44th percentile versus the R7 350's 40th.

The FirePro's compute resources are superior: 640 shading units versus 512, 40 TMUs versus 32, and FP32 performance of 1,184.0 GFLOPS versus 819.2 GFLOPS. For any workload that scales with shading units or texture throughput, the FirePro is the stronger card. Its Vulkan result, in particular, suggests it handles modern API overhead better, making it the better pick for Vulkan-based applications or games.

The R7 350's wins are not in performance but in deployment characteristics. It is a single-slot desktop card with a 55 W TDP and a suggested 250 W PSU, making it easier to integrate into standard desktop builds. Its fixed display outputs (1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 1x DisplayPort 1.2) are concrete and predictable, unlike the FirePro's portable device dependent outputs. Its 168 mm length suits compact cases. It also launched later, in July 2016, which may matter for platform compatibility in systems from that era.

In use-case terms: the FirePro W5170M suits mobile workstations and MXM-based systems where compute performance, especially Vulkan, is the priority. The R7 350 suits low-power desktop systems where a standard PCIe slot, fixed display outputs, and a modest 55 W power draw are more important than peak compute scores. The data does not show any benchmark where the R7 350 outperforms the FirePro, so the choice reduces to form factor and system requirements rather than raw performance.