AMD FirePro W5170M vs AMD Radeon R9 M265X Comparison

The AMD Radeon R9 M265X and AMD FirePro W5170M are both end-of-life mobile GPUs built on the same 28 nm GCN 1.0 foundation, yet the benchmark data reveals a clear performance hierarchy between them. In the single head-to-head benchmark available, the Radeon R9 M265X takes the lead with an 8.7% advantage in Geekbench OpenCL, scoring 8851 versus the FirePro W5170M’s 8140. However, the FirePro counters with a strong Vulkan showing that the Radeon does not match, making this a nuanced comparison despite the seemingly straightforward win column.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison in the data is Geekbench OpenCL, and it decisively favors the Radeon R9 M265X. With a score of 8851, the Radeon outperforms the FirePro W5170M’s 8140 by 8.7%. That is a meaningful margin for two GPUs sharing the same transistor count, die size, and shading unit configuration. The Radeon’s higher raw compute throughput, measured at 800.0 GFLOPS FP32, is offset by the FirePro’s superior clock speeds, yet the OpenCL result shows the Radeon still wins. The Radeon’s nearest rivals in this test include the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 (8863, deltaPct -0.1) and the AMD Radeon 550X (8918, deltaPct -0.8), placing it within 1% of both. The FirePro, by contrast, sits near the Intel Arc A380 (8558, deltaPct 0.4) and the NVIDIA Quadro P2200 (8686, deltaPct -1.1), showing it competes in a slightly lower tier.

Where the FirePro W5170M fights back is in the Vulkan API, a test absent from the Radeon’s benchmark list. The FirePro scores 9050 in Geekbench Vulkan, which is higher than its own OpenCL result of 8140 and even surpasses the Radeon’s winning OpenCL score. This suggests that while the Radeon dominates in OpenCL workloads, the FirePro may have an edge in Vulkan-specific applications, though no direct head-to-head Vulkan comparison exists in the data. The Radeon’s average benchmark score is 8851, while the FirePro’s average is 8595, a 3% gap that reflects the Radeon’s stronger single-test performance. Both GPUs sit at the 44th percentile among all GPUs, indicating they are mid-pack performers in the broader landscape.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built on the GCN 1.0 architecture and use a 28 nm process at TSMC, but they diverge in their silicon implementations. The Radeon R9 M265X uses the Venus chip, while the FirePro W5170M uses the Tropo chip. Despite this difference, both chips pack precisely 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, yielding an identical transistor density of 12.2M / mm². The shading unit count is also the same: 640 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 16 raster operation units on both cards. This means the fundamental compute architecture is identical; the differences arise elsewhere.

Clock speeds are where the FirePro pulls ahead significantly. The FirePro W5170M runs at a base clock of 900 MHz with a boost of 925 MHz, while the Radeon R9 M265X is substantially slower at 575 MHz base and 625 MHz boost. This clock advantage translates directly into higher throughput rates: the FirePro achieves 14.80 GPixel/s pixel fill rate and 37.00 GTexel/s texture fill rate, compared to the Radeon’s 10.00 GPixel/s and 25.00 GTexel/s. The FirePro’s FP32 compute is also higher at 1,184.0 GFLOPS versus the Radeon’s 800.0 GFLOPS — a 48% advantage in theoretical peak performance. Yet the OpenCL benchmark tells a different story, suggesting that real-world workloads do not always scale with clock speed alone.

Memory configurations are similar but not identical. Both use 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, but the FirePro’s memory runs at 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective) yielding 72.00 GB/s bandwidth, while the Radeon’s memory is clocked at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) for 64.00 GB/s. The FirePro’s 12.5% bandwidth advantage is notable but did not translate into an OpenCL win. The Radeon uses a standard PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, while the FirePro is a mobile MXM-A (3.0) module with no power connectors and display output described as “Portable Device Dependent.” Both support DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170, so API feature parity is complete.

Where Each One Wins

The Radeon R9 M265X wins in OpenCL compute workloads, as evidenced by its 8.7% head-to-head victory. This makes it the better choice for applications that rely on OpenCL acceleration, such as certain scientific simulations, video encoding tasks, or OpenCL-based rendering pipelines. Its nearest rival proximity to the Radeon Pro WX 5100 (deltaPct -0.1) and Radeon 550X (deltaPct -0.8) shows it is competitive with slightly newer or higher-tier parts, while its 1.2% edge over the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile and GTX 460 v2 suggests it holds its own against a range of discrete options. For users prioritizing OpenCL performance, the Radeon is the clear pick.

The FirePro W5170M wins in Vulkan performance, at least based on its own benchmark score of 9050, which is 11.2% higher than its OpenCL result. This indicates that Vulkan-based games or applications may run better on the FirePro, despite its lower OpenCL showing. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Arc A380 (deltaPct 0.4) and NVIDIA Quadro P2200 (deltaPct -1.1), placing it in a similar performance tier as those workstation and enthusiast parts. The FirePro’s higher clock speeds and memory bandwidth also make it theoretically better for fill-rate-bound tasks, such as high-resolution texture rendering or multi-sample anti-aliasing, where the 14.80 GPixel/s and 37.00 GTexel/s rates could provide tangible benefits. Additionally, the FirePro’s MXM-A form factor and lack of power connectors make it a different physical solution, suited for modular mobile workstations, whereas the Radeon’s PCIe interface points to a more traditional laptop implementation.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL benchmarks?

A: The AMD Radeon R9 M265X is faster, scoring 8851 in Geekbench OpenCL compared to the FirePro W5170M’s 8140, an 8.7% difference.

Q: Does the FirePro W5170M have any performance advantage?

A: Yes, the FirePro achieves a Vulkan score of 9050, which is higher than the Radeon’s OpenCL score of 8851, though no direct Vulkan comparison exists in the data.

Q: Are these GPUs architecturally identical?

A: Both use GCN 1.0 architecture on 28 nm TSMC process with the same 1,500 million transistors, 123 mm² die size, 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, but they use different chips: Venus for the Radeon and Tropo for the FirePro.

Q: What are the clock speed differences?

A: The FirePro runs at 900 MHz base and 925 MHz boost, while the Radeon is significantly lower at 575 MHz base and 625 MHz boost.

Q: How does memory bandwidth compare?

A: The FirePro has 72.00 GB/s bandwidth from 1125 MHz GDDR5, while the Radeon offers 64.00 GB/s from 1000 MHz GDDR5; both use 2 GB on a 128-bit bus.

Q: Which GPU has better raw compute specifications?

A: The FirePro leads with 1,184.0 GFLOPS FP32, 14.80 GPixel/s, and 37.00 GTexel/s, versus the Radeon’s 800.0 GFLOPS, 10.00 GPixel/s, and 25.00 GTexel/s.

Specification Differences

| Field | AMD Radeon R9 M265X | AMD FirePro W5170M |

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

| Chip | Venus | Tropo |

| Generation | Gem System (R9 M200) | FirePro Mobile (Wx100M) |

| Base Clock | 575 MHz | 900 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 625 MHz | 925 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) | 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Bandwidth | 64.00 GB/s | 72.00 GB/s |

| Pixel Rate | 10.00 GPixel/s | 14.80 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 25.00 GTexel/s | 37.00 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 800.0 GFLOPS | 1,184.0 GFLOPS |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | MXM-A (3.0) |

| Power Connectors | — | None |

| Display Outputs | — | Portable Device Dependent |

| Slot Width | — | MXM Module |

| Geekbench OpenCL Score | 8851 | 8140 |

| Geekbench Vulkan Score | — | 9050 |

| Avg Benchmark Score | 8851 | 8595 |

| Release Date | 2014-03-20 | 2014-08-24 |

| Predecessor | Solar System | FirePro Mobility |

| Successor | Polaris Mobile | Radeon Pro Mobile |