AMD FirePro W5170M vs AMD Radeon R9 M360 Comparison

The AMD FirePro W5170M and AMD Radeon R9 M360 are two nearly identical GCN 1.0 GPUs from the same Tropo chip, differentiated mainly by their target segments and memory configuration. The data shows a split decision: the FirePro W5170M takes an emphatic victory in Vulkan compute, while the Radeon R9 M360 edges ahead in OpenCL. The FirePro W5170M sits at the 44th percentile of all GPUs, while the R9 M360 ranks at the 42nd, making both firmly mid-pack mobile parts. Their average benchmark scores differ by just 466 points out of roughly 8,500, a margin of about 5.4%, but the architectural and memory differences create distinct use cases.

The Verdict

The AMD FirePro W5170M is the choice for workloads that leverage the Vulkan API, where it posts a 12.5% advantage over the R9 M360 in the Geekbench Vulkan test (9050 vs 8047). Its higher shading unit count — 640 versus 512 — and correspondingly higher FP32 throughput (1,184.0 GFLOPS vs 947.2 GFLOPS) give it a raw compute edge that manifests in Vulkan. The R9 M360, however, retakes the lead in OpenCL, scoring 8211 against the FirePro's 8140, a 0.9% margin that is nearly negligible.

For buyers, the decision hinges on API preference and memory capacity. The R9 M360 offers 4 GB of GDDR5, double the FirePro's 2 GB, which matters for texture-heavy workloads or larger framebuffers. The FirePro W5170M, with its MXM-A (3.0) form factor and portable-device-dependent outputs, targets professional mobile workstations, while the R9 M360's PCIe 3.0 x16 interface suggests a more conventional laptop implementation. Given the near-tie in average scores (8595 vs 8129, a 5.7% gap favoring the FirePro), the FirePro's Vulkan dominance and higher percentile ranking make it the better all-rounder for modern compute APIs, provided 2 GB of memory suffices. If memory capacity is paramount, the R9 M360's 4 GB is the deciding factor.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs share the same Tropo chip, built on GCN 1.0 architecture, fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process. The die is identical: 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² area, yielding a transistor density of 12.2M / mm². Both run at the same clocks — 900 MHz base, 925 MHz boost, and 1125 MHz memory (4.5 Gbps effective). The memory bus is also the same 128-bit width, with identical bandwidth of 72.00 GB/s.

The fundamental architectural split lies in the compute unit configuration. The FirePro W5170M packs 640 shading units, 40 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 16 raster operation units (ROPs). The R9 M360 scales down to 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, but retains the same 16 ROPs. This directly impacts throughput: the FirePro delivers 37.00 GTexel/s texture rate versus the R9 M360's 29.60 GTexel/s, a 25% advantage. Both achieve the same pixel rate of 14.80 GPixel/s due to identical ROP counts and clocks.

Memory capacity is the other major differentiator, with the R9 M360 offering 4 GB GDDR5 versus the FirePro's 2 GB. Both support DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The FirePro uses an MXM-A (3.0) bus interface and is specified as an MXM Module, while the R9 M360 uses PCIe 3.0 x16. The FirePro's display outputs are listed as portable-device-dependent, whereas the R9 M360 has no listed display outputs. Both are end-of-life products, with the FirePro releasing in August 2014 and the R9 M360 in May 2015.

Where Each One Wins

The FirePro W5170M wins decisively in Vulkan compute workloads. Its Geekbench Vulkan score of 9050 is 12.5% higher than the R9 M360's 8047, a substantial margin that reflects its larger shader array. This advantage extends to any application that scales with shading unit count and FP32 throughput. The FirePro's FP32 performance of 1,184.0 GFLOPS is 25% higher than the R9 M360's 947.2 GFLOPS, so Vulkan titles or compute shaders that fully utilize the shader units will show a clear benefit.

The R9 M360 wins in OpenCL, albeit narrowly. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 8211 beats the FirePro's 8140 by 0.9%. This is a slim margin, but it flips the expected outcome given the FirePro's higher theoretical compute. The R9 M360's 4 GB memory capacity is its other key advantage, allowing it to handle larger datasets, higher-resolution textures, or multi-tasking scenarios without swapping. The texture rate favors the FirePro at 37.00 GTexel/s versus 29.60 GTexel/s, but the R9 M360's OpenCL result suggests that memory capacity or driver optimizations can offset the raw throughput deficit in certain workloads.

The average benchmark scores tell a similar story: the FirePro leads with 8595 against the R9 M360's 8129. The FirePro's nearest rival, the Intel Arc A380, scores 8558 (0.4% behind), while the R9 M360's closest competitor, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M, scores 8135 (0.1% behind the R9 M360). This places the FirePro in a slightly higher performance tier.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance?

A: The AMD FirePro W5170M has higher FP32 throughput at 1,184.0 GFLOPS, compared to the Radeon R9 M360's 947.2 GFLOPS. It also has more shading units (640 vs 512) and TMUs (40 vs 32).

Q: Does the R9 M360 ever beat the FirePro in benchmarks?

A: Yes, the R9 M360 wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 8211 versus the FirePro's 8140, a 0.9% margin. It also has double the memory capacity (4 GB vs 2 GB).

Q: What is the biggest performance gap between the two?

A: The largest delta is in Geekbench Vulkan, where the FirePro W5170M scores 9050 against the R9 M360's 8047, a 12.5% advantage for the FirePro.

Q: Are these GPUs the same architecture?

A: Yes, both are based on the GCN 1.0 architecture, using the same Tropo chip on a 28 nm TSMC process with 1,500 million transistors and a 123 mm² die size.

Q: Which GPU has better memory bandwidth?

A: Both have identical memory bandwidth of 72.00 GB/s, using a 128-bit bus with GDDR5 memory at 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective). They differ only in capacity.

Q: How do these GPUs compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The FirePro W5170M is 0.4% ahead of the Intel Arc A380 (8558) and 1.6% ahead of the AMD Radeon HD 8870M (8462) in average score. The R9 M360 is 0.1% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M (8135) and 0.4% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce 945M (8099).

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two GPUs split their head-to-head benchmark results evenly, with one win each. The R9 M360 takes the Geekbench OpenCL test, scoring 8211 against the FirePro's 8140. This 71-point difference translates to a 0.9% delta in favor of the R9 M360. The result is notable because the FirePro has 25% more shading units and 25% higher FP32 throughput, yet still loses in this specific workload. The R9 M360's 4 GB memory capacity, double that of the FirePro, may be the differentiating factor in OpenCL's memory management patterns. Driver maturity for the newer R9 M360, released in May 2015 versus August 2014 for the FirePro, could also play a role.

The FirePro W5170M answers back emphatically in the Geekbench Vulkan test. Its score of 9050 dwarfs the R9 M360's 8047, producing a 12.5% delta — the largest performance gap between the two in any benchmark. This 1003-point margin is more than 14 times larger than the R9 M360's OpenCL win, indicating that Vulkan workloads fully exploit the FirePro's additional compute resources. The FirePro's 640 shading units and 1,184.0 GFLOPS FP32 performance are the likely drivers, as Vulkan's low-level access allows applications to more directly utilize the hardware's parallel processing capabilities.

The texture rate difference further supports the FirePro's advantage in shader-heavy tasks. At 37.00 GTexel/s, the FirePro outperforms the R9 M360's 29.60 GTexel/s by 25%, matching the shading unit ratio. The pixel rate, however, is identical at 14.80 GPixel/s for both, since they share the same 16 ROPs and clock speeds. This means fill-rate-limited scenarios will perform equally, while compute and texture-bound workloads will favor the FirePro.

The average benchmark scores reflect the FirePro's overall edge: 8595 versus 8129, a 5.7% gap. The FirePro's percentile ranking of 44 versus the R9 M360's 42 confirms its slightly higher standing in the broader GPU landscape. In the nearest rival comparisons, the FirePro's closest competitor is the Intel Arc A380 at 8558 (0.4% lower), while the R9 M360's nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M at 8135 (0.1% higher). The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 appears in the R9 M360's rival list with a score of 8167, a 0.5% delta, showing the R9 M360 is within striking distance of a desktop-class GPU from the same era. Ultimately, the data shows two closely matched GPUs where the FirePro's compute advantage in Vulkan outweighs the R9 M360's modest OpenCL lead and memory capacity advantage.