AMD FirePro W5170M vs AMD Radeon R9 M375 Comparison

The Verdict

The data in the database is unambiguous: the AMD Radeon R9 M375 outperforms the AMD FirePro W5170M in every recorded benchmark. The R9 M375 wins both head-to-head tests, with a decisive 28.5% lead in Geekbench OpenCL and a 7% lead in Geekbench Vulkan. Its average benchmark score sits at 10070, placing it in the 48th percentile of all GPUs, while the FirePro W5170M averages 8595, landing in the 44th percentile.

For a buyer choosing between these two, the R9 M375 is the straightforward pick if raw compute performance is the priority. It delivers higher scores across the board, and its nearest rivals in the database include the NVIDIA Quadro K5100M (which it edges by 0.3%) and the AMD Radeon Pro 5300M (0.6% ahead). The FirePro W5170M, by contrast, sits closer to the Intel Arc A380 (0.4% behind) and the NVIDIA Quadro P2200 (1.1% behind), and it only manages to beat the AMD Radeon HD 8870M and NVIDIA GeForce MX330 by 1.6% each.

The FirePro W5170M is not without merit: it uses faster GDDR5 memory and comes as an MXM module, which suggests a different intended deployment. But on pure benchmark evidence, the R9 M375 is the faster part. If you need the FirePro branding for professional software certification or a specific MXM form factor, the W5170M is the only choice. Otherwise, the R9 M375 wins.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built on the same fundamental architecture: GCN 1.0, using the Tropo chip, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. Both have exactly 1,500 million transistors and a die size of 123 mm², giving both a transistor density of 12.2M per mm². The shading unit count is identical at 640, with 40 texture mapping units and 16 raster operations units. Neither GPU has dedicated ray tracing or tensor cores.

The differences are in the clock speeds and memory subsystem. The R9 M375 runs a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 1015 MHz, while the FirePro W5170M is set to 900 MHz base and 925 MHz boost. That clock advantage translates directly into higher fill rates: the R9 M375 achieves 16.24 GPixel/s and 40.60 GTexel/s, versus 14.80 GPixel/s and 37.00 GTexel/s for the W5170M. FP32 compute is similarly higher on the R9 M375 at 1,299.2 GFLOPS, compared to 1,184.0 GFLOPS.

Memory is where the W5170M fights back. Both cards have 2 GB on a 128-bit bus, but the R9 M375 uses DDR3 at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective), yielding 28.80 GB/s of bandwidth. The FirePro W5170M uses GDDR5 at 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective), which more than doubles the bandwidth to 72.00 GB/s. That is a significant gap in memory throughput, though in the recorded benchmarks it did not overcome the R9 M375's compute advantage.

The bus interface also differs: the R9 M375 connects via PCIe 3.0 x16, while the W5170M uses MXM-A (3.0) and is described as an MXM Module with no power connectors. Display outputs on the W5170M are listed as "Portable Device Dependent," while the R9 M375 lists none in the database. API support is identical: DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records two head-to-head comparisons, and the R9 M375 wins both.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the R9 M375 scores 10457 against the FirePro W5170M's 8140. That is a 28.5% advantage, a substantial margin that reflects the R9 M375's higher clock speeds and compute throughput. This is the largest single win in the comparison, and it dominates the average score gap: the R9 M375's average is 10070, while the W5170M's is 8595, a difference of roughly 17%.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the gap narrows considerably. The R9 M375 scores 9682, and the FirePro W5170M scores 9050, a 7% difference. This suggests that the W5170M's faster memory bandwidth helps in API-level workloads that are more sensitive to memory latency or throughput, though it still falls short. The R9 M375's Vulkan score is actually lower than its OpenCL score, while the W5170M's Vulkan score is higher than its OpenCL score, indicating that the FirePro part performs relatively better under Vulkan than under OpenCL.

Overall, the R9 M375 wins 2 of 2 recorded comparisons. The FirePro W5170M has no wins in the database.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in the database benchmarks?

A: The AMD Radeon R9 M375 wins both recorded tests. It scores 10457 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 8140 for the FirePro W5170M, and 9682 in Geekbench Vulkan versus 9050.

Q: How much faster is the R9 M375 in OpenCL?

A: The R9 M375 leads by 28.5% in Geekbench OpenCL, which is the largest margin in the comparison.

Q: Does the FirePro W5170M have any advantage in memory?

A: Yes. The W5170M uses GDDR5 memory at 1125 MHz with 72.00 GB/s bandwidth, while the R9 M375 uses DDR3 at 900 MHz with 28.80 GB/s. Both have 2 GB on a 128-bit bus.

Q: Are the two GPUs based on the same chip?

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

Q: What is the form factor difference?

A: The FirePro W5170M is an MXM Module with an MXM-A (3.0) bus interface and no power connectors. The R9 M375 uses a standard PCIe 3.0 x16 interface.

Q: Which GPU has a higher percentile ranking?

A: The R9 M375 is in the 48th percentile of all GPUs, while the FirePro W5170M sits in the 44th percentile.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon R9 M375 wins in every recorded benchmark category. Its OpenCL lead of 28.5% is the strongest argument for choosing it: compute-heavy workloads that use OpenCL will see a clear performance advantage. The Vulkan lead of 7% is smaller but still consistent. For general-purpose GPU compute, gaming workloads, or any task that relies on raw shader throughput, the R9 M375 is the better choice based on the data.

The R9 M375 also has a higher average benchmark score (10070 versus 8595) and a higher percentile ranking (48th versus 44th). Its nearest rivals in the database are the NVIDIA Quadro K5100M and AMD Radeon Pro 5300M, both of which it slightly edges out, meaning it sits in competitive company.

The AMD FirePro W5170M does have one clear area of technical superiority: memory bandwidth. At 72.00 GB/s, it offers more than double the bandwidth of the R9 M375's 28.80 GB/s. In workloads that are heavily bandwidth-bound, such as certain texture-heavy rendering or data movement tasks, the W5170M could be expected to perform better than its raw compute scores suggest. However, the database does not record any benchmark where that translates into a win.

The W5170M also comes with the FirePro branding and an MXM module form factor, which indicates it was designed for mobile professional workstations. If you need a drop-in MXM replacement or require a GPU that is explicitly positioned for professional mobile use, the W5170M is the only one of the two that fits that role. But based on measured performance, the R9 M375 is the faster GPU.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon R9 M375 | AMD FirePro W5170M |

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

| Base Clock | 1000 MHz | 900 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1015 MHz | 925 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) | 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Type | DDR3 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bandwidth | 28.80 GB/s | 72.00 GB/s |

| Pixel Rate | 16.24 GPixel/s | 14.80 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 40.60 GTexel/s | 37.00 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Compute | 1,299.2 GFLOPS | 1,184.0 GFLOPS |

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

| Slot Width | Not listed | MXM Module |

| Power Connectors | Not listed | None |

| Display Outputs | Not listed | Portable Device Dependent |

| Generation | Gem System (R9 M300) | FirePro Mobile (Wx100M) |

| Release Date | 2015-05-04 | 2014-08-24 |

| Predecessor | Solar System | FirePro Mobility |

| Successor | Polaris Mobile | Radeon Pro Mobile |

Both GPUs share identical core counts: 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Both use GCN 1.0 architecture, the Tropo chip, 28 nm process, 1,500 million transistors, and a 123 mm² die. Both have 2 GB of memory on a 128-bit bus, and both support DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. Neither has a launch MSRP recorded in the database, and both are listed as end-of-life products.