AMD FirePro W5170M vs AMD Radeon R9 M375X Comparison

The AMD FirePro W5170M and AMD Radeon R9 M375X are two mobile GPUs built on the same fundamental silicon, yet they target different segments of the laptop market. The data shows a split decision in benchmarks, with each card taking a victory in one of the two tested workloads. This analysis breaks down their performance, architecture, and ideal use cases based strictly on the available benchmark data and specifications.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark results present a clear dichotomy. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the AMD Radeon R9 M375X comes out ahead with a score of 8273, defeating the AMD FirePro W5170M’s score of 8140 by a margin of 1.6%. This is a modest but definitive win for the Radeon in a compute-centric workload that often scales with raw shader throughput. The R9 M375X’s higher clock speeds, as detailed later, likely contribute to this edge.

However, the situation reverses dramatically in the Geekbench Vulkan test. Here, the AMD FirePro W5170M delivers a score of 9050, which is a significant 8% higher than the Radeon R9 M375X’s score of 8377. This is a substantial victory for the FirePro in a more modern, driver-heavy API. The 8% delta is four times larger than the Radeon’s winning margin in OpenCL, suggesting that the FirePro’s architecture or driver optimizations are particularly well-suited to Vulkan’s explicit control model.

Looking at the broader context, the two cards sit at nearly the same performance tier. The FirePro W5170M’s average benchmark score is 8595, placing it in the 44th percentile of all GPUs. Its closest rival in the database, the Intel Arc A380, scores 8558, a minuscule 0.4% difference. The Radeon R9 M375X, with an average score of 8325, lands in the 43rd percentile. Its nearest competitor, the NVIDIA Quadro K1200, scores 8265, a 0.7% difference. This proximity means that while the head-to-head deltas are notable in specific tests, the overall performance envelope of both cards is essentially equivalent, with the FirePro holding a slight edge in average score (8595 vs 8325).

The data reveals a pattern: the R9 M375X is the stronger choice for OpenCL compute, while the FirePro W5170M is clearly superior for Vulkan-based graphics and compute. The 8% win for the FirePro in Vulkan is the single largest performance gap between the two cards in any test.

Architecture Differences

Despite their different names and market positions, the two GPUs share a nearly identical core architecture. Both are built on AMD’s GCN 1.0 architecture and use the same "Tropo" chip. This fundamental similarity is confirmed by the manufacturing details: both use a 28 nm process node at TSMC and integrate 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 12.2M / mm².

The core configurations are also identical. Each card features 640 shading units, 40 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 16 raster operation pipelines (ROPs). The memory subsystems are completely the same as well, with 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing a bandwidth of 72.00 GB/s. The memory clock is also identical at 1125 MHz with an effective data rate of 4.5 Gbps.

The key architectural divergence lies in clock speeds and the interface. The Radeon R9 M375X operates with a base clock of 925 MHz and a boost clock of 1015 MHz. The FirePro W5170M runs slightly slower, with a base of 900 MHz and a boost of 925 MHz. This clock advantage for the Radeon is what drives its higher theoretical throughput rates. The R9 M375X achieves a pixel rate of 16.24 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 40.60 GTexel/s, while the FirePro W5170M delivers 14.80 GPixel/s and 37.00 GTexel/s. In terms of raw floating-point performance, the Radeon hits 1,299.2 GFLOPS compared to the FirePro’s 1,184.0 GFLOPS.

The other major difference is the bus interface. The FirePro W5170M is an MXM-A (3.0) module, which is a standardized form factor for laptop graphics. In contrast, the R9 M375X uses a standard PCIe 3.0 x16 interface. This suggests the Radeon is designed for more traditional laptop designs, while the FirePro is intended for modular systems. Both cards support the same API feature set, including DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the benchmark data, the use cases for each GPU are distinct.

The AMD Radeon R9 M375X wins in the Geekbench OpenCL test, which is often used to gauge general-purpose compute performance. The data shows it is 1.6% faster than the FirePro in this workload. This, combined with its higher clock speeds and higher theoretical fill rates, makes it the better choice for tasks that rely heavily on raw compute throughput, such as certain types of rendering, video encoding, or data processing. Its higher pixel rate of 16.24 GPixel/s and texture rate of 40.60 GTexel/s also suggest a slight advantage in traditional, fill-rate-bound gaming scenarios.

Conversely, the AMD FirePro W5170M is the clear winner in the Geekbench Vulkan test, with an 8% higher score. Vulkan is a low-overhead API that is becoming increasingly important in modern games and professional applications. The FirePro’s significant lead here indicates that its driver stack or hardware implementation is better optimized for this interface. This makes it the superior choice for any workload that leverages Vulkan, including newer games, and it suggests a level of future-proofing for software that adopts this API. Its slightly higher average benchmark score (8595 vs 8325) also indicates better overall performance consistency.

In essence, the R9 M375X is the faster card for legacy compute and fill-rate-heavy tasks, while the FirePro W5170M is the winner for modern Vulkan-based applications, which is a critical consideration for longevity.

Specification Differences

While the two GPUs share a core architecture, their specifications diverge in several key areas. The table below highlights only the fields where the two differ.

| Specification | AMD FirePro W5170M | AMD Radeon R9 M375X |

| :--- | :--- | :--- |

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

| Base Clock | 900 MHz | 925 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 925 MHz | 1015 MHz |

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

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

| FP32 Performance | 1,184.0 GFLOPS | 1,299.2 GFLOPS |

| Slot Width | MXM Module | Not specified |

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

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

| Predecessor | FirePro Mobility | Solar System |

| Successor | Radeon Pro Mobile | Polaris Mobile |

The differences in clock speeds and resulting performance metrics are the most significant. The R9 M375X is clocked higher across the board, giving it a clear theoretical performance advantage. The two cards also belong to different product generations and have different physical interfaces, which dictates the types of laptops they can be installed in. The FirePro W5170M was released earlier, and the data shows it was followed by the Radeon Pro Mobile series, while the R9 M375X was succeeded by Polaris Mobile.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD FirePro W5170M has a higher average benchmark score of 8595, compared to the AMD Radeon R9 M375X’s average of 8325.

Q: In which benchmark does the AMD Radeon R9 M375X win?

A: The AMD Radeon R9 M375X wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 8273, which is 1.6% higher than the FirePro W5170M’s score of 8140.

Q: By how much does the AMD FirePro W5170M win in the Vulkan benchmark?

A: The AMD FirePro W5170M wins the Geekbench Vulkan test with a score of 9050, which is 8% higher than the Radeon R9 M375X’s score of 8377.

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

A: Yes, both the AMD FirePro W5170M and the AMD Radeon R9 M375X use the same "Tropo" chip and are based on the GCN 1.0 architecture.

Q: What is the difference in their bus interfaces?

A: The AMD FirePro W5170M uses an MXM-A (3.0) interface, while the AMD Radeon R9 M375X uses a standard PCIe 3.0 x16 interface.

Q: Do the two GPUs have the same memory configuration?

A: Yes, both GPUs have 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus with a bandwidth of 72.00 GB/s.