AMD FirePro W5170M vs AMD Radeon RX 6500M Comparison

The AMD Radeon RX 6500M is a modern RDNA 2.0 design for a compact, high efficiency part. The FirePro W5170M is an older GCN 1.0 silicon that also lacks full DirectX 12 feature support. The benchmark set here is sparse, so the comparison must lean on the two shared tests and the surrounding specs.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score in this database?

A: The RX 6500M scores 10362 points of average across all recorded tests. The FirePro W5170M sits lower at 8595 points.

Q: How large is the gap between the two in the OpenCL workload?

A: The RX 6500M records a 38586 score against the W5170M's 8140. That is a 374% lead for the newer chip.

Q: In the Vulkan test, what is the result?

A: The RX 6500M posts 43837, while the W5170M manages 9050. The delta is 384.4% in favor of the RX 6500M.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same DirectX version?

A: No. The RX 6500M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2). The FirePro W5170M is limited to DirectX 12 (11_1), which is an older feature level.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The RX 6500M has 1024 shading units. The W5170M has 640 shading units.

Q: Are both parts still in production?

A: No. Both are listed as end-of-life in the database.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 6500M wins every benchmark that appears in both records. It takes the OpenCL test and the Vulkan test. There are no shared tests where the FirePro W5170M comes out ahead. The head-to-head table shows two wins for the RX 6500M and zero for the W5170M.

The RX 6500M also holds a clear advantage in the broader performance percentiles. It sits at the 48th percentile among all GPUs. The W5170M is at the 44th percentile. That is a modest overall ranking difference, but the direct test results show a massive per-test gap.

For compute heavy tasks, the RX 6500M is the only real option here. The FirePro W5170M does have a Vulkan score, but it is far lower. If a workload relies on OpenCL or Vulkan, the RX 6500M is dramatically stronger.

The FirePro W5170M has no winning scenario in the recorded data. Its only advantage lies in form factor. It is an MXM Module, which can be swapped in some laptops. The RX 6500M is an IGP, meaning it is integrated into the motherboard. That is a physical difference, not a performance one.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two shared tests are Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. In OpenCL, the RX 6500M scores 38586. The W5170M scores 8140. That is a 374% delta. The RX 6500M delivers roughly 4.7 times the raw compute score in this workload. The architecture jump from GCN 1.0 to RDNA 2.0 is stark, and the numbers reflect it.

In Vulkan, the RX 6500M scores 43837. The W5170M scores 9050. The delta is 384.4%. That is a slightly larger relative gap than OpenCL. The RX 6500M's Vulkan support is at version 1.4, while the W5170M supports 1.2.170. The newer API version plus the faster hardware produces a wider margin.

The RX 6500M also has a Passmark G3D score of 7531, a G2D score of 385, and a compute score of 2669. The W5170M has no Passmark records in this database. So the only direct comparisons are the two Geekbench tests, and the RX 6500M wins both by a wide margin.

The average benchmark scores also align. The RX 6500M averages 10362, the W5170M averages 8595. The RX 6500M is about 20.6% higher on average, but the head-to-head deltas are far larger because the RX 6500M's scores are concentrated in high compute workloads.

The RX 6500M's nearest rival is the NVIDIA Tesla C2075, which scores 10400, a delta of -0.4%. The W5170M's nearest rival is the Intel Arc A380, scoring 8558, a delta of 0.4%. So the RX 6500M sits just below a Tesla compute card, while the W5170M is at the level of a modern entry desktop GPU.

Specification Differences

The RX 6500M uses a 6 nm process from TSMC. The W5170M uses a 28 nm process, also from TSMC. The node difference is large: 6 nm versus 28 nm. The RX 6500M packs 5,400 million transistors into a 107 mm² die. The W5170M has 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die. That yields a transistor density of 50.5 million per square millimeter for the RX 6500M, versus 12.2 million for the W5170M.

Clock speeds differ sharply. The RX 6500M runs at a base of 2000 MHz and boosts to 2400 MHz, with a game clock of 2191 MHz. The W5170M runs at 900 MHz base and 925 MHz boost. That is more than double the clock rate for the RX 6500M.

Memory configuration is different in every aspect. The RX 6500M has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64 bit bus, delivering 144.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The W5170M has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128 bit bus, delivering 72.00 GB/s. The RX 6500M has half the bus width but twice the bandwidth due to faster memory. Effective memory speed is 18 Gbps for the RX 6500M versus 4.5 Gbps for the W5170M.

The RX 6500M has 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The W5170M has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The RX 6500M also has 16 ray tracing cores, which the W5170M lacks entirely.

Pixel rate is 76.80 GPixel/s for the RX 6500M versus 14.80 GPixel/s for the W5170M. Texture rate is 153.6 GTexel/s versus 37.00 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 4.915 TFLOPS versus 1,184.0 GFLOPS. The RX 6500M also has FP16 capability at 9.830 TFLOPS (2:1), while the W5170M has no listed FP16 rate.

The RX 6500M uses PCIe 4.0 x4. The W5170M uses MXM-A (3.0). The RX 6500M is an IGP, the W5170M is an MXM module. Both have no power connectors listed. The RX 6500M has a TDP of 50 W, the W5170M has no TDP value in the database.

Architecture Differences

The RX 6500M is built on RDNA 2.0, a modern gaming architecture. The W5170M is built on GCN 1.0, the original Graphics Core Next design from 2012 era. The generation names reflect this: Navi Mobile (RX 6000M) versus FirePro Mobile (Wx100M). The chip names are Navi 24 for the RX 6500M and Tropo for the W5170M.

The process node is the biggest architectural divider. A 6 nm process versus a 28 nm process means the RX 6500M has far more transistors in a smaller area. The RX 6500M has 5,400 million transistors, the W5170M has 1,500 million. The die size is smaller on the RX 6500M (107 mm² versus 123 mm²), but the transistor count is 3.6 times higher.

The RX 6500M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate with feature level 12_2. The W5170M only supports DirectX 12 (11_1). That is a critical difference for modern games. The RX 6500M also supports Vulkan 1.4, while the W5170M supports Vulkan 1.2.170. OpenGL is the same at 4.6 for both.

Ray tracing is a major architectural difference. The RX 6500M has 16 dedicated RT cores. The W5170M has no RT cores. This is a feature that did not exist in GCN 1.0. The RX 6500M's RDNA 2.0 also brings a 2:1 FP16 rate, which the W5170M does not offer.

The memory controller architecture differs. The RX 6500M uses a 64 bit GDDR6 interface, the W5170M uses a 128 bit GDDR5 interface. The RX 6500M compensates for the narrower bus with a much higher memory clock. The effective data rate is 18 Gbps versus 4.5 Gbps. The result is 144.0 GB/s versus 72.00 GB/s of bandwidth.

The physical slot type is an architectural consequence. The RX 6500M is designed as an IGP, soldered onto the laptop mainboard. The W5170M is an MXM module, a removable card standard. This affects upgradeability and thermal design, but not raw performance.

The release dates show the generation gap. The RX 6500M launched on 2022-01-03. The W5170M launched on 2014-08-24. The predecessor names differ: Polaris Mobile for the RX 6500M, FirePro Mobility for the W5170M. The W5170M has a successor in the database (Radeon Pro Mobile), the RX 6500M does not.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous. The RX 6500M is the stronger GPU in every measured dimension. It wins both head-to-head tests by over 370%. Its average benchmark score is 20.6% higher. Its percentile ranking is 48 versus 44. The RX 6500M is the only choice for any task that uses OpenCL or Vulkan.

The FirePro W5170M is an older, slower part. It has no wins in the shared tests. Its only potential appeal is the MXM form factor, which allows module swaps in compatible systems. But that is a hardware compatibility feature, not a performance one. The RX 6500M, as an IGP, is not user replaceable.

For gaming, the RX 6500M has the required API support. DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4 cover modern titles. The W5170M's DirectX 12 (11_1) is a legacy feature level, and its Vulkan 1.2.170 is older. The RX 6500M also has ray tracing hardware, which the W5170M cannot offer.

For compute workloads, the RX 6500M's FP32 rate of 4.915 TFLOPS is more than quadruple the W5170M's 1,184 GFLOPS. The RX 6500M also has FP16 support, which the W5170M lacks. The memory bandwidth advantage (144.0 GB/s versus 72.00 GB/s) further favors the RX 6500M.

The only caveat is the RX 6500M's 64 bit memory bus. That limits bandwidth compared to wider bus designs, but it still doubles the W5170M's bandwidth. The RX 6500M's 4 GB VRAM is double the W5170M's 2 GB, which matters for texture heavy workloads.

The production status is identical for both: end-of-life. Neither is a current product. But the RX 6500M is from a much newer generation and shows the architectural progress.

The verdict for a buyer is simple. If a system requires MXM compatibility, the W5170M is the only one of the two that physically fits. If the choice is open, the RX 6500M is superior in every recorded benchmark and specification that matters for performance. The 374% OpenCL lead and 384.4% Vulkan lead are not marginal differences. They represent a generational leap.

The W5170M's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Quadro P2200 at 8686 and the GeForce MX330 at 8458. The RX 6500M's rivals include the Tesla C2075 at 10400 and the Radeon RX 550X at 10481. The RX 6500M sits in a higher performance tier.

The final recommendation is clear. The RX 6500M is the pick for any new system or any workload that uses the tested APIs. The W5170M is a legacy part that only makes sense in an existing MXM chassis with no other option. The recorded data provides no scenario where the W5170M wins.