AMD FirePro W5170M vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 850M Comparison

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The GeForce GTX 850M and FirePro W5170M split their two benchmark comparisons exactly evenly, with each card taking one decisive victory. The most substantial gap appears in Geekbench OpenCL, where the NVIDIA GTX 850M scores 9,821 against the AMD FirePro W5170M’s 8,140. That is a 20.7% advantage for the GTX 850M, a margin that places it well clear of its rival in compute workloads that leverage OpenCL acceleration. In contrast, the Vulkan benchmark tells the opposite story: the FirePro W5170M posts 9,050 versus the GTX 850M’s 8,782, a 3% edge for AMD. This is a much tighter margin, suggesting that in graphics-API-driven tasks the two cards are far closer, with the AMD part holding a modest but measurable lead.

Looking at the broader context, the GTX 850M’s average benchmark score of 9,302 places it at the 46th percentile among all GPUs, while the FirePro W5170M averages 8,595 and sits at the 44th percentile. The numerical gap in average scores is 707 points, or roughly 8.2% in favor of the NVIDIA part. When comparing to their nearest rivals, the GTX 850M is effectively neck-and-neck with the GeForce GTX 465 (9,294, a 0.1% difference) and the AMD Radeon R7 M380 (9,313, a -0.1% difference). It also edges out the GeForce GTX 960 (9,273, 0.3% ahead) and the AMD Radeon Vega 8 (9,221, 0.9% ahead). The FirePro W5170M, meanwhile, trades blows with the Intel Arc A380 (8,558, 0.4% ahead), the NVIDIA Quadro P2200 (8,686, -1.1% behind), the AMD Radeon HD 8870M (8,462, 1.6% ahead), and the NVIDIA GeForce MX330 (8,458, 1.6% ahead). These rival comparisons show that while the GTX 850M sits in a slightly higher performance tier on average, both cards are clustered among similar mid-range mobile parts from their respective eras.

The OpenCL result is particularly telling because it reflects raw compute throughput, and the GTX 850M’s 20.7% advantage there is consistent with its higher average score. The Vulkan result, however, shows the FirePro W5170M pulling ahead despite its lower compute numbers, which indicates that the AMD architecture handles Vulkan’s draw call and command buffer overhead more efficiently. For users prioritizing OpenCL compute, the GTX 850M is the clear choice; for Vulkan-based gaming or rendering, the FirePro W5170M offers a slight edge. Neither card dominates across both APIs, and the split result means the decision hinges on which workload matters more.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 850M has an average benchmark score of 9,302, compared to the AMD FirePro W5170M’s 8,595. This places the GTX 850M at the 46th percentile among all GPUs, while the FirePro W5170M sits at the 44th percentile.

Q: How large is the OpenCL performance gap between the two cards?

A: In Geekbench OpenCL, the GTX 850M scores 9,821 versus the FirePro W5170M’s 8,140. This represents a 20.7% advantage for the NVIDIA card, making it the largest performance differential in any benchmark between the two.

Q: Does the FirePro W5170M win any benchmark?

A: Yes, the FirePro W5170M wins the Geekbench Vulkan test with a score of 9,050, compared to the GTX 850M’s 8,782. That is a 3% lead for the AMD card, showing it is competitive in Vulkan-based workloads.

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

A: The GTX 850M’s nearest rival is the AMD Radeon R7 M380, which scores 9,313 (a -0.1% difference from the GTX 850M). The FirePro W5170M’s closest competitor is the Intel Arc A380 at 8,558, which is 0.4% ahead. The GTX 850M also edges out the GeForce GTX 960 by 0.3%, while the FirePro W5170M trails the NVIDIA Quadro P2200 by 1.1%.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between the two?

A: The FirePro W5170M has a memory bandwidth of 72.00 GB/s, while the GTX 850M has 32.03 GB/s. The AMD card’s GDDR5 memory operates at 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective), whereas the NVIDIA card uses DDR3 at 1001 MHz (2 Gbps effective), resulting in the FirePro W5170M having more than double the bandwidth.

Q: Which card has a higher pixel rate?

A: The FirePro W5170M has a pixel rate of 14.80 GPixel/s, which is slightly higher than the GTX 850M’s 14.43 GPixel/s. The difference is minimal at roughly 2.5%, but it favors the AMD part in fill-rate-bound scenarios.

The Verdict

The data paints a clear picture of two cards that are close in overall capability but diverge sharply on specific workloads. The GTX 850M wins the average score contest by 707 points (9,302 vs 8,595) and delivers a commanding 20.7% lead in OpenCL compute. For anyone running OpenCL-accelerated applications—whether scientific computing, video encoding, or other GPU compute tasks—the GTX 850M is the superior choice based on the benchmark evidence. Its 46th percentile ranking also places it slightly higher in the overall GPU landscape than the FirePro W5170M’s 44th percentile.

However, the FirePro W5170M is not without merit. Its 3% Vulkan win shows that it handles modern graphics APIs more efficiently, and its memory bandwidth advantage (72.00 GB/s vs 32.03 GB/s) suggests it may be better suited for texture-heavy workloads that depend on rapid data movement. The FirePro W5170M also has a higher pixel rate (14.80 GPixel/s vs 14.43 GPixel/s) and texture rate (37.00 GTexel/s vs 36.08 GTexel/s), though these margins are small.

For users who prioritize raw compute throughput in OpenCL, the GTX 850M is the clear winner. For those who expect to run Vulkan-based games or applications, the FirePro W5170M offers a modest but real advantage. The split benchmark results mean there is no definitive overall winner—the choice depends entirely on the target workload. Given that the GTX 850M wins the average score and the larger single-benchmark margin, it is the safer pick for general-purpose use, but the FirePro W5170M’s Vulkan strength should not be ignored.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in several key specifications beyond their benchmark scores. The GTX 850M is built on NVIDIA’s GM107 chip with a transistor count of 1,870 million and a die size of 148 mm², while the FirePro W5170M uses AMD’s Tropo chip with 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die. Both are manufactured on a 28 nm process by TSMC, but the GTX 850M has a higher transistor density at 12.6M / mm² versus the FirePro W5170M’s 12.2M / mm².

Clock speeds differ significantly: the GTX 850M has no listed base or boost clock, while the FirePro W5170M runs at 900 MHz base and 925 MHz boost. The memory subsystems are also distinct—the GTX 850M uses 2 GB of DDR3 at 1001 MHz (2 Gbps effective) with a 128-bit bus, yielding 32.03 GB/s bandwidth. The FirePro W5170M uses 2 GB of GDDR5 at 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective) on the same 128-bit bus, but achieves 72.00 GB/s—more than double the bandwidth. Both cards have 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, with nearly identical pixel rates (14.43 vs 14.80 GPixel/s) and texture rates (36.08 vs 37.00 GTexel/s). FP32 performance is also close: 1,154.6 GFLOPS for the GTX 850M versus 1,184.0 GFLOPS for the FirePro W5170M.

Power and form factor differ: the GTX 850M has a 45 W TDP and is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) slot design, while the FirePro W5170M has no listed TDP and uses an MXM Module form factor with an MXM-A (3.0) bus interface. Both use no power connectors. The GTX 850M supports PCIe 3.0 x16, while the FirePro W5170M uses MXM-A (3.0). Display outputs are portable-device-dependent for both.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split between these two GPUs is fundamental. The GTX 850M is based on NVIDIA’s Maxwell architecture, which emphasizes power efficiency and compute performance per watt. The FirePro W5170M uses AMD’s Graphics Core Next (GCN) 1.0 architecture, an older design that nonetheless brought strong compute capabilities and a different approach to shader and memory management. The GTX 850M belongs to the GeForce 800M generation, while the FirePro W5170M is part of the FirePro Mobile (Wx100M) series.

Both cards have identical shader hardware counts—640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs—but the underlying execution models differ. Maxwell uses a more streamlined scheduling approach, while GCN 1.0 relies on a wavefront-based model that can be more efficient in certain compute patterns. The API support reflects these differences: the GTX 850M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the FirePro W5170M supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The higher Vulkan version on the NVIDIA card may contribute to its better compatibility with newer Vulkan extensions, though the benchmark data shows the AMD card performing better in the Vulkan test. Neither card has ray tracing cores or tensor cores, as both predate those technologies. The GTX 850M has a predecessor in the GeForce 700M series and a successor in the GeForce 900M, while the FirePro W5170M follows the FirePro Mobility line and is succeeded by Radeon Pro Mobile.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 850M is the stronger choice for OpenCL compute workloads. Its 20.7% lead in Geekbench OpenCL is the single largest performance gap between the two cards, and its higher average benchmark score (9,302 vs 8,595) indicates broader overall capability. The GTX 850M also has a higher transistor count and die size, which may contribute to its compute advantage. Users running OpenCL-accelerated applications—such as rendering, physics simulation, or data processing—should favor the GTX 850M.

The FirePro W5170M wins in Vulkan graphics performance, with a 3% lead in that specific benchmark. Its memory bandwidth advantage (72.00 GB/s vs 32.03 GB/s) is substantial and likely explains why it handles Vulkan’s memory-heavy workloads more effectively. The FirePro W5170M also has slightly higher pixel rate and texture rate, making it marginally better for fill-rate-bound scenarios. For users running Vulkan-based games or applications, the FirePro W5170M offers a small but measurable performance edge. Additionally, its GCN architecture may be more familiar to developers targeting AMD’s compute stack, though the benchmark data does not directly measure that.

In summary, the GTX 850M is the compute-focused pick with a dominant OpenCL advantage, while the FirePro W5170M is the graphics-API-focused pick with a Vulkan edge and superior memory bandwidth. The choice between them should be driven by the specific applications and APIs the user intends to run.