AMD FirePro W5170M vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 880M Comparison

The AMD FirePro W5170M and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 880M are two very different mobile graphics solutions from the same era, and the benchmark data shows a clear, if narrow, victory for the AMD part in the one test they share. In the head-to-head Geekbench OpenCL test, the FirePro W5170M scores 8140 against the GTX 880M’s 5622, a commanding 44.8% advantage. However, the GTX 880M counters with a strong showing in its exclusive test, scoring 10458 in Geekbench Metal, a benchmark the FirePro cannot run. The data paints a picture of two specialized tools: one optimized for general compute workloads, the other for a specific API ecosystem.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and it is a decisive win for the AMD FirePro W5170M. The FirePro scores 8140, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 880M trails at 5622. This translates to a 44.8% performance advantage for the AMD part, a massive gap that cannot be ignored. The FirePro’s average benchmark score of 8595 further reinforces its standing, placing it 55 points above the GTX 880M’s average of 8040. This difference is significant enough to shift the FirePro into the 44th percentile of all GPUs, compared to the GTX 880M’s 42nd percentile.

The GTX 880M does have a counterpoint, but it is not a direct head-to-head. Its Geekbench Metal score of 10458 is substantially higher than the FirePro’s OpenCL score, but this is not an apples-to-apples comparison. The Metal benchmark is exclusive to the NVIDIA part, and the FirePro does not have a corresponding result. When looking at the nearest rivals, the FirePro sits just 0.4% above the Intel Arc A380 (8558) and 1.1% below the NVIDIA Quadro P2200 (8686). The GTX 880M, by contrast, is virtually tied with the NVIDIA Quadro P5000 (8039) at a 0% delta, and is 0.2% below the GeForce GTX 650 Ti (8053). These figures show that while the GTX 880M is competitive within its own peer group, the FirePro W5170M is operating in a slightly higher performance class for compute tasks.

The win count is unambiguous: the FirePro takes 1 win, the GTX 880M takes 0 in head-to-head tests. The data does not support any scenario where the GTX 880M outperforms the FirePro in a shared benchmark. The OpenCL result is the only shared metric, and the FirePro dominates it. This makes the FirePro the clear choice for any workload that relies on OpenCL compute, while the GTX 880M’s exclusive Metal score suggests it has value in environments that prioritize that API.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD FirePro W5170M has a higher average benchmark score of 8595, compared to the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 880M’s 8040. This represents a 555-point gap in favor of the AMD part.

Q: Does the GTX 880M win any head-to-head benchmark against the FirePro?

A: No. In the only shared test, Geekbench OpenCL, the GTX 880M loses by 44.8%. The GTX 880M’s only benchmark win is its exclusive Geekbench Metal score of 10458, which has no direct comparison with the FirePro.

Q: How does the FirePro W5170M compare to its nearest rival, the Intel Arc A380?

A: The FirePro W5170M is 0.4% faster than the Intel Arc A380 in average benchmark score (8595 vs 8558). This places the two parts in a very close performance tier.

Q: What is the performance difference between the GTX 880M and the NVIDIA Quadro P5000?

A: The GTX 880M and the Quadro P5000 are effectively tied, with a 0% delta in average benchmark score (8040 vs 8039). They are direct performance equivalents.

Q: Is the FirePro W5170M significantly faster than the AMD Radeon HD 8870M?

A: Yes, the FirePro W5170M is 1.6% faster than the AMD Radeon HD 8870M in average benchmark score (8595 vs 8462). While the percentage is small, it puts the FirePro ahead of this older mobile part.

Q: Does the GTX 880M have a higher percentile ranking than the FirePro?

A: No. The FirePro W5170M ranks in the 44th percentile of all GPUs, while the GTX 880M ranks in the 42nd percentile. The FirePro is positioned slightly higher in the overall performance distribution.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures from their respective manufacturers. The AMD FirePro W5170M uses the Tropo chip based on GCN 1.0 architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 12.2M per mm². In contrast, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 880M uses the GK104 chip based on Kepler architecture, also on a 28 nm process at TSMC. However, the NVIDIA chip is significantly larger, with 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, yielding a slightly lower transistor density of 12.0M per mm². This means the GTX 880M has more than twice the transistor count, but spread over a proportionally larger area.

The compute resources differ drastically. The FirePro W5170M has 640 shading units, 40 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 16 raster output units (ROPs). The GTX 880M dwarfs this with 1,536 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. This hardware advantage translates directly into higher theoretical throughput: the GTX 880M achieves 3.050 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the FirePro manages only 1,184.0 GFLOPS. Similarly, the GTX 880M has a pixel rate of 31.78 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 127.1 GTexel/s, both far exceeding the FirePro’s 14.80 GPixel/s and 37.00 GTexel/s. The NVIDIA part is simply a much larger, more powerful silicon.

The memory subsystems also reflect this difference. The GTX 880M has 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 160.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The FirePro W5170M has only 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, providing 72.00 GB/s. The API support differs as well: the FirePro supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170, while the GTX 880M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The NVIDIA part has a slightly newer Vulkan version, while the AMD part has a higher DirectX feature level. Both are end-of-life products, but the GTX 880M was released earlier, on 2014-03-11, versus the FirePro’s 2014-08-24.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every major specification field. The most obvious difference is in memory: the GTX 880M offers 8 GB of GDDR5 with a 256-bit bus and 160.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the FirePro W5170M has 2 GB of GDDR5 with a 128-bit bus and 72.00 GB/s bandwidth. This is a 4x capacity and over 2x bandwidth advantage for the NVIDIA part. The shading units also diverge, with the GTX 880M featuring 1,536 units versus the FirePro’s 640, and the TMU count is 128 versus 40. The ROP count is 32 against 16.

Clock speeds favor the GTX 880M as well. The NVIDIA part has a base clock of 954 MHz and a boost clock of 993 MHz, while the AMD part has a base of 900 MHz and a boost of 925 MHz. Memory clock is similarly higher on the GTX 880M at 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective) versus 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective) on the FirePro. The GTX 880M has a TDP of 122 W, a figure not provided for the FirePro. The bus interface differs: the FirePro uses MXM-A (3.0), while the GTX 880M uses the larger MXM-B (3.0). The chip characteristics are also distinct, with the GTX 880M’s GK104 having 3,540 million transistors and a 294 mm² die, versus the FirePro’s Tropo chip with 1,500 million transistors and a 123 mm² die.

The production status for both is end-of-life, but their release dates differ by about five months. The GTX 880M launched on 2014-03-11, while the FirePro W5170M launched on 2014-08-24. The predecessor and successor lines also differ: the FirePro’s predecessor is FirePro Mobility and its successor is Radeon Pro Mobile; the GTX 880M’s predecessor is GeForce 700M and its successor is GeForce 900M. Neither part has a launch MSRP listed.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unequivocal for compute workloads: the AMD FirePro W5170M is the superior GPU. It wins the only direct head-to-head test by a 44.8% margin in OpenCL, and its average benchmark score is 6.9% higher than the GTX 880M’s. The FirePro’s 44th percentile ranking versus the GTX 880M’s 42nd percentile confirms this at a global scale. For any task that utilizes OpenCL, the FirePro is the clear choice, offering dramatically better performance despite having far fewer shading units and lower theoretical specifications. The GTX 880M’s hardware advantages in raw compute, memory bandwidth, and texture rate do not translate to better OpenCL results in this comparison.

However, the GTX 880M has its own niche. Its exclusive Geekbench Metal score of 10458 is substantial, and it indicates strong performance in Apple’s Metal API environment. For users or applications that rely on Metal, the GTX 880M is the only option of the two, as the FirePro has no Metal result. The GTX 880M also has the advantage of 8 GB of memory versus 2 GB, which could be a deciding factor for workloads that require large frame buffers or datasets. The verdict depends entirely on the software ecosystem: for OpenCL, pick the FirePro; for Metal or large memory requirements, the GTX 880M is necessary.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD FirePro W5170M wins decisively in OpenCL compute performance. Its score of 8140 in Geekbench OpenCL is 44.8% higher than the GTX 880M’s 5622, and its average benchmark score of 8595 sits above the GTX 880M’s 8040. This makes it the better choice for general-purpose GPU computing, scientific workloads, and any application that leverages OpenCL for acceleration. The FirePro also holds a slight edge in percentile ranking (44th vs 42nd), indicating it performs better relative to the entire GPU landscape. For any task where OpenCL is the primary API, the data shows the FirePro is the stronger performer.

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 880M wins in the Metal API arena, with a Geekbench Metal score of 10458. This is the only benchmark it excels in, but it is a significant one for users in Apple’s ecosystem. The GTX 880M also wins on memory capacity and bandwidth, offering 8 GB of GDDR5 at 160.0 GB/s versus the FirePro’s 2 GB at 72.00 GB/s. This makes it the better option for applications that require large texture sets, high-resolution frame buffers, or memory-intensive compute tasks. Additionally, the GTX 880M has a higher theoretical FP32 performance at 3.050 TFLOPS. For users prioritizing Metal support or massive memory pools, the GTX 880M is the only viable choice between the two.