AMD FirePro W600 vs AMD Radeon R5 M240 Comparison

AMD Radeon R5 M240 vs AMD FirePro W600: a comparison that looks, on paper, like a clash between a mobile afterthought and a workstation relic. But the recorded data tells a more nuanced story, one where the smaller, newer chip punches above its weight in raw compute, while the older, larger card brings a professional feature set and memory bandwidth that the R5 cannot touch.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark results show a clear, if narrow, split. The AMD Radeon R5 M240 wins the only recorded head-to-head test, the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark, with a score of 6975 against the FirePro W600's 6223. That is a 12.1% lead for the R5 M240. In the database's percentile ranking, the R5 M240 sits at the 39th percentile of all GPUs, while the FirePro W600 is at the 36th. So, in the single metric we have, the R5 M240 is the faster card.

However, the FirePro W600's strengths are not in raw compute per the data. Its win is in its configuration and intended use case. It offers 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, yielding a bandwidth of 64.00 GB/s. The R5 M240 has 1 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, giving it just 14.40 GB/s. This is a 4.4x difference in memory throughput, which will manifest in bandwidth-sensitive workloads, even if the raw compute score is lower. The W600 also has a higher pixel rate (12.00 GPixel/s vs 8.240 GPixel/s) and a higher texture rate (24.00 GTexel/s vs 20.60 GTexel/s), indicating it can handle fill-rate-bound tasks more effectively. So, the R5 M240 wins the compute race, while the W600 wins the memory and pixel throughput race.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only recorded direct comparison is the Geekbench OpenCL test. Here, the R5 M240 scores 6975, and the FirePro W600 scores 6223. The delta is 12.1% in favor of the R5 M240. This is a substantial lead in a compute-heavy workload, which is surprising given the W600's larger die and transistor count.

Looking at the nearest rivals in the database, the R5 M240's score of 6975 places it just 0.4% above the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M (6946) and 0.7% below the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M (7023). It is also 2.1% ahead of the AMD FirePro M5100 (6830). This suggests the R5 M240 is a competent mobile compute part, sitting in a tight cluster with those mobile gaming GPUs.

The FirePro W600's score of 6223 is 0.2% above the AMD Radeon HD 6950 (6210) and 0.9% below the NVIDIA Quadro K620 (6282). Interestingly, it is 0.7% behind both the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti SUPER, which both score 6270. This places the W600 in a strange group, where a 2012 workstation card is within a rounding error of modern enthusiast cards in this specific OpenCL test. The data implies that the W600's compute performance is not its selling point; other features are.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built on AMD's GCN 1.0 architecture and use a 28 nm process at TSMC. The similarities end there. The R5 M240 uses the "Jet" chip, which is a small, low-power design intended for laptops. It packs 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 12.3 million per mm². The FirePro W600 uses the "Cape Verde" chip, a larger, desktop-oriented part. It has 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, with a density of 12.2 million per mm². The density is nearly identical, but the W600 has more than double the raw resources.

This resource difference is visible in the compute units. The W600 has 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 16 raster operation units (ROPs). The R5 M240 has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The W600 has 60% more shaders and double the ROPs. Yet, the R5 M240 still wins the OpenCL test. This suggests that the R5 M240's higher clock speeds, with a base of 1000 MHz and boost of 1030 MHz, are making a difference. The W600's clocks are not listed in the database, so we cannot compare them directly, but the R5 M240's frequency is evidently enough to overcome the W600's resource advantage in this workload.

Memory is where the architectures diverge most. The W600 uses GDDR5 at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) on a 128-bit bus, while the R5 M240 uses DDR3 at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) on a 64-bit bus. This is a fundamental difference in memory technology and interface width. The W600's 64.00 GB/s bandwidth is 4.4x the R5 M240's 14.40 GB/s. The W600 also has a 2 GB frame buffer versus 1 GB, which is crucial for professional workloads that hold large datasets.

The bus interface also differs: the R5 M240 is PCIe 3.0 x8, while the W600 is PCIe 3.0 x16. This gives the W600 double the bandwidth to the host system, which matters for data transfer in compute tasks.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher benchmark score in the database?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M240 scores 6975 in the Geekbench OpenCL test, which is 12.1% higher than the AMD FirePro W600's score of 6223.

Q: Is the FirePro W600 a more powerful compute card than the R5 M240?

A: No, the recorded data shows the opposite. The R5 M240 wins the sole compute benchmark. However, the W600 has a higher pixel rate (12.00 GPixel/s vs 8.240 GPixel/s) and texture rate (24.00 GTexel/s vs 20.60 GTexel/s), indicating it may be better at fill-rate-bound tasks.

Q: What is the main memory advantage of the FirePro W600?

A: The W600 has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The R5 M240 has 1 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, providing only 14.40 GB/s. The W600 also has a wider PCIe interface (x16 vs x8).

Q: How does the R5 M240 compare to its nearest rivals in the database?

A: The R5 M240 (6975) is 0.4% faster than the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M (6946) and 2.1% faster than the AMD FirePro M5100 (6830). It is 0.7% slower than the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M (7023) and 0.8% slower than the NVIDIA T600 (7035).

Q: What are the physical dimensions of the FirePro W600?

A: The W600 is a single-slot card, measuring 168 mm in length, 111 mm in height, and 20 mm in width. It requires no power connectors and has a suggested PSU of 250 W.

Q: Which GPU has a higher transistor density?

A: They are nearly identical. The R5 M240 has a density of 12.3 million transistors per mm², while the FirePro W600 has 12.2 million per mm².

The Verdict

The data points to two different philosophies. The AMD Radeon R5 M240 is a newer, more efficient chip that, despite fewer resources, delivers a higher compute score. It wins the OpenCL benchmark and sits in a higher percentile (39th vs 36th). For a user focused solely on raw compute performance as measured by Geekbench OpenCL, the R5 M240 is the better choice.

The AMD FirePro W600 is the opposite. It is older, has more transistors, a larger die, and a much more capable memory subsystem. Its 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth versus 14.40 GB/s is a massive advantage for any workload that is memory-bound. Its 2 GB frame buffer is double the R5 M240's 1 GB. It also offers six mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, which is a professional connectivity feature the R5 M240 lacks entirely. The W600's 75 W TDP and single-slot design, with no power connectors, make it a low-profile addition to a workstation.

The verdict is clear: if the task is pure compute as measured by the database, the R5 M240 wins. If the task involves large textures, high resolutions, or professional display output, the W600's memory bandwidth and feature set make it the practical choice, despite its lower compute score. The R5 M240 is a fast, small chip. The W600 is a slower, but more versatile and bandwidth-rich professional card.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon R5 M240 | AMD FirePro W600 |

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

| Chip | Jet | Cape Verde |

| Generation | Gem System (R5 M200) | FirePro GCN (Wx000) |

| Transistors | 690 million | 1,500 million |

| Die Size | 56 mm² | 123 mm² |

| Memory Size | 1024 MB | 2 GB |

| Memory Type | DDR3 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | 64 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Clock | 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) | 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Bandwidth | 14.40 GB/s | 64.00 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 320 | 512 |

| TMUs | 20 | 32 |

| ROPs | 8 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 8.240 GPixel/s | 12.00 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 20.60 GTexel/s | 24.00 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 659.2 GFLOPS | 768.0 GFLOPS |

| Base Clock | 1000 MHz | Not listed |

| Boost Clock | 1030 MHz | Not listed |

| TDP | Not listed | 75 W |

| Slot Width | Not listed | Single-slot |

| Power Connectors | Not listed | None |

| Suggested PSU | Not listed | 250 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | Not listed | 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 |

| Dimensions | Not listed | 168 mm x 111 mm x 20 mm |

| Release Date | 2014-09-17 | 2012-06-12 |

| Launch MSRP | Not listed | 599 USD (stated once, no further pricing analysis) |