AMD FirePro W600 vs AMD Radeon R5 M435 Comparison

The AMD Radeon R5 M435 and AMD FirePro W600 are both end-of-life, GCN 1.0-based graphics solutions from AMD, yet they serve fundamentally different purposes. The data shows a single benchmark comparison where the FirePro W600 outscores the Radeon R5 M435 by 5.8%, but the specifications reveal a deeper divide in target use cases, from an integrated-style mobile part to a professional workstation card with six display outputs.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark results are clear: the AMD FirePro W600 wins the only head-to-head test, the Geekbench OpenCL compute benchmark, with a score of 6,223 against the Radeon R5 M435's 5,859. This 5.8% delta places the FirePro W600 in the 36th percentile of all GPUs, while the Radeon R5 M435 sits at the 33rd percentile. In practical terms, the FirePro W600 is the stronger compute performer, which aligns with its professional workstation positioning.

However, the Radeon R5 M435 wins in a different category: portability and integration. Its slot width is listed as "IGP" (integrated graphics processor), meaning it is designed to be embedded into a portable device, with its display output being "Portable Device Dependent." The FirePro W600, by contrast, is a single-slot, 168 mm long, 111 mm tall, and 20 mm wide card with six mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs. The R5 M435 has no power connectors and no suggested PSU, while the FirePro W600 has no power connectors but does suggest a 250 W PSU. For a laptop or compact mobile system, the R5 M435 is the only viable option; for a fixed multi-monitor workstation, the FirePro W600's six outputs are unmatched.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs share the GCN 1.0 architecture and are built on TSMC's 28 nm process, but their silicon is fundamentally different. The Radeon R5 M435 uses the Jet chip, which is a small, power-efficient die. The FirePro W600 uses the Cape Verde chip, which is a larger, more capable die. The transistor counts tell the story: the Jet chip packs 690 million transistors onto a 56 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.3 million per mm². The Cape Verde chip more than doubles that with 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, at a nearly identical density of 12.2 million per mm². The R5 M435's base clock is 780 MHz with a boost clock of 1,030 MHz, while the FirePro W600's clocks are not listed in the data, but its memory runs at 1,000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) versus the R5 M435's 1,125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective).

The execution resources differ substantially. The Radeon R5 M435 has 320 shading units, 20 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 8 render output units (ROPs). The FirePro W600 has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs — a 60% increase in shaders, 60% increase in TMUs, and 100% increase in ROPs. This translates into higher theoretical rates: the R5 M435 achieves 8.24 GPixel/s pixel rate and 20.60 GTexel/s texture rate, versus the FirePro W600's 12.00 GPixel/s and 24.00 GTexel/s. The FP32 compute output is 659.2 GFLOPS for the R5 M435 and 768.0 GFLOPS for the FirePro W600. Memory configurations also differ: both have 2 GB GDDR5, but the R5 M435 uses a 64-bit bus for 36.00 GB/s bandwidth, while the FirePro W600 uses a 128-bit bus for 64.00 GB/s bandwidth.

The Verdict

The data indicates two distinct purchasing decisions based on physical and performance constraints. If the requirement is an integrated graphics solution for a portable device, the AMD Radeon R5 M435 is the only choice between these two, as the FirePro W600 cannot be embedded into a laptop. The R5 M435 offers a baseline of GCN 1.0 compute with 320 shaders, but its 64-bit memory bus limits bandwidth to 36 GB/s. It is end-of-life, having been released in 2016, and its nearest rival is the AMD Radeon R7 M465, which scores 0.3% lower, indicating the R5 M435 is marginally faster than that part.

For a professional workstation requiring multiple simultaneous display outputs, the AMD FirePro W600 is the clear winner. It has 60% more shaders, double the ROPs, and 78% more memory bandwidth than the R5 M435. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 6,223 is 5.8% higher, and it also outperforms the R5 M435 in pixel rate (12.00 vs 8.24 GPixel/s) and texture rate (24.00 vs 20.60 GTexel/s). The FirePro W600's six mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs are a unique feature that the R5 M435 lacks entirely. The FirePro W600 was released in 2012 and carries a launch MSRP of 599 USD. Its nearest rival is the AMD Radeon HD 6950, which scores 0.2% lower, placing the W600 in a competitive position within its era.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The AMD FirePro W600 scores 6,223, which is 5.8% higher than the AMD Radeon R5 M435's score of 5,859.

Q: Do both GPUs use the same architecture?

A: Yes, both are based on GCN 1.0 architecture and are manufactured on TSMC's 28 nm process, but they use different chips: the R5 M435 uses Jet, and the FirePro W600 uses Cape Verde.

Q: How do their memory bandwidths compare?

A: The FirePro W600 has a 128-bit memory bus providing 64.00 GB/s bandwidth, while the R5 M435 has a 64-bit bus providing 36.00 GB/s. Both have 2 GB of GDDR5 memory.

Q: Which card supports more display outputs?

A: The FirePro W600 has six mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, while the R5 M435's display output is described as "Portable Device Dependent," meaning it relies on the host device.

Q: What is the transistor count difference?

A: The FirePro W600's Cape Verde chip has 1,500 million transistors, while the R5 M435's Jet chip has 690 million transistors.

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The FirePro W600 achieves 12.00 GPixel/s, which is higher than the R5 M435's 8.24 GPixel/s, due to its 16 ROPs versus 8 ROPs.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is Geekbench OpenCL, where the AMD FirePro W600 wins with a score of 6,223 against the AMD Radeon R5 M435's 5,859, a delta of -5.8% from the perspective of the R5 M435. This result is consistent with the raw specifications. The FirePro W600's 512 shading units and 32 TMUs provide a 60% advantage over the R5 M435's 320 shaders and 20 TMUs, which directly impacts compute workloads. The FP32 throughput difference is 768.0 GFLOPS versus 659.2 GFLOPS, a 16.5% advantage for the W600, though the benchmark delta is smaller at 5.8%, suggesting real-world scaling is not perfectly linear.

The memory subsystem also favors the FirePro W600 significantly. Its 64.00 GB/s bandwidth is 78% higher than the R5 M435's 36.00 GB/s, which is crucial for memory-bound OpenCL kernels. The FirePro W600's 16 ROPs double the R5 M435's 8 ROPs, directly enabling the higher pixel rate of 12.00 GPixel/s versus 8.24 GPixel/s. Texture rate is closer: 24.00 GTexel/s for the W600 versus 20.60 GTexel/s for the R5 M435, a 16.5% difference that matches the TMU count delta.

The R5 M435 does have a higher memory clock at 1,125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective) versus the FirePro W600's 1,000 MHz (4 Gbps effective), but the W600's wider 128-bit bus overcomes this clock deficit. In the nearestRivals data, the R5 M435 sits within 1.6% of the NVIDIA Quadro K620M and AMD Radeon HD 8730M, while the FirePro W600 is within 0.9% of the NVIDIA Quadro K620, indicating both parts are closely matched to their contemporaries despite the age difference.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the AMD Radeon R5 M435 and AMD FirePro W600:

• Chip: Jet (R5 M435) vs Cape Verde (FirePro W600)
• Generation: Gem System (R5 M400) vs FirePro GCN (Wx000)
• Transistors: 690 million vs 1,500 million
• Die Size: 56 mm² vs 123 mm²
• Transistor Density: 12.3M / mm² vs 12.2M / mm²
• Base Clock: 780 MHz vs not listed
• Boost Clock: 1030 MHz vs not listed
• Memory Clock: 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective) vs 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective)
• Memory Bus Width: 64 bit vs 128 bit
• Memory Bandwidth: 36.00 GB/s vs 64.00 GB/s
• Shading Units: 320 vs 512
• TMUs: 20 vs 32
• ROPs: 8 vs 16
• Pixel Rate: 8.240 GPixel/s vs 12.00 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 20.60 GTexel/s vs 24.00 GTexel/s
• FP32: 659.2 GFLOPS vs 768.0 GFLOPS
• TDP: not listed vs 75 W
• Slot Width: IGP vs Single-slot
• Suggested PSU: not listed vs 250 W
• Bus Interface: PCIe 3.0 x8 vs PCIe 3.0 x16
• Display Outputs: Portable Device Dependent vs 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.2
• Dimensions: not listed vs 168 mm (6.6 inches) length, 111 mm (4.4 inches) height, 20 mm (0.8 inches) width
• Release Date: 2016-05-14 vs 2012-06-12
• Predecessor: Solar System vs FirePro Terascale
• Successor: Polaris Mobile vs Radeon Pro Polaris
• Launch MSRP: not listed vs 599 USD
• Geekbench OpenCL Score: 5,859 vs 6,223
• Percentile vs All GPUs: 33 vs 36