AMD FirePro W600 vs AMD Radeon R7 M350 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits cleanly between these two professional-oriented AMD graphics cards, with the newer Radeon R7 M350 taking the sole head-to-head victory. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the R7 M350 scores 6991 against the FirePro W600’s 6223, a 12.3% advantage that establishes it as the stronger compute performer in this pairing. This is the only direct comparison available, so the R7 M350 holds a perfect 1-0 record in head-to-head wins.

The R7 M350’s win is not a narrow one. A 12.3% delta in OpenCL performance places it clearly ahead of the older FirePro W600, which was released three years earlier. The R7 M350 also has a Vulkan score of 5662, a benchmark the FirePro W600 does not appear in the data for, suggesting the newer architecture has broader API coverage. For workloads that leverage OpenCL — common in professional compute tasks like rendering, simulation, and video processing — the R7 M350 is the definitive choice based on the numbers.

However, the FirePro W600 is not without its own strengths when examining the broader specification profile. It carries 512 shading units against the R7 M350’s 384, a 33% advantage in raw shader count. Its memory subsystem is substantially wider: a 128-bit bus with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth versus the R7 M350’s 64-bit bus at 16.00 GB/s. That is a 4x bandwidth difference in favor of the FirePro W600. The FirePro also has twice the ROPs (16 vs 8) and more TMUs (32 vs 24). Its pixel rate of 12.00 GPixel/s outpaces the R7 M350’s 8.120 GPixel/s by roughly 48%.

These specification advantages do not translate into a benchmark win in the available data, but they do suggest the FirePro W600 may perform differently in memory-bandwidth-sensitive or pixel-throughput-heavy workloads. The R7 M350 wins the compute race; the FirePro W600 appears better equipped for memory-bound tasks on paper, even if no direct benchmark confirms this.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear winner for compute workloads: the AMD Radeon R7 M350. Its 12.3% lead in Geekbench OpenCL is significant and places it in a higher performance tier relative to its rival. When examining the nearest rival lists, the R7 M350 sits alongside the AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 (avg score 6330, 0% delta) and the NVIDIA Quadro K620 (avg score 6282, 0.7% delta), while the FirePro W600 is grouped near the AMD Radeon HD 6950 (avg score 6210, 0.2% delta). The R7 M350’s average benchmark score of 6327 is 104 points higher than the FirePro W600’s 6223, reinforcing its overall edge.

For users prioritizing raw compute performance in OpenCL-based applications, the R7 M350 is the data-backed choice. Its newer GCN 3.0 architecture, higher clock speeds, and larger 4 GB memory capacity give it a functional advantage. The FirePro W600, despite its older GCN 1.0 design, offers a unique feature set: six mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, a single-slot form factor, and no power connectors required. It also carries a 75 W TDP with a suggested 250 W PSU, making it easier to integrate into dense multi-card setups.

The FirePro W600’s 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus delivers 64.00 GB/s bandwidth — 4x the R7 M350’s 16.00 GB/s. For workloads that are memory-bandwidth limited, such as certain image processing or multi-display compositing tasks, the FirePro W600 may hold an unquantified advantage. But based strictly on the benchmark evidence, the R7 M350 wins. The FirePro W600’s launch MSRP was 599 USD, which can be stated once for context, but no pricing analysis is offered here.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single direct comparison in the data is Geekbench OpenCL, where the AMD Radeon R7 M350 scores 6991 against the AMD FirePro W600’s 6223. This yields a 12.3% delta in favor of the R7 M350. To put that in perspective, the FirePro W600’s nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti SUPER at 6270 (-0.7% delta) and the NVIDIA Quadro K620 at 6282 (-0.9% delta). The R7 M350’s nearest rivals cluster around 6270-6330, meaning the R7 M350 sits at the top of its immediate competitive group.

The 6991 OpenCL score for the R7 M350 stands 768 points above the FirePro W600’s 6223. This margin is larger than the gap between the FirePro W600 and its closest rival, the AMD Radeon HD 6950, which sits just 13 points below at 6210. The R7 M350’s Vulkan score of 5662 provides an additional data point, though no direct comparison exists for the FirePro W600 in that test. The absence of a Vulkan result for the FirePro W600 suggests its GCN 1.0 architecture may not have been validated for that API in the same manner.

Breaking down the specification-level differences that contribute to this benchmark outcome, the R7 M350 operates at a base clock of 1000 MHz with a boost of 1015 MHz, while the FirePro W600’s clock speeds are not listed in the data. The R7 M350’s FP32 throughput is 779.5 GFLOPS, slightly higher than the FirePro W600’s 768.0 GFLOPS. The R7 M350 also supports FP16 at a 1:1 ratio (779.5 GFLOPS), a capability absent from the FirePro W600’s specification sheet. These compute-oriented features align with the R7 M350’s OpenCL victory.

FAQ

Q: Which card wins the only head-to-head benchmark available?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M350 wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 6991 versus the AMD FirePro W600’s 6223, a 12.3% advantage.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each card?

A: The R7 M350 has an average benchmark score of 6327, while the FirePro W600 averages 6223.

Q: How do the memory specifications differ between the two cards?

A: The R7 M350 has 4 GB of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus with 16.00 GB/s bandwidth. The FirePro W600 has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth, which is 4x the bandwidth.

Q: Does the FirePro W600 have any advantages in raw hardware resources?

A: Yes, the FirePro W600 has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, compared to the R7 M350’s 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs.

Q: What are the API differences between the two cards?

A: Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.170. The R7 M350 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the FirePro W600 supports DirectX 12 (11_1).

Q: What are the physical and power characteristics of the FirePro W600?

A: The FirePro W600 is a single-slot card measuring 168 mm in length, 111 mm in height, and 20 mm in width. It has a 75 W TDP, no power connectors, a suggested 250 W PSU, and six mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs.

Architecture Differences

The two cards represent distinct generations of AMD’s Graphics Core Next architecture. The Radeon R7 M350 uses the Meso chip built on GCN 3.0, while the FirePro W600 uses the Cape Verde chip on the original GCN 1.0. Both are fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC, with nearly identical transistor counts: 1,550 million for the R7 M350 and 1,500 million for the FirePro W600. Die sizes are similarly close at 125 mm² and 123 mm² respectively, yielding transistor densities of 12.4M / mm² and 12.2M / mm².

The architectural generational leap from GCN 1.0 to GCN 3.0 brings improvements in compute efficiency and feature support. The R7 M350 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the FirePro W600 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_1). Both cards support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.170. The R7 M350 also lists FP16 compute at 779.5 GFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, a feature absent from the FirePro W600’s specification data, indicating a newer compute pipeline.

The R7 M350 belongs to the Gem System (R7 M300) generation, while the FirePro W600 is part of the FirePro GCN (Wx000) lineup. The R7 M350’s predecessor is Solar System and its successor is Polaris Mobile. The FirePro W600’s predecessor is FirePro Terascale and its successor is Radeon Pro Polaris. The FirePro W600 launched on 2012-06-12, while the R7 M350 arrived on 2015-05-04, a three-year gap that explains the architectural improvements.

Specification Differences

The most striking specification difference is the memory subsystem. The R7 M350 offers 4 GB of DDR3 memory with a 64-bit bus and 16.00 GB/s bandwidth, while the FirePro W600 offers 2 GB of GDDR5 with a 128-bit bus and 64.00 GB/s bandwidth. The FirePro W600’s memory clock is listed as 1000 MHz with 4 Gbps effective speed, while the R7 M350 runs at 1000 MHz with 2 Gbps effective. The FirePro W600’s 4x bandwidth advantage is counterbalanced by the R7 M350’s 2x capacity advantage.

Compute resources differ in count but not dramatically in throughput. The FirePro W600 has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, against the R7 M350’s 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. Despite fewer units, the R7 M350 achieves a higher FP32 rate of 779.5 GFLOPS versus 768.0 GFLOPS, thanks to its higher clock speeds. The R7 M350’s pixel rate is 8.120 GPixel/s and texture rate is 24.36 GTexel/s, while the FirePro W600’s pixel rate is 12.00 GPixel/s and texture rate is 24.00 GTexel/s.

Clock behavior is another differentiator. The R7 M350 has explicit base and boost clocks of 1000 MHz and 1015 MHz, while the FirePro W600’s base and boost clocks are not listed in the data. The R7 M350 uses a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface, while the FirePro W600 uses PCIe 3.0 x16. The FirePro W600 has six mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs; the R7 M350’s display outputs are not specified. The FirePro W600 is a single-slot card measuring 168 mm x 111 mm x 20 mm, with a 75 W TDP, no power connectors, and a suggested 250 W PSU. The R7 M350’s TDP, slot width, power connectors, and dimensions are not listed. Both cards are end-of-life products, with the R7 M350 released on 2015-05-04 and the FirePro W600 on 2012-06-12.