AMD FirePro W5000 vs AMD Radeon Pro 5500M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable benchmark between the AMD Radeon Pro 5500M and the AMD FirePro W5000 is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the results are emphatic. The Radeon Pro 5500M scores 31,088, which is 217.1% higher than the FirePro W5000's 9,803. That is a massive generational leap, more than tripling the older card's compute output in a single workload.

Looking at the broader database context, the Radeon Pro 5500M's average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 11,528. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Tesla K20c at 11,479 (0.4% faster) and the AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT at 11,627 (0.8% slower). This places the 5500M in a competitive mid-range position, essentially matching a professional Tesla compute card while sitting just below the RX 7800 XT. The GeForce GTX 1660 is 1.3% ahead, and the GTX 780M trails by 2.4%.

The FirePro W5000, by contrast, has an average benchmark score of 9,803, which comes from that single OpenCL result. Its nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 at 9,780 (0.2% faster), the Quadro M2000M at 9,832 (0.3% faster), and the Quadro 6000 at 9,846 (0.4% faster). The Tesla M10 is 0.8% behind. The W5000 sits in a tight cluster of older professional and consumer GPUs, all within a single percentage point of each other.

The delta between the two cards in OpenCL is not a marginal edge but a categorical victory for the newer architecture.

The Radeon Pro 5500M also records wins in every other benchmark categories it was tested on, including Geekbench Metal at 38,235, Vulkan at 35,134, Passmark G3D at 6,732, and Passmark GPU Compute at 3,240. The FirePro W5000 has no entries in those tests, so the comparison remains defined by the single OpenCL result. The data indicates the 5500M dominates the head-to-head matchup with a 1-0 win count, and the margin in that win is the story.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from entirely different eras of AMD's GPU design. The Radeon Pro 5500M uses the Navi 14 chip built on the RDNA 1.0 architecture, fabricated on a 7 nm process at TSMC. The FirePro W5000 uses the Pitcairn chip based on GCN 1.0, also from TSMC but on a 28 nm node. The process shrink is dramatic: 7 nm versus 28 nm, which directly contributes to the massive efficiency and performance gap.

Transistor counts tell the same story. The Navi 14 die packs 6,400 million transistors on a 158 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 40.5 million per square millimeter. The Pitcairn die has 2,800 million transistors on a larger 212 mm² die, with a density of just 13.2 million per square millimeter. The newer chip crams more than twice the transistors into a physically smaller package, and the density difference is roughly threefold.

Memory configurations differ substantially. The Pro 5500M has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 192.0 GB/s of bandwidth. Memory clocks run at 1500 MHz with 12 Gbps effective data rate. The FirePro W5000 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, providing 102.4 GB/s. Its memory clock is 800 MHz with 3.2 Gbps effective. Although the W5000 has a wider bus, the newer memory type and higher clock speed on the 5500M give it nearly double the bandwidth.

Compute resources also scale up. The Pro 5500M has 1,536 shading units, 96 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The FirePro W5000 has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The shading and texture counts exactly double, while ROPs remain the same. Pixel rate on the 5500M is 46.40 GPixel/s versus 26.40 GPixel/s on the W5000. Texture rate is 139.2 GTexel/s versus 39.60 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput is 4.454 TFLOPS for the 5500M versus 1,267.2 GFLOPS (1.267 TFLOPS) for the W5000. The 5500M also supports FP16 at 8.909 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, a feature the W5000 lacks entirely.

The interface and output capabilities also differ. The 5500M uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while the W5000 uses PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs on the 5500M are listed as portable-device dependent, reflecting its mobile design, whereas the W5000 has fixed outputs: one DVI and two DisplayPort 1.2. API support is broadly similar with DirectX 12, OpenGL 4.6 on both, and Vulkan versions differ slightly (1.4 on the 5500M, 1.2.170 on the W5000). DirectX 12 feature levels are 12_1 on the 5500M and 12 (11_1) on the W5000.

Power figures are close. The Pro 5500M has an 85 W TDP, the FirePro W5000 has 75 W TDP. Neither uses power connectors, but the W5000 suggests a 250 W PSU. The W5000 is a single-slot card measuring 183 mm in length and 111 mm in height. The 5500M has no recorded dimensions, consistent with its portable device design.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Pro 5500M wins in every measurable category where both cards have data. The OpenCL performance gap of 217.1% means the 5500M is the clear choice for OpenCL compute workloads. Its higher FP32 throughput, more than three times that of the W5000, makes it substantially better for general GPU compute tasks. The double shading units and TMUs directly translate to higher fill rates and texture throughput, which benefits rendering and shader-heavy applications.

The 5500M's 8 GB GDDR6 memory with 192.0 GB/s bandwidth is a major advantage for large datasets and high-resolution textures. The FirePro W5000's 2 GB GDDR5 with 102.4 GB/s would likely bottleneck in modern workloads that demand more memory capacity. The 5500M also supports FP16 compute with a 2:1 ratio, which the W5000 cannot do at all. For machine learning inference or workloads that leverage half-precision, the 5500M opens up capabilities the older card simply lacks.

The FirePro W5000 does have some structural advantages worth noting. Its 256-bit memory bus is wider than the 5500M's 128-bit bus, though the newer memory technology on the 5500M overcomes that with higher clocks. The W5000 has a lower TDP at 75 W versus 85 W, a modest power advantage. It also has fixed display outputs with two DisplayPort 1.2 connections and one DVI, which might be preferable for stationary workstations needing predictable multi-monitor setups. The 5500M's output configuration is dependent on the portable device it ships in.

The W5000's position in the database is also interesting. Its average score of 9,803 puts it within 0.4% of the NVIDIA Quadro 6000 and 0.3% of the Quadro M2000M. This suggests it remains competitive within its vintage segment. But against the 5500M, there is no contest. The newer card's percentile rank of 51 among all GPUs versus the W5000's 47 reflects the gap, though both sit near the middle of the distribution.

For modern workloads, the 5500M is the only viable option between the two. For legacy applications that rely on older driver stacks or specific GCN-era features, the W5000 could still function, but the data provides no performance rationale to prefer it.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the AMD Radeon Pro 5500M than the FirePro W5000 in OpenCL?

A: The 5500M scores 31,088 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 9,803 for the W5000, a 217.1% advantage.

Q: What are the memory specifications of each card?

A: The Radeon Pro 5500M has 8 GB GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 192.0 GB/s bandwidth. The FirePro W5000 has 2 GB GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The Radeon Pro 5500M has 1,536 shading units, exactly double the 768 shading units of the FirePro W5000.

Q: What is the process node difference between the two GPUs?

A: The Radeon Pro 5500M uses a 7 nm process at TSMC, while the FirePro W5000 uses a 28 nm process, also at TSMC.

Q: Does the FirePro W5000 support FP16 compute?

A: No, the FirePro W5000 has no recorded FP16 support. The Radeon Pro 5500M supports FP16 at 8.909 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio.

Q: How does each card compare to its nearest rivals in the database?

A: The Radeon Pro 5500M's average score of 11,528 is 0.4% above the NVIDIA Tesla K20c and 0.8% below the AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT. The FirePro W5000's average score of 9,803 is 0.2% above the GeForce GTX 1070 and 0.3% below the Quadro M2000M.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon Pro 5500M | AMD FirePro W5000 |

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

| Architecture | RDNA 1.0 | GCN 1.0 |

| Chip | Navi 14 | Pitcairn |

| Process Node | 7 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 6,400 million | 2,800 million |

| Die Size | 158 mm² | 212 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 40.5M / mm² | 13.2M / mm² |

| Memory Size | 8 GB | 2 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 192.0 GB/s | 102.4 GB/s |

| Memory Clock | 1500 MHz, 12 Gbps effective | 800 MHz, 3.2 Gbps effective |

| Shading Units | 1,536 | 768 |

| TMUs | 96 | 48 |

| ROPs | 32 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 46.40 GPixel/s | 26.40 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 139.2 GTexel/s | 39.60 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 4.454 TFLOPS | 1,267.2 GFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 8.909 TFLOPS (2:1) | None |

| TDP | 85 W | 75 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort 1.2 |

| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (11_1) |

| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.2.170 |

| Slot Width | Not specified | Single-slot |

| Dimensions | Not specified | 183 mm length, 111 mm height |

| Suggested PSU | Not specified | 250 W |

| Release Date | 2019-11-12 | 2012-08-06 |

| Predecessor | None | FirePro Terascale |

| Successor | None | Radeon Pro Polaris |

| Launch MSRP | None | 599 USD |

The table highlights the full scope of the generational divide. The 5500M doubles the shading units, triples FP32 throughput, quadruples memory capacity, and nearly doubles bandwidth. The process node shrink from 28 nm to 7 nm enables higher transistor density and lower power draw per unit of performance. The W5000 retains advantages only in bus width, physical size specification, and its fixed display output configuration. Every performance-relevant metric favors the Radeon Pro 5500M.