AMD FirePro W5100 vs AMD Radeon Pro 560X Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a split decision between these two workstation GPUs. Each card wins one of the two comparable benchmark tests, and the margins are substantial in both directions.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the AMD FirePro W5100 takes the lead with a score of 11888, while the AMD Radeon Pro 560X posts 9663. That translates to an 18.7% deficit for the newer card, a significant gap that suggests the older FirePro architecture handles this particular compute workload more efficiently. The OpenCL result is particularly notable because the Radeon Pro 560X has a higher raw FP32 throughput, yet it still trails by nearly a fifth in this test.

The situation reverses completely in Geekbench Vulkan. The Radeon Pro 560X scores 16819, against 13805 for the FirePro W5100. This is a 21.8% advantage for the 560X, and the margin is nearly the mirror image of the OpenCL result. The Vulkan benchmark likely exercises the rendering pipeline more heavily, which plays to the strengths of the newer GCN 4.0 architecture.

Looking at aggregate averages, the Radeon Pro 560X has a mean benchmark score of 15082 across all recorded tests, while the FirePro W5100 averages 12847. The 560X sits at the 57th percentile among all GPUs in the database, whereas the W5100 lands at the 52nd percentile. The newer card is clearly the stronger overall performer when both benchmark suites are weighted together.

The nearest rivals for the Radeon Pro 560X illustrate its positioning. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 Ti averages 15063, a delta of just 0.1% from the 560X. The AMD Radeon RX 7600 averages 15171, putting it 0.6% ahead. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM averages 15199, 0.8% ahead, and the AMD Radeon 680M averages 15270, 1.2% ahead. The 560X is effectively trading blows with these cards, all within a narrow 1.2% band.

For the FirePro W5100, the closest rival is the AMD Radeon Pro 455 at 12831, a 0.1% delta. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 590 scores 12830, also 0.1% behind. The AMD Radeon 740M scores 12870, putting it 0.2% ahead, and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670 scores 12773, 0.6% behind. The W5100 sits comfortably in this cluster, with all four rivals within a 0.8% spread.

Architecture Differences

The two cards represent distinct generations of AMD's Graphics Core Next design. The Radeon Pro 560X uses the Polaris 21 chip built on GCN 4.0 architecture, manufactured on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The FirePro W5100 uses the Bonaire chip with GCN 2.0 architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. This generational leap explains many of the performance characteristics observed in the benchmark data.

Transistor counts differ notably. The Polaris 21 packs 3,000 million transistors onto a 123 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 24.4 million per square millimeter. The Bonaire chip contains 2,080 million transistors on a larger 160 mm² die, with a density of just 13.0 million per square millimeter. The newer process node allows the 560X to fit roughly 44% more transistors into a smaller physical area.

Shader resources favor the newer card. The Radeon Pro 560X carries 1024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 16 render output units. The FirePro W5100 has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The 560X provides 33% more shader cores and the same 16 ROPs, which directly contributes to its higher fill rates.

Measured throughput figures confirm this advantage. The Radeon Pro 560X outputs 16.06 GPixel/s pixel rate and 64.26 GTexel/s texture rate. The FirePro W5100 manages 14.88 GPixel/s and 44.64 GTexel/s. The pixel rate gap is modest at roughly 8%, but the texture rate difference is substantial, with the 560X delivering about 44% more texel throughput.

Floating-point performance tells a similar story. The 560X reaches 2.056 TFLOPS FP32, while the W5100 achieves 1,428.5 GFLOPS. That is approximately 44% higher for the newer card. Notably, the 560X also supports FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with 2.056 TFLOPS, while the W5100 has no recorded FP16 capability. This makes the 560X considerably more flexible for workloads that can utilize reduced precision.

Memory configurations are closely matched in capacity but differ in speed. Both cards have 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus. The 560X runs memory at 1470 MHz with 5.9 Gbps effective data rate, producing 94.08 GB/s bandwidth. The W5100 runs at 1500 MHz with 6 Gbps effective, yielding 96.00 GB/s. The FirePro has a slight edge of about 2% in memory bandwidth, which may contribute to its OpenCL win.

Power and physical characteristics diverge sharply. The Radeon Pro 560X has a 75 W TDP and is an integrated graphics processor for portable devices, with display outputs described as portable device dependent. The FirePro W5100 has a 50 W TDP, is a single-slot card measuring 173 mm in length and 111 mm in height, and provides four DisplayPort 1.2 outputs. The W5100 also lists a suggested power supply of 250 W, while the 560X has no such specification.

API support shows the newer card's edge in Vulkan. Both support DirectX 12 (12_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The 560X supports Vulkan 1.3, while the W5100 is limited to Vulkan 1.2.170. This version difference likely influences the Vulkan benchmark outcome, where the 560X leads by 21.8%.

Where Each One Wins

The OpenCL result gives the FirePro W5100 a clear stronghold. With an 18.7% advantage over the 560X in Geekbench OpenCL, the W5100 is the better choice for compute workloads that rely on this API. The higher memory bandwidth of 96.00 GB/s versus 94.08 GB/s, combined with the W5100's specific GCN 2.0 scheduling, appears to give it an edge in general-purpose GPU compute despite lower theoretical FP32.

The Radeon Pro 560X dominates in Vulkan, leading by 21.8%. This suggests the newer architecture handles modern graphics APIs with significantly better efficiency. The Vulkan 1.3 support, compared to Vulkan 1.2.170 on the W5100, likely enables better driver-level optimizations and feature utilization. For any workload using Vulkan, the 560X is clearly superior.

The aggregate benchmark average favors the 560X at 15082 versus 12847, a 17.4% overall advantage. The newer card also holds a higher percentile ranking at 57 versus 52. When considering the full benchmark suite, the 560X wins on average, even though it loses one individual test.

The 560X also wins on raw throughput metrics. Its 2.056 TFLOPS FP32, 64.26 GTexel/s texture rate, and 16.06 GPixel/s pixel rate all exceed the W5100's corresponding figures. For workloads that are purely throughput-bound and not sensitive to API-specific overhead, the 560X should deliver higher performance.

The W5100 counters with lower power draw at 50 W versus 75 W, making it more efficient per watt in the OpenCL workload where it wins. It also offers a conventional single-slot form factor with four DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, while the 560X is limited to portable device dependent outputs. For multi-display professional setups, the W5100 provides immediate connectivity without adapters.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear pick for most users: the AMD Radeon Pro 560X is the stronger overall GPU. Its average benchmark score of 15082 exceeds the FirePro W5100's 12847 by 17.4%. It holds the 57th percentile versus 52nd, and it wins the Vulkan test by 21.8%. The 560X also provides superior raw compute with 2.056 TFLOPS FP32, FP16 support at 1:1 ratio, and a more advanced GCN 4.0 architecture on a 14 nm process.

The FirePro W5100 remains relevant for a specific niche. Its 18.7% OpenCL victory indicates that legacy compute pipelines built on OpenCL may still run faster on this older card. The lower 50 W TDP and the four DisplayPort 1.2 outputs make it attractive for multi-display professional workstations where power and connectivity matter more than raw Vulkan performance.

For new deployments, the Radeon Pro 560X should be the default choice. It outperforms the W5100 in the majority of recorded benchmarks, supports newer API versions, and delivers higher fill rates and shader throughput. The only scenario where the W5100 is clearly preferable is an OpenCL-only workload where the 18.7% advantage directly translates to faster job completion.

Both cards are end-of-life products, so the decision is likely between refurbished or existing inventory. The 560X is the more capable modern option, while the W5100 serves as a specialized compute device with a proven OpenCL track record.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 560X averages 15082 across all recorded benchmarks, while the AMD FirePro W5100 averages 12847. The 560X leads by approximately 17.4%.

Q: How does the Radeon Pro 560X compare to the FirePro W5100 in Vulkan performance?

A: The Radeon Pro 560X scores 16819 in Geekbench Vulkan, which is 21.8% higher than the FirePro W5100's 13805. The 560X also supports Vulkan 1.3, while the W5100 is limited to Vulkan 1.2.170.

Q: Why does the FirePro W5100 win the OpenCL benchmark despite having lower FP32 throughput?

A: The W5100 scores 11888 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 9663 for the 560X, an 18.7% advantage. The W5100 has slightly higher memory bandwidth at 96.00 GB/s versus 94.08 GB/s, and its GCN 2.0 architecture may handle this specific workload more efficiently despite its lower 1,428.5 GFLOPS FP32 rating.

Q: What are the transistor and process node differences between the two cards?

A: The Radeon Pro 560X uses a 14 nm process with 3,000 million transistors on a 123 mm² die. The FirePro W5100 uses a 28 nm process with 2,080 million transistors on a 160 mm² die. The 560X has a transistor density of 24.4M per mm², versus 13.0M per mm² for the W5100.

Q: Which card has better texture and pixel fill rates?

A: The Radeon Pro 560X has a texture rate of 64.26 GTexel/s and a pixel rate of 16.06 GPixel/s. The FirePro W5100 has a texture rate of 44.64 GTexel/s and a pixel rate of 14.88 GPixel/s. The 560X leads by roughly 44% in texture rate and 8% in pixel rate.

Q: What are the power and form factor differences?

A: The Radeon Pro 560X has a 75 W TDP and is an integrated GPU for portable devices. The FirePro W5100 has a 50 W TDP, is a single-slot card measuring 173 mm by 111 mm, and provides four DisplayPort 1.2 outputs with a suggested power supply of 250 W.