AMD Radeon Pro W5500 vs AMD Radeon R9 M380 Comparison

The benchmark data places the AMD Radeon Pro W5500 and the AMD Radeon R9 M380 in the same performance tier overall, but their individual test results tell a very different story. The Radeon Pro W5500 achieves an average benchmark score of 15,679, while the R9 M380 averages 15,521. The closest rival to the W5500 is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti, which scores 15,548 (a delta of 0.8%), and the R9 M380 sits at a 1% delta from the W5500. However, these aggregate numbers mask a decisive split in specific workloads, where the newer architecture dominates in compute-heavy tasks while the older part remains competitive in general rasterization.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two available direct comparisons show a massive performance gulf. In Geekbench Metal, the Radeon Pro W5500 scores 54,302, which is 193.9% higher than the R9 M380’s 18,476. This is not a marginal win; it represents a near-tripling of raw compute throughput in Apple’s Metal API. The Geekbench OpenCL result is even more lopsided: the W5500 posts 45,615 against the R9 M380’s 12,565, a delta of 263%. In this test, the W5500 delivers more than 3.6 times the score of its older counterpart.

These are the only two benchmarks where both cards have recorded scores, so the head-to-head is limited but conclusive. The W5500 wins both tests, giving it a 2–0 record. The R9 M380 has no wins in any shared benchmark. For context, the R9 M380’s closest rival according to its nearestRivals list is the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060, which scores 15,290 (a delta of 1.5%), while the W5500 is 1% faster than the R9 M380 in average score. The W5500’s PassMark G3D score of 8,978 and GPU compute score of 4,804 are not matched by the R9 M380, but the R9 M380’s absence from those tests means no direct comparison is possible there.

The raw deltas in Metal and OpenCL are so large that they suggest the two cards are not in the same class for compute workloads. A 193.9% advantage in Metal and a 263% advantage in OpenCL indicate that the W5500 is built for throughput, while the R9 M380 is better suited to older, simpler rendering paths.

Architecture Differences

The fundamental split is architectural. The Radeon Pro W5500 uses the Navi 14 chip built on RDNA 1.0 architecture, fabricated on a 7 nm process at TSMC. The Radeon R9 M380 uses the Strato chip based on GCN 2.0, also from TSMC but on a 28 nm process. The process node difference is stark: 7 nm versus 28 nm. This translates directly to transistor density. The W5500 packs 6,400 million transistors into a 158 mm² die, giving a density of 40.5 million transistors per mm². The R9 M380 has 2,080 million transistors on a slightly larger 160 mm² die, yielding only 13.0 million per mm².

The clock speeds follow the same pattern. The W5500 runs at a base of 1744 MHz and boosts to 1855 MHz, while the R9 M380 is locked to 900 MHz base and 1000 MHz boost. Memory also differs: the W5500 uses 8 GB of GDDR6 at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective), delivering 224.0 GB/s of bandwidth over a 128-bit bus. The R9 M380 has 4 GB of GDDR5 at 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective), with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth on the same 128-bit bus. The W5500 has more than double the memory bandwidth.

Compute resources are heavily skewed toward the W5500. It has 1,408 shading units, 88 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The R9 M380 has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. That is roughly double the shader count, TMUs, and ROPs. The pixel rate for the W5500 is 59.36 GPixel/s versus 16.00 GPixel/s for the R9 M380, and the texture rate is 163.2 GTexel/s versus 48.00 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput is 5.224 TFLOPS for the W5500 and 1.536 TFLOPS for the R9 M380. The W5500 also supports FP16 at 10.45 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), while the R9 M380 has no FP16 field listed.

The bus interface differs as well: the W5500 uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while the R9 M380 uses PCIe 3.0 x16. API support is close, but not identical: both support DirectX 12 (12_1 for the W5500, 12_0 for the R9 M380) and OpenGL 4.6. Vulkan support is 1.4 on the W5500 versus 1.2.170 on the R9 M380. The W5500 has 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, while the R9 M380 has no display output data listed.

Power and physical specs are also asymmetric. The W5500 has a TDP of 125 W, uses a single 6-pin power connector, and is a single-slot card with a length of 241 mm (9.5 inches) and height of 111 mm (4.4 inches). It requires a 300 W suggested PSU. The R9 M380 has no TDP, power connector, slot width, or dimension data listed.

Where Each One Wins

The W5500 wins decisively in every head-to-head benchmark available. Geekbench Metal and OpenCL are compute-oriented tests, and the W5500’s RDNA 1.0 architecture with 1,408 shading units and 5.224 TFLOPS FP32 is clearly optimized for these workloads. The 193.9% and 263% deltas in those tests show that the W5500 is not just faster—it is in a different performance class for GPU compute. If the workload involves OpenCL or Metal acceleration, the W5500 is the only rational choice.

The R9 M380 has no benchmark wins against the W5500 in the shared tests. However, its average score of 15,521 places it statistically close to the W5500’s 15,679 (only 1% lower), and it is within 0.2% of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti (15,548). This suggests that in tests not covered by the head-to-head list—such as DirectX 10, 11, or 12 workloads, or legacy OpenGL titles—the R9 M380 could be competitive. Its 768 shading units and 16 ROPs are half the W5500’s counts, but the R9 M380’s 28 nm GCN 2.0 design may still handle older APIs adequately. The W5500’s PassMark scores (47 in DirectX 10, 56 in DirectX 11, 39 in DirectX 12, 126 in DirectX 9, 806 in G2D, 8,978 in G3D, 4,804 in compute) are available, but the R9 M380 has no corresponding numbers, so no direct comparison is possible there.

For pure compute, the W5500 wins without contest. For legacy rasterization or scenarios where the R9 M380’s lower memory footprint (4 GB) is sufficient, the R9 M380 may still function, but the data does not show it beating the W5500 in any measured test. The W5500’s 8 GB VRAM and 224 GB/s bandwidth also give it a clear advantage in memory-heavy tasks, even if the benchmark suite does not isolate that factor.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the Radeon Pro W5500 in Geekbench Metal?

A: The W5500 scores 54,302 versus the R9 M380’s 18,476, a delta of 193.9%. That is nearly triple the performance.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between these two cards?

A: The W5500 has 224.0 GB/s bandwidth from 8 GB of GDDR6, while the R9 M380 has 96.00 GB/s from 4 GB of GDDR5. The W5500 has more than double the bandwidth.

Q: Which card has a smaller manufacturing process?

A: The W5500 uses a 7 nm process, while the R9 M380 uses 28 nm. Both are fabricated by TSMC.

Q: Do both cards support the same DirectX version?

A: Both support DirectX 12, but the W5500 supports feature level 12_1, while the R9 M380 is limited to 12_0.

Q: Is the R9 M380 competitive with the W5500 in any benchmark?

A: In the two shared benchmarks (Geekbench Metal and OpenCL), the R9 M380 loses both. Its average score is 15,521, which is 1% lower than the W5500’s 15,679.

Q: What is the FP32 compute throughput of each card?

A: The W5500 delivers 5.224 TFLOPS, while the R9 M380 delivers 1.536 TFLOPS. The W5500 is roughly 3.4 times higher.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD Radeon Pro W5500 is the superior card in every shared benchmark. Its 193.9% lead in Metal and 263% lead in OpenCL are not marginal improvements—they are generational leaps. The W5500’s 7 nm RDNA 1.0 architecture, with 1,408 shading units and 5.224 TFLOPS, simply outclasses the R9 M380’s 28 nm GCN 2.0 design with 768 shading units and 1.536 TFLOPS. If you need compute performance in Metal or OpenCL, the W5500 is the only choice.

That said, the R9 M380 is not a bad card for its era. Its average score of 15,521 is within 1% of the W5500, and it is only 0.2% behind the GTX 1080 Ti in average score. For older DirectX 9, 10, or 11 workloads, the R9 M380 may still hold up, though the W5500’s PassMark scores (126 in DX9, 47 in DX10, 56 in DX11) are the only data points available for the W5500 in those tests. The R9 M380 has no such scores listed, so a direct comparison is impossible.

Who should pick which? If your workload is modern compute—OpenCL, Metal, or Vulkan—the W5500 is the clear winner, and its 8 GB VRAM and 224 GB/s bandwidth give it headroom for larger datasets. The R9 M380 is a legacy part with 4 GB VRAM and 96 GB/s bandwidth, suited only for older applications that do not stress memory or shader throughput. The W5500 also carries a launch MSRP of 399 USD, which is the only pricing data available. If you are building a system for current or future compute tasks, the W5500 is the only rational pick from these two.

Specification Differences

| Field | AMD Radeon Pro W5500 | AMD Radeon R9 M380 |

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

| Process Node | 7 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 6,400 million | 2,080 million |

| Die Size | 158 mm² | 160 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 40.5M / mm² | 13.0M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1744 MHz | 900 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1855 MHz | 1000 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) | 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 8 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bandwidth | 224.0 GB/s | 96.00 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1408 | 768 |

| TMUs | 88 | 48 |

| ROPs | 32 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 59.36 GPixel/s | 16.00 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 163.2 GTexel/s | 48.00 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 5.224 TFLOPS | 1.536 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 10.45 TFLOPS (2:1) | — |

| TDP | 125 W | — |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | — |

| Power Connectors | 1x 6-pin | — |

| Suggested PSU | 300 W | — |

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

| Display Outputs | 4x DisplayPort 1.4a | — |

| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (12_0) |

| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.2.170 |

| Dimensions (L/H) | 241 mm / 111 mm | — |

| Release Date | 2020-02-09 | 2015-05-04 |

| Launch MSRP | 399 USD | — |