FirePro R5000 vs FirePro M4000
Aggregate performance score
We've compared FirePro M4000 with FirePro R5000, including specs and performance data.
R5000 outperforms M4000 by an impressive 66% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 705 | 577 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.66 |
| Power efficiency | 8.59 | 3.13 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2011−2020) | GCN 1.0 (2011−2020) |
| GPU code name | Chelsea | Pitcairn |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Workstation |
| Release date | 27 June 2012 (12 years ago) | 25 February 2013 (12 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $1,099 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 512 | 768 |
| Core clock speed | 675 MHz | 825 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,500 million | 2,800 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 33 Watt | 350 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 21.60 | 39.60 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.6912 TFLOPS | 1.267 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 32 |
| TMUs | 32 | 48 |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).
| Laptop size | medium sized | no data |
| Bus support | n/a | PCIe 3.0 |
| Interface | MXM-A (3.0) | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 279 mm |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Form factor | MXM-A | full height / full length |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 1x 6-pin |
VRAM capacity and type
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1000 MHz | 800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 72 GB/s | 102.4 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.
| Display Connectors | No outputs | 2x mini-DisplayPort |
| StereoOutput3D | + | - |
| Dual-link DVI support | - | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 12 (11_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.2.131 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark score.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| Full HD | 27
−48.1%
| 40−45
+48.1%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 27.48 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
−50%
|
21−24
+50%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
−50%
|
12−14
+50%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 6−7
−50%
|
9−10
+50%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
−60%
|
24−27
+60%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
−50%
|
21−24
+50%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
−50%
|
12−14
+50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
−60%
|
16−18
+60%
|
| Fortnite | 21−24
−59.1%
|
35−40
+59.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
−50%
|
27−30
+50%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 9−10
−55.6%
|
14−16
+55.6%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 6−7
−50%
|
9−10
+50%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
−50%
|
24−27
+50%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
−60.4%
|
85−90
+60.4%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
−60%
|
24−27
+60%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
−50%
|
21−24
+50%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 65−70
−59.4%
|
110−120
+59.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
−50%
|
12−14
+50%
|
| Dota 2 | 35−40
−57.1%
|
55−60
+57.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
−60%
|
16−18
+60%
|
| Fortnite | 21−24
−59.1%
|
35−40
+59.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
−50%
|
27−30
+50%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 9−10
−55.6%
|
14−16
+55.6%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 12−14
−50%
|
18−20
+50%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 6−7
−50%
|
9−10
+50%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7−8
−42.9%
|
10−11
+42.9%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
−50%
|
24−27
+50%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
−63.6%
|
18−20
+63.6%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
−60.4%
|
85−90
+60.4%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
−60%
|
24−27
+60%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
−50%
|
12−14
+50%
|
| Dota 2 | 35−40
−57.1%
|
55−60
+57.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
−60%
|
16−18
+60%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
−50%
|
27−30
+50%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 6−7
−50%
|
9−10
+50%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
−50%
|
24−27
+50%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
−63.6%
|
18−20
+63.6%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
−60.4%
|
85−90
+60.4%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 21−24
−59.1%
|
35−40
+59.1%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
−60%
|
8−9
+60%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 27−30
−55.2%
|
45−50
+55.2%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−33
−50%
|
45−50
+50%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
−58.5%
|
65−70
+58.5%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
−42.9%
|
10−11
+42.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
−55.6%
|
14−16
+55.6%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−50%
|
9−10
+50%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 7−8
−42.9%
|
10−11
+42.9%
|
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
−50%
|
24−27
+50%
|
| Valorant | 18−20
−57.9%
|
30−33
+57.9%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 12−14
−50%
|
18−20
+50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−50%
|
6−7
+50%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−50%
|
6−7
+50%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
−50%
|
6−7
+50%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 4−5
−50%
|
6−7
+50%
|
This is how FirePro M4000 and FirePro R5000 compete in popular games:
- FirePro R5000 is 48% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.57 | 5.92 |
| Recency | 27 June 2012 | 25 February 2013 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 2 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 33 Watt | 350 Watt |
FirePro M4000 has 960.6% lower power consumption.
FirePro R5000, on the other hand, has a 65.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 months, and a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.
The FirePro R5000 is our recommended choice as it beats the FirePro M4000 in performance tests.
Be aware that FirePro M4000 is a mobile workstation card while FirePro R5000 is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
