FirePro R5000 vs Radeon R5 (Bristol Ridge)
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R5 (Bristol Ridge) with FirePro R5000, including specs and performance data.
R5000 outperforms R5 (Bristol Ridge) by a whopping 183% 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 | 904 | 620 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.27 |
| Power efficiency | 3.82 | 3.24 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.2/2.0 (2015−2016) | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) |
| GPU code name | Bristol Ridge | Pitcairn |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 1 June 2016 (9 years ago) | 25 February 2013 (12 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $1,099 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 | 384 | 768 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 825 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 800 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 3100 Million | 2,800 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 12-45 Watt | 350 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 39.60 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 1.267 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 32 |
| TMUs | no data | 48 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 192 KB |
| L2 Cache | no data | 512 KB |
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 | no data | PCIe 3.0 |
| Interface | no data | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 279 mm |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Form factor | no data | full height / full length |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 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 | no data | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64/128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 102.4 GB/s |
| Shared memory | + | - |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | no data | 2x mini-DisplayPort |
| Dual-link DVI support | - | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (FL 12_0) | 12 (11_1) |
| Shader Model | no data | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.2.131 |
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 | 12
−150%
| 30−35
+150%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 36.63 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
−180%
|
14−16
+180%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−180%
|
14−16
+180%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
−167%
|
16−18
+167%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
−180%
|
14−16
+180%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−180%
|
14−16
+180%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 8−9
−163%
|
21−24
+163%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−167%
|
16−18
+167%
|
| Fortnite | 9
−167%
|
24−27
+167%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 11
−173%
|
30−33
+173%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 5−6
−180%
|
14−16
+180%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−150%
|
30−33
+150%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
−168%
|
110−120
+168%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
−167%
|
16−18
+167%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
−180%
|
14−16
+180%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 45−50
−167%
|
120−130
+167%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−180%
|
14−16
+180%
|
| Dota 2 | 18
−178%
|
50−55
+178%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 8−9
−163%
|
21−24
+163%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−167%
|
16−18
+167%
|
| Fortnite | 10−12
−173%
|
30−33
+173%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−150%
|
30−33
+150%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 5−6
−180%
|
14−16
+180%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 5−6
−180%
|
14−16
+180%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
−150%
|
10−11
+150%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−150%
|
30−33
+150%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6
−167%
|
16−18
+167%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
−168%
|
110−120
+168%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
−167%
|
16−18
+167%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−180%
|
14−16
+180%
|
| Dota 2 | 17
−165%
|
45−50
+165%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 8−9
−163%
|
21−24
+163%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−167%
|
16−18
+167%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−150%
|
30−33
+150%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−150%
|
30−33
+150%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
−167%
|
24−27
+167%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
−168%
|
110−120
+168%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 10−12
−173%
|
30−33
+173%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
−180%
|
14−16
+180%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 16−18
−181%
|
45−50
+181%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
−173%
|
60−65
+173%
|
| Valorant | 18−20
−178%
|
50−55
+178%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 5−6
−180%
|
14−16
+180%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
−167%
|
8−9
+167%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−167%
|
16−18
+167%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
−167%
|
8−9
+167%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 4−5
−150%
|
10−11
+150%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−167%
|
40−45
+167%
|
| Valorant | 10−12
−173%
|
30−33
+173%
|
4K
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 5−6
−180%
|
14−16
+180%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
−167%
|
8−9
+167%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4
−167%
|
8−9
+167%
|
This is how R5 (Bristol Ridge) and FirePro R5000 compete in popular games:
- FirePro R5000 is 150% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.24 | 6.33 |
| Recency | 1 June 2016 | 25 February 2013 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 12 Watt | 350 Watt |
R5 (Bristol Ridge) has an age advantage of 3 years, and 2816.7% lower power consumption.
FirePro R5000, on the other hand, has a 182.6% higher aggregate performance score.
The FirePro R5000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R5 (Bristol Ridge) in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R5 (Bristol Ridge) is a notebook graphics 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.
