FirePro S7150 vs Radeon R5 M320
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R5 M320 with FirePro S7150, including specs and performance data.
S7150 outperforms R5 M320 by a whopping 690% 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 | 1115 | 523 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.25 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 4.61 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) | GCN 3.0 (2014−2019) |
| GPU code name | Jet | Tonga |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 5 May 2015 (10 years ago) | 1 February 2016 (9 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $2,399 |
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 | 320 | 2048 |
| Compute units | 5 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 780 MHz | 920 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 855 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 690 million | 5,000 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | unknown | 150 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 17.10 | 117.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.5472 TFLOPS | 3.768 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 32 |
| TMUs | 20 | 128 |
| L1 Cache | 80 KB | 512 KB |
| L2 Cache | 128 KB | 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).
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 241 mm |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| 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 | DDR3 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1000 MHz | 1250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 16 GB/s | 160.0 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 outputs | No outputs |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| HD3D | + | - |
| PowerTune | + | - |
| DualGraphics | + | - |
| ZeroCore | + | - |
| Switchable graphics | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | 12 (12_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.3 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | Not Listed | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | + | 1.2.131 |
| Mantle | + | - |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−600%
|
21−24
+600%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 6−7
−650%
|
45−50
+650%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−600%
|
7−8
+600%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−600%
|
21−24
+600%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−600%
|
14−16
+600%
|
| Fortnite | 2−3
−600%
|
14−16
+600%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−686%
|
55−60
+686%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
−600%
|
7−8
+600%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 6−7
−650%
|
45−50
+650%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−678%
|
70−75
+678%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−681%
|
250−260
+681%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−600%
|
7−8
+600%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 27−30
−678%
|
210−220
+678%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−600%
|
21−24
+600%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−650%
|
120−130
+650%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−600%
|
14−16
+600%
|
| Fortnite | 2−3
−600%
|
14−16
+600%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−686%
|
55−60
+686%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
−600%
|
7−8
+600%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 6−7
−650%
|
45−50
+650%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
−600%
|
14−16
+600%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−678%
|
70−75
+678%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−686%
|
55−60
+686%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−681%
|
250−260
+681%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−600%
|
7−8
+600%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−600%
|
21−24
+600%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−650%
|
120−130
+650%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−600%
|
14−16
+600%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−686%
|
55−60
+686%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 6−7
−650%
|
45−50
+650%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−678%
|
70−75
+678%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−686%
|
55−60
+686%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−681%
|
250−260
+681%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−600%
|
14−16
+600%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
−650%
|
30−33
+650%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 7−8
−686%
|
55−60
+686%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−650%
|
90−95
+650%
|
| Valorant | 1−2
−600%
|
7−8
+600%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−600%
|
7−8
+600%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−600%
|
21−24
+600%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 1−2
−600%
|
7−8
+600%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
−600%
|
14−16
+600%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−600%
|
14−16
+600%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−686%
|
110−120
+686%
|
| Valorant | 6−7
−650%
|
45−50
+650%
|
4K
Ultra
| Dota 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−600%
|
14−16
+600%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−600%
|
14−16
+600%
|
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.14 | 9.01 |
| Recency | 5 May 2015 | 1 February 2016 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 8 GB |
FirePro S7150 has a 690.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 months, and a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.
The FirePro S7150 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R5 M320 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R5 M320 is a notebook graphics card while FirePro S7150 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.
