FirePro R5000 vs Radeon R5 M330
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R5 M330 with FirePro R5000, including specs and performance data.
R5000 outperforms R5 M330 by a whopping 345% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 979 | 569 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.67 |
| Power efficiency | 5.91 | 3.16 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2011−2020) | GCN 1.0 (2011−2020) |
| GPU code name | Exo | Pitcairn |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 5 May 2015 (9 years ago) | 25 February 2013 (11 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 | 320 | 768 |
| Compute units | 5 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 955 MHz | 825 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1030 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 690 million | 2,800 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 18 Watt | 350 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 20.60 | 39.60 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.6592 TFLOPS | 1.267 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 32 |
| TMUs | 20 | 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).
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | PCIe 3.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | 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 | 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 | DDR3 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1000 MHz | 800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 14.4 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 |
| Dual-link DVI support | - | + |
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 compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | 12 (11_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | Not Listed | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | + | 1.2.131 |
| Mantle | + | - |
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 | 9
−344%
| 40−45
+344%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 27.48 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−329%
|
30−33
+329%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−320%
|
21−24
+320%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
−300%
|
8−9
+300%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−329%
|
30−33
+329%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−320%
|
21−24
+320%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
−338%
|
35−40
+338%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
−300%
|
4−5
+300%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 7−8
−329%
|
30−33
+329%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
−300%
|
8−9
+300%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−329%
|
30−33
+329%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−320%
|
21−24
+320%
|
| Dota 2 | 2−3
−300%
|
8−9
+300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
−317%
|
50−55
+317%
|
| Fortnite | 7−8
−329%
|
30−33
+329%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
−338%
|
35−40
+338%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 2−3
−300%
|
8−9
+300%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
−300%
|
4−5
+300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
−338%
|
70−75
+338%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 7−8
−329%
|
30−33
+329%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7
−329%
|
30−33
+329%
|
| World of Tanks | 30−35
−338%
|
140−150
+338%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
−300%
|
8−9
+300%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−329%
|
30−33
+329%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−320%
|
21−24
+320%
|
| Dota 2 | 2−3
−300%
|
8−9
+300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
−317%
|
50−55
+317%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
−338%
|
35−40
+338%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
−338%
|
70−75
+338%
|
1440p
High Preset
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−344%
|
40−45
+344%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| World of Tanks | 9−10
−344%
|
40−45
+344%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−300%
|
12−14
+300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
−320%
|
21−24
+320%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
−300%
|
4−5
+300%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−320%
|
21−24
+320%
|
| Valorant | 7−8
−329%
|
30−33
+329%
|
4K
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−338%
|
70−75
+338%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−333%
|
65−70
+333%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
−300%
|
16−18
+300%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 1−2
−300%
|
4−5
+300%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
−333%
|
65−70
+333%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−300%
|
4−5
+300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−300%
|
8−9
+300%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−338%
|
70−75
+338%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−300%
|
4−5
+300%
|
| Valorant | 2−3
−300%
|
8−9
+300%
|
This is how R5 M330 and FirePro R5000 compete in popular games:
- FirePro R5000 is 344% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.52 | 6.77 |
| Recency | 5 May 2015 | 25 February 2013 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 2 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 18 Watt | 350 Watt |
R5 M330 has an age advantage of 2 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and 1844.4% lower power consumption.
FirePro R5000, on the other hand, has a 345.4% higher aggregate performance score.
The FirePro R5000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R5 M330 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R5 M330 is a notebook 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.
