Contents:HighlightsSummaryGaming PerformanceBenchmark PerformanceTechnical SpecsRelated ComparisonsRelated GPUs
Performance
Radeon R5 M255112% better
1,7842% of 104,598
FirePro M2000
8411% of 104,598
The Radeon R5 M255 has 112% better performance than the FirePro M2000 for the 3DMark 11 Performance GPU benchmark.
Performance per dollar
Radeon R5 M255
No data available
FirePro M2000
No data available
We do not have any performance per dollar data for the Radeon R5 M255 and the FirePro M2000 for the 3DMark 11 Performance GPU benchmark.
Shop Radeon R5 M255
Shop FirePro M2000
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
Summary
#
About the AMD Radeon R5 M255 GPU
The AMD Radeon R5 M255 is an end-of-life mobile graphics card that released in Q4 2014. It is built on the GCN 3.0 GPU microarchitecture (codename Topaz) and is manufactured on a 28 nm process.
Memory
The R5 M255 has 2 GB of DDR3 memory, with a 1,000 MHz memory clock and a 128 bit interface. This gives it a memory bandwidth of 32 Gb/s, which affects how fast it can transfer data to and from memory. GPU memory stores temporary data that helps the GPU with complex math and graphics operations. More memory is generally better, as not having enough can cause performance bottlenecks.
Cores and Clock Speeds
The R5 M255 includes 384 stream processors (SPs), the processing units for handling parallel computing tasks. The GPU operates at a core clock speed of 925 MHz and can dynamically boost its clock speed up to 940 MHz. Complementing the processing units are 24 texture mapping units (TMUs) for efficient texture filtering and 8 render output units (ROPs) for pixel processing.
Benchmark Performance
The R5 M255 has the 380th best 3DMark 11 Performance GPU score among the 543 benchmarked GPUs in our database. It achieves 1.71% of the performance of the best benchmarked GPU, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090.
About the AMD FirePro M2000 GPU
The AMD FirePro M2000 is an end-of-life mobile graphics card that released in Q3 2012. It is built on the TeraScale 2 GPU microarchitecture (codename Turks) and is manufactured on a 40 nm process.
Memory
The FirePro M2000 has 1,024 MB of GDDR5 memory, with a 800 MHz memory clock and a 64 bit interface. This gives it a memory bandwidth of 25.6 Gb/s, which affects how fast it can transfer data to and from memory. GPU memory stores temporary data that helps the GPU with complex math and graphics operations. More memory is generally better, as not having enough can cause performance bottlenecks.
Cores and Clock Speeds
The FirePro M2000 includes 480 stream processors (SPs), the processing units for handling parallel computing tasks. The GPU operates at a core clock speed of 500 MHz. Complementing the processing units are 24 texture mapping units (TMUs) for efficient texture filtering and 8 render output units (ROPs) for pixel processing.
Compatibility & Power Consumption
The GPU has a thermal design power (TDP) of 33 W. A power supply not strong enough to handle this might result in system crashes and potentially damage your hardware.
Benchmark Performance
The FirePro M2000 has the 478th best 3DMark 11 Performance GPU score among the 543 benchmarked GPUs in our database. It achieves 0.80% of the performance of the best benchmarked GPU, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090.
General Info
General overview of the GPU, including details like its manufacturer, release date, launch price, and current production status.
| Info | Radeon R5 M255 | FirePro M2000 |
|---|---|---|
| Manufacturer | AMD | AMD |
| Architecture | GCN 3.0 | TeraScale 2 |
| Market Segment | Mobile | Mobile |
| Release Date | Q4 2014 | Q3 2012 |
| Production Status | End-of-life | End-of-life |
| Shop | Check Price | Check Price |
Gaming Performance
#
Select a game to compare FPS metrics
Sons of the Forest
Ready or Not
EA Sports WRC
Total War: PHARAOH
Counter-Strike 2
Cyberpunk 2077: Phantom Liberty
Lies of P
FPS Benchmarks
This table showcases the average frame rate (FPS) achieved both GPUs in at various resolutions. Frame rate is a crucial indicator of how smoothly the GPU can run the game. A higher FPS generally translates to a smoother gameplay experience.
- Frames Per Second
Sons of the Forest | Radeon R5 M255 | FirePro M2000 |
|---|---|---|
| Low - 1080p | 7 FPS | -- |
| Medium - 1080p | -- | -- |
| High - 1080p | -- | -- |
| Ultra - 1080p | -- | -- |
| QHD - 1440p | -- | -- |
| 4K UHD - 2160p | -- | -- |
FPS Source: Notebookcheck
Compare Frames Per Second (FPS)
The average frame rate (FPS) in can be compared to similar GPUs to assess relative performance. Generally, higher FPS results in a smoother gameplay experience.
Choose Baseline GPU:Radeon R5 M255 orFirePro M2000
| GPU | Frames Per Second | |
|---|---|---|
| Our database does not have enough FPS data to compare with other GPUs. | ||
Compare Cost Per Frame
The average cost per frame in can be compared to similar GPUs to assess relative value. Generally, a lower cost per frame implies better value for your money.
Choose Baseline GPU:Radeon R5 M255 orFirePro M2000
| GPU | Cost Per Frame | |
|---|---|---|
| Our database does not have enough data to compare the FPS per dollar with other GPUs. | ||
Benchmark Performance
#
Performance
Radeon R5 M255112% better
1,7842% of 104,598
FirePro M2000
8411% of 104,598
The Radeon R5 M255 has 112% better performance than the FirePro M2000 for the 3DMark 11 Performance GPU benchmark.
The Radeon R5 M255 is ranked 380th with a score of 1,784, and the FirePro M2000 is ranked 478th with a score of 841.
Performance per dollar
Radeon R5 M255
No data available
FirePro M2000
No data available
We do not have any performance per dollar data for the Radeon R5 M255 and the FirePro M2000 for the 3DMark 11 Performance GPU benchmark.
Relative Performance
The average score in the benchmark test can be compared to similar GPUs to assess relative performance. Generally, powerful GPUs tend to have higher scores.
Choose Baseline GPU:Radeon R5 M255 or
| GPU | Benchmark Performance | |
|---|---|---|
| GeForce GTX 560M | 1,820 | +2% |
| Quadro K2000M | 1,798 | +1% |
| Radeon R5 M335 | 1,784 | 0% |
| Radeon R5 M255 | 1,784 | |
| GeForce 825M | 1,756.5 | -2% |
| Radeon HD 6630M | 877 | -51% |
| Mobility Radeon HD 5650 | 855.5 | -52% |
| FirePro M2000 | 841 | -53% |
| Radeon HD 7570M | 829 | -54% |
| GeForce GT 435M | 799 | -55% |
Relative Value For Money
The average performance per dollar in the benchmark test can be compared to similar GPUs to assess relative value. A higher score implies a better value for your money.
Choose Baseline GPU:Radeon R5 M255 orFirePro M2000
| GPU | Performance Per Dollar | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Our database does not have enough data to compare the benchmark performance per dollar with other GPUs. | |||
Benchmark Scores
This table showcases the average performance scores achieved by both GPUs across industry-standard benchmark tests. These scores provide a valuable insight into overall performance. Powerful GPUs tend to have higher scores.
- Popular
| Benchmark | Radeon R5 M255 | FirePro M2000 |
|---|---|---|
| 3DMark Cloud Gate Graphics | 6,053 | -- |
| 3DMark Fire Strike Standard Graphics | 1,080.5 | -- |
| 3DMark 11 Performance Score | 1,907 (+99.9%) | 954 |
| Cinebench R15 OpenGL 64 Bit | 34.7 | -- |
| PassMark G3D Mark | 534 (+25.65%) | 425 |
| PassMark G2D Mark | 135 | 206 (+52.59%) |
Benchmarks Source: Notebookcheck
Technical Specs
#
Graphics Processor
General information about the graphics processing unit like their architecture, manufacturing process size, and transistor count. Newer GPU architectures generally bring efficiency improvements and may introduce technologies that enhance graphical capabilities.
| Spec | Radeon R5 M255 | FirePro M2000 |
|---|---|---|
| Codename | Topaz | Turks |
| Architecture | GCN 3.0 | TeraScale 2 |
| Process Size | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Transistors | 1,550 million | 716 million |
Memory Details
Memory specifications like their capacity, bandwidth, and clock speeds. GPU memory stores graphics data like frames, textures, and shadows which helps display rendered images. These specs are crucial for graphics-intense applications like gaming and 3D modeling.
| Spec | Radeon R5 M255 | FirePro M2000 |
|---|---|---|
| Memory Size | 2 GB | 1,024 MB |
| Memory Type | DDR3 | GDDR5 |
| Memory Bandwidth | 32 Gb/s | 25.6 Gb/s |
| Memory Clock | 1,000 MHz | 800 MHz |
| Memory Interface | 128 bit | 64 bit |
| L1 Cache | 16 KB | -- |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | -- |
Board Compatibility
Compatibility information like their slot size, bus interface, power consumption, and display support. These specs are useful for verifying compatibility with your motherboard, power supply, and monitor.
| Spec | Radeon R5 M255 | FirePro M2000 |
|---|---|---|
| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | -- | 33 W |
| Outputs | Device Dependent | Device Dependent |
Cores & Clock Speeds
Processing power information like its cores and clock speed. These specs impact how fast they can process graphics. Each type of core or component serves a specific computational purpose.
| Spec | Radeon R5 M255 | FirePro M2000 |
|---|---|---|
| Stream Processors (SP) | 384 | 480 |
| Compute Units (CU) | 6 | 6 |
| Texture Mapping Units (TMU) | 24 | 24 |
| Render Output Units (ROP) | 8 | 8 |
| Core Clock Speed | 925 MHz | 500 MHz |
| Core Clock Speed (Boost) | 940 MHz | -- |
Theoretical Performance
Theoretical performance numbers derived from the raw specifications of the different components like core count and clock speeds. While these provide a glimpse into peak processing power, they do not represent real-world performance.
| Spec | Radeon R5 M255 | FirePro M2000 |
|---|---|---|
| Pixel Fill Rate | 7.52 GPixel/s | 4 GPixel/s |
| Texture Fill Rate | 22.56 GTexel/s | 12 GTexel/s |
| FP32 Performance | 721.9 GFLOPS | 480 GFLOPS |
| FP64 Performance | 45.12 GFLOPS | -- |
API Support
Graphics API versions supported by these graphics cards. APIs evolve over time, introducing new features and functionalities. Older GPUs may not support recent versions.
| Spec | Radeon R5 M255 | FirePro M2000 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 11.2 (11_0) |
| OpenCL | 2.1 | 1.2 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.4 |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | 5.0 |
Check out these comparisons for similar GPUs:
Looking for alternatives? Check out these similar GPUs:
* Performance rating, performance per dollar, and rankings are based on the 3DMark 11 Performance GPU benchmark and MSRP.