
Firepro W4190M
Popular choices:

Radeon HD 5750
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - GPU
About G3D Mark
G3D Mark is a standard benchmark that measures graphics performance in real-world gaming scenarios. It simplifies comparing cards from different brands, where higher scores directly correlate with better fps and smoother gaming experiences.
Head-to-Head Verdict, Benchmarks, Value & Long-Term Outlook
This comparison brings together gaming FPS, raw graphics performance, VRAM, feature set, power efficiency, pricing context, and long-term value so you can see which GPU actually makes more sense.
Firepro W4190M
2015Why buy it
- ✅Draws 30W instead of 86W, a 56W reduction.
- ✅More future proof: GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) on 28nm with a newer platform for upcoming games.
Trade-offs
- ❌Less VRAM, with 512 MB vs 1 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
- ❌Very weak future-proofing: 2015-era hardware with 512 MB of VRAM is already obsolete for modern gaming and is hard to recommend today.
- ❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 0 vs 9.0 G3D/$ (Unknown MSRP vs $130 MSRP).
Radeon HD 5750
2009Why buy it
- ✅Delivers 100+% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 9.0 vs 0 G3D/$ ($130 MSRP vs Unknown MSRP).
- ✅100% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (1 GB vs 512 MB).
Trade-offs
- ❌Very weak future-proofing: 2009-era hardware with 1 GB of VRAM is already obsolete for modern gaming and is hard to recommend today.
- ❌186.7% higher power demand at 86W vs 30W.
Firepro W4190M
2015Radeon HD 5750
2009Why buy it
- ✅Draws 30W instead of 86W, a 56W reduction.
- ✅More future proof: GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) on 28nm with a newer platform for upcoming games.
Why buy it
- ✅Delivers 100+% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 9.0 vs 0 G3D/$ ($130 MSRP vs Unknown MSRP).
- ✅100% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (1 GB vs 512 MB).
Trade-offs
- ❌Less VRAM, with 512 MB vs 1 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
- ❌Very weak future-proofing: 2015-era hardware with 512 MB of VRAM is already obsolete for modern gaming and is hard to recommend today.
- ❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 0 vs 9.0 G3D/$ (Unknown MSRP vs $130 MSRP).
Trade-offs
- ❌Very weak future-proofing: 2009-era hardware with 1 GB of VRAM is already obsolete for modern gaming and is hard to recommend today.
- ❌186.7% higher power demand at 86W vs 30W.
Quick Answers
So, is Radeon HD 5750 better than Firepro W4190M?
Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?
Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper card?
When does Firepro W4190M make more sense than Radeon HD 5750?
Games Benchmarks
Real-world benchmarks and performance projections based on comprehensive hardware analysis and comparative metrics. Values represent expected performance on High/Ultra settings at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. Modeled using a Ryzen 7 9800X3D reference profile to minimize specific CPU bottlenecks.
Note: Performance behavior can vary per game. Specific architectures may perform better or worse depending on game engine optimizations and API implementation.

Path of Exile 2
| Preset | Firepro W4190M | Radeon HD 5750 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 15 FPS | 16 FPS |
| medium | 9 FPS | 10 FPS |
| high | 5 FPS | 6 FPS |
| ultra | 3 FPS | 3 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 9 FPS | 11 FPS |
| medium | 5 FPS | 6 FPS |
| high | 2 FPS | 3 FPS |
| ultra | 1 FPS | 1 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 4 FPS | 4 FPS |
| medium | 2 FPS | 2 FPS |
| high | 1 FPS | 1 FPS |
| ultra | 1 FPS | 1 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | Firepro W4190M | Radeon HD 5750 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 53 FPS | 23 FPS |
| medium | 29 FPS | 10 FPS |
| high | 20 FPS | 7 FPS |
| ultra | 14 FPS | 5 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 16 FPS | 7 FPS |
| medium | 9 FPS | 3 FPS |
| high | 6 FPS | 2 FPS |
| ultra | 5 FPS | 2 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 5 FPS | 2 FPS |
| medium | 3 FPS | 1 FPS |
| high | 2 FPS | 1 FPS |
| ultra | 2 FPS | 1 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | Firepro W4190M | Radeon HD 5750 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 53 FPS | 53 FPS |
| medium | 42 FPS | 42 FPS |
| high | 35 FPS | 35 FPS |
| ultra | 26 FPS | 26 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 39 FPS | 39 FPS |
| medium | 32 FPS | 32 FPS |
| high | 26 FPS | 26 FPS |
| ultra | 20 FPS | 20 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 26 FPS | 26 FPS |
| medium | 21 FPS | 21 FPS |
| high | 18 FPS | 18 FPS |
| ultra | 13 FPS | 13 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | Firepro W4190M | Radeon HD 5750 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 41 FPS | 53 FPS |
| medium | 33 FPS | 42 FPS |
| high | 19 FPS | 35 FPS |
| ultra | 13 FPS | 23 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 5 FPS | 33 FPS |
| medium | 3 FPS | 24 FPS |
| high | 3 FPS | 18 FPS |
| ultra | 2 FPS | 12 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 3 FPS | 19 FPS |
| medium | 2 FPS | 13 FPS |
| high | 2 FPS | 10 FPS |
| ultra | 1 FPS | 7 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Firepro W4190M and Radeon HD 5750
Firepro W4190M
Firepro W4190M
The Firepro W4190M is manufactured by an unknown manufacturer. It was released in November 12 2015. It features the GCN 1.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 825 MHz to 900 MHz. It has 384 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 30W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 1,168 points.

Radeon HD 5750
Radeon HD 5750
The Radeon HD 5750 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in October 13 2009. It features the TeraScale 2 architecture. The core clock speed is 700 MHz. It has 720 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 86W. Manufactured using 40 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 1,169 points.
Graphics Performance
The Firepro W4190M scores 1,168 and the Radeon HD 5750 reaches 1,169 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 0.1% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Firepro W4190M is built on GCN 1.0 while the Radeon HD 5750 uses TeraScale 2, both on 28 nm vs 40 nm. Shader units: 384 (Firepro W4190M) vs 720 (Radeon HD 5750). Raw compute: 0.6912 TFLOPS (Firepro W4190M) vs 1.008 TFLOPS (Radeon HD 5750).
| Feature | Firepro W4190M | Radeon HD 5750 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 1,168 | 1,169 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | TeraScale 2 |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Shading Units | 384 | 720+88% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 0.6912 TFLOPS | 1.008 TFLOPS+46% |
| ROPs | 8 | 16+100% |
| TMUs | 24 | 36+50% |
| L1 Cache | 96 KB+33% | 72 KB |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 256 KB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Firepro W4190M | Radeon HD 5750 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | Upscaling support | FSR Upscaling / FSR 4 |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | AMD Anti-Lag |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The Firepro W4190M comes with 512 MB of VRAM, while the Radeon HD 5750 has 1 GB. The Radeon HD 5750 offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 64-bit vs 128-bit.
| Feature | Firepro W4190M | Radeon HD 5750 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 0.5 GB | 1 GB+100% |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 128-bit+100% |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 256 KB |
Media & Encoding
Supported codecs: H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2 (Firepro W4190M) vs H.264 (Radeon HD 5750).
| Feature | Firepro W4190M | Radeon HD 5750 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | UVD4 | — |
| Decoder | VCE1 | — |
| Codecs | H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2 | H.264 |
Power & Dimensions
The Firepro W4190M draws 30W versus the Radeon HD 5750's 86W — a 96.6% difference. The Firepro W4190M is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Firepro W4190M) vs 450W (Radeon HD 5750). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs 1x 6-pin.
| Feature | Firepro W4190M | Radeon HD 5750 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 30W-65% | 86W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W-22% | 450W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | 1x 6-pin |
| Length | 0mm | — |
| Height | 0mm | — |
| Slots | 1 | — |
| Temp (Load) | 75°C | — |
| Perf/Watt | 38.9+186% | 13.6 |
Value Analysis
The Firepro W4190M is the newer GPU (2015 vs 2009).
| Feature | Firepro W4190M | Radeon HD 5750 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | — | $130 |
| Codename | Opal | Juniper |
| Release | November 12 2015 | October 13 2009 |
| Ranking | #836 | #834 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.














