AMD FirePro D500 vs AMD FirePro W7000 Comparison

The AMD FirePro W7000 and AMD FirePro D500 are both professional workstation cards built on the same GCN 1.0 architecture and 28 nm TSMC process, but they target different corners of the market. The data shows a clear overall winner in the W7000, driven by a single head-to-head benchmark, yet the D500 holds distinct advantages in memory bandwidth and display connectivity that matter for specific professional workflows.

The Verdict

Based strictly on benchmark results, the AMD FirePro W7000 is the superior performer. Its average benchmark score of 19,905 points places it in the 65th percentile of all GPUs, while the FirePro D500 trails with an average score of 18,533 points, sitting in the 62nd percentile. In the only direct head-to-head test available, the Geekbench Vulkan benchmark, the W7000 scores 22,001 against the D500's 18,533 — a decisive 18.7% lead. However, the choice is not simply about raw compute. The D500 offers a significantly wider memory bus and higher bandwidth, making it the better candidate for tasks that are memory-bound rather than shader-bound. The W7000 is the pick for users prioritizing raw GPU compute and Vulkan performance, while the D500 appeals to those needing massive data throughput and extensive multi-display setups. The W7000's nearest rival, the NVIDIA Tesla K40m, scores 19,885 (just 0.1% behind), showing the W7000 sits at the top of its performance tier, whereas the D500's closest competitor, the AMD Radeon RX 560X, is only 0.5% ahead.

Architecture Differences

Both cards share the same GCN 1.0 architecture, but they are built on different chips with distinct configurations. The W7000 uses the Pitcairn chip, while the D500 is based on the larger Tahiti chip. The D500 packs significantly more transistors — 4,313 million compared to the W7000's 2,800 million — and has a much larger die size of 352 mm² versus 212 mm². Interestingly, the W7000 has a higher transistor density at 13.2M per mm², compared to the D500's 12.3M per mm², indicating a more compact arrangement on the smaller die.

The compute unit configuration tells a nuanced story. The D500 features more shading units (1,536 vs 1,280), more texture mapping units (96 vs 80), but both cards have the same number of raster output units (32). Despite having fewer cores, the W7000 achieves higher peak rates: its pixel rate is 30.40 GPixel/s versus the D500's 23.20 GPixel/s, and its texture rate is 76.00 GTexel/s versus 69.60 GTexel/s. The W7000 also leads in FP32 throughput at 2.432 TFLOPS, edging out the D500's 2.227 TFLOPS. This suggests the W7000 runs at higher clock speeds, though the fact pack does not list base or boost clocks for either card.

Memory architecture is where the D500 pulls ahead decisively. The D500 uses a 384-bit memory bus paired with 3 GB of GDDR5 memory, achieving a bandwidth of 243.8 GB/s. The W7000, by contrast, uses a 256-bit bus with 4 GB of GDDR5, yielding 153.6 GB/s. The D500's memory clock is also higher at 1270 MHz (5.1 Gbps effective) versus the W7000's 1200 MHz (4.8 Gbps effective). Power consumption differs markedly: the D500 draws 274 W and requires a 600 W suggested PSU, while the W7000 is rated at 150 W with a 450 W suggested PSU. The W7000 is a single-slot card with a 1x 6-pin power connector, whereas the D500 is a dual-slot card with no listed power connector. Both support PCIe 3.0 x16 and offer identical API support: DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170.

Where Each One Wins

The W7000 wins outright on raw compute performance. In the Geekbench Vulkan test, it beats the D500 by 18.7%, and its average benchmark score is 7.4% higher. The W7000 also excels in pixel and texture fill rates, making it the stronger choice for tasks that hammer the shader pipeline, such as 3D rendering, simulation, and general GPU compute workloads. Its 4 GB frame buffer is larger than the D500's 3 GB, which can help with larger textures or datasets that fit within the memory pool. The W7000's lower power draw (150 W vs 274 W) and single-slot design also make it easier to integrate into dense systems or those with limited space and cooling.

The D500, despite losing the compute race, has clear advantages in memory-centric workloads. Its 243.8 GB/s bandwidth is 58.7% higher than the W7000's 153.6 GB/s, which is critical for tasks like high-resolution video processing, large matrix operations, or scientific computing where data movement dominates. The 384-bit bus provides a wider path for data, and the higher memory clock reduces latency. The D500 also offers more display outputs: six mini-DisplayPort 1.2 connectors plus one SDI output, versus four DisplayPort 1.2 on the W7000. This makes the D500 the better fit for video walls, broadcast environments, or multi-monitor professional setups. The D500's larger die and higher transistor count suggest it was designed for heavier sustained loads, even if its clock speeds are lower.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD FirePro W7000 has an average benchmark score of 19,905, which is 7.4% higher than the FirePro D500's score of 18,533.

Q: How do the two cards compare in Vulkan performance?

A: In the Geekbench Vulkan test, the W7000 scores 22,001 while the D500 scores 18,533, giving the W7000 an 18.7% advantage.

Q: Which card offers more memory bandwidth?

A: The FirePro D500 offers significantly more bandwidth at 243.8 GB/s, compared to the W7000's 153.6 GB/s, due to its wider 384-bit bus and higher memory clock.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The W7000 has a TDP of 150 W and suggests a 450 W PSU, while the D500 has a TDP of 274 W and suggests a 600 W PSU.

Q: How many display outputs does each card provide?

A: The W7000 provides four DisplayPort 1.2 outputs. The D500 provides six mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs plus one SDI output.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The FirePro D500 has more shading units at 1,536, compared to the W7000's 1,280, even though the W7000 achieves higher FP32 performance.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single head-to-head benchmark available is the Geekbench Vulkan test, and it is a decisive win for the AMD FirePro W7000. The W7000 scores 22,001 points, while the FirePro D500 scores 18,533 points, resulting in an 18.7% delta in favor of the W7000. This is a substantial margin that aligns with the W7000's higher FP32 throughput (2.432 TFLOPS vs 2.227 TFLOPS) and superior pixel rate (30.40 GPixel/s vs 23.20 GPixel/s). The Vulkan test likely stresses compute and shader operations, where the W7000's architecture clearly excels despite having fewer shading units.

Looking at the broader benchmark context, the W7000 also holds a solid edge in average score. With an average of 19,905, it sits just 0.1% behind the NVIDIA Tesla K40m (19,885) and 0.7% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT (19,765). The D500, with its average of 18,533, is actually 0.5% behind the AMD Radeon RX 560X (18,626) and 0.8% behind the AMD Radeon Pro 5700 XT (18,685), but 0.8% ahead of the Intel Arc A770M (18,383) and 0.9% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 460 (18,373). These proximity scores highlight that the W7000 is a top-tier performer in its generation, while the D500 is more of a mid-pack contender despite its memory advantages.

The performance gap in the head-to-head test is particularly notable given the D500's larger chip and higher transistor count. The data suggests that the W7000's higher clock speeds, inferred from its fill rates and FP32 output, more than compensate for the D500's additional compute units. However, the D500's 58.7% bandwidth advantage (243.8 GB/s vs 153.6 GB/s) means that in memory-bound scenarios, the D500 could potentially close or even reverse the performance gap — though no such benchmark data exists in the fact pack to confirm this. The W7000 wins the only test available, but the D500's design philosophy points to a different set of strengths that are not captured by Vulkan compute alone.