AMD FirePro D500 vs AMD Radeon PRO W7500 Comparison

The Verdict

The data in this comparison points to a single, decisive conclusion: the AMD Radeon PRO W7500 is the overwhelmingly superior graphics card for essentially every modern workload. The single recorded head-to-head benchmark, Geekbench Vulkan, shows the W7500 scoring 68,634 against the FirePro D500's 18,533, a difference of 73% in favor of the newer card. The FirePro D500, an end-of-life product from early 2014, cannot compete on raw compute, memory capacity, or feature support. The W7500 is the only rational choice for anyone building or upgrading a workstation today, assuming the software environment can leverage its modern architecture. The FirePro D500's only conceivable advantage lies in legacy software compatibility, a scenario not quantified in the database but implied by its older API profile and its 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 output configuration, which may suit older multi-display setups.

For a professional seeking maximum performance in current applications, the Radeon PRO W7500 is the definitive pick. Its 8 GB of GDDR6 memory, 12.19 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, and support for DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4 place it in a different performance class entirely. The FirePro D500, with its 3 GB of GDDR5 and 2.227 TFLOPS, belongs to a bygone era. The W7500 also offers modern features like 28 ray tracing cores, a 6 nm process, and a PCIe 4.0 interface, all absent from the older card. The verdict is clear: the W7500 is the superior product for virtually all use cases, while the FirePro D500 should only be considered for niche, legacy-specific deployments where its unique display output array is a requirement.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two cards is vast, spanning nearly a decade of GPU development. The FirePro D500 is built on the Tahiti chip using the GCN 1.0 architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 4,313 million transistors onto a 352 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 12.3 million per square millimeter. In contrast, the Radeon PRO W7500 uses the Navi 33 chip with the RDNA 3.0 architecture, built on a 6 nm process, also at TSMC. This newer card houses 13,300 million transistors on a much smaller 204 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 65.2 million per square millimeter. The density difference, a factor of over 5 times, is a direct result of the process node advancement and explains much of the performance disparity.

The memory subsystems are fundamentally different as well. The FirePro D500 uses 3 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, delivering 243.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The W7500 employs 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, but achieves a slightly higher 256.0 GB/s bandwidth thanks to faster memory clocks (16 Gbps effective versus 5.1 Gbps effective). The W7500's memory runs at 2000 MHz, while the D500's memory is rated at 1270 MHz. Compute resources also differ significantly: the D500 has 1,536 shading units, 96 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, while the W7500 has 1,792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The W7500 also introduces 28 ray tracing cores, a feature entirely absent from the older GCN design. The FP32 throughput tells the story: 2.227 TFLOPS for the D500 versus 12.19 TFLOPS for the W7500, a 5.5 times advantage. The W7500 also supports FP16 at 24.37 TFLOPS (2:1), while the D500 has no recorded FP16 capability.

The bus interface and power requirements underscore the generational leap. The FirePro D500 uses PCIe 3.0 x16 and has a 274 W TDP, requiring a 600 W suggested power supply. The W7500 uses PCIe 4.0 x8, has a 70 W TDP, and needs only a 250 W suggested PSU. It even draws enough power from the slot alone, as it has no power connectors. The physical dimensions also differ: the D500 is 279 mm long (11 inches) and dual-slot, while the W7500 is 216 mm long (8.5 inches), 115 mm tall (4.5 inches), 20 mm wide (0.8 inches), and single-slot. The W7500's efficiency is remarkable, delivering over 5 times the compute performance at roughly a quarter of the power draw.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records a single direct comparison: Geekbench Vulkan. In this test, the AMD Radeon PRO W7500 scores 68,634, while the AMD FirePro D500 scores 18,533. The delta percentage is -73%, indicating the D500 trails by 73%. This is not a close contest; it is a rout. The W7500's score is 3.7 times higher than the D500's, a margin that reflects not just architectural improvements but also the fundamental shift in GPU compute capabilities over the nine years separating their release dates.

To contextualize the FirePro D500's performance, the database places it among its nearest rivals. Its average benchmark score is 18,533, which puts it in the 62nd percentile of all GPUs. It sits just 0.5% below the AMD Radeon RX 560X (average score 18,626), 0.8% above the Intel Arc A770M (18,383), 0.8% below the AMD Radeon Pro 5700 XT (18,685), and 0.9% above the AMD Radeon RX 460 (18,373). These are all relatively modest GPUs, and the D500 is essentially at parity with them, showing that even at its release, it was not a top-tier performer. Its position in the 62nd percentile confirms it is firmly in the mid-range of the performance distribution.

The Radeon PRO W7500, in contrast, has a more complex benchmark profile. Its average benchmark score is 16,415, which places it in the 59th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell (average score 16,408, 0% delta), the AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT (16,361, 0.3% delta), the AMD Radeon Pro 5600M (16,351, 0.4% delta), and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 D V2 (16,504, -0.5% delta). The fact that the W7500 trades blows with an RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell and an RTX 5090 D V2 in this metric is remarkable for a 70 W card. However, note that the W7500's average score of 16,415 is lower than its Vulkan score of 68,634, because the average includes other tests like Passmark scores, which are on different scales. The Vulkan score, which is the only direct head-to-head, is where the W7500 truly shines.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher raw compute performance in the recorded benchmarks?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7500 is decisively ahead. In the Geekbench Vulkan test, it scores 68,634 versus the FirePro D500's 18,533, a 73% lead. The W7500 also offers 12.19 TFLOPS of FP32 compute compared to the D500's 2.227 TFLOPS.

Q: How does the memory configuration differ between the two cards?

A: The FirePro D500 has 3 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 384-bit bus with 243.8 GB/s bandwidth. The Radeon PRO W7500 has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth. The W7500 has over twice the capacity and slightly higher bandwidth.

Q: Are there any modern features on the Radeon PRO W7500 that the FirePro D500 lacks?

A: Yes. The W7500 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while the D500 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170. The W7500 also has 28 ray tracing cores, which the D500 does not have at all.

Q: Which card is more power-efficient based on the data?

A: The Radeon PRO W7500 is far more efficient. It has a 70 W TDP and requires a 250 W suggested PSU, while the FirePro D500 has a 274 W TDP and requires a 600 W suggested PSU. The W7500 delivers 5.5 times the FP32 performance at roughly one quarter of the power draw.

Q: What is the physical size difference between the two cards?

A: The FirePro D500 is 279 mm long (11 inches) and occupies a dual-slot form factor. The Radeon PRO W7500 is significantly more compact at 216 mm long (8.5 inches), 115 mm tall (4.5 inches), and 20 mm wide (0.8 inches), in a single-slot design.

Q: Which card has a better relative standing among all GPUs?

A: The FirePro D500 sits in the 62nd percentile of all GPUs, while the Radeon PRO W7500 is in the 59th percentile. Despite the W7500's lower percentile, its direct head-to-head benchmark shows it is vastly superior, indicating the percentile metric is skewed by the different test suites in each card's benchmark history.

Where Each One Wins

The data shows the AMD Radeon PRO W7500 wins in every recorded performance metric. The single head-to-head benchmark, Geekbench Vulkan, is a W7500 victory by 73%. Its FP32 compute of 12.19 TFLOPS dwarfs the D500's 2.227 TFLOPS. Its texture rate of 190.4 GTexel/s and pixel rate of 108.8 GPixel/s are vastly higher than the D500's 69.60 GTexel/s and 23.20 GPixel/s. The W7500 also wins on memory capacity (8 GB versus 3 GB), bandwidth (256.0 GB/s versus 243.8 GB/s), and API support (DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4 versus DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170). It is also the only card with ray tracing cores (28 of them) and FP16 support (24.37 TFLOPS). For any modern workload, from 3D rendering to compute tasks, the W7500 is the clear winner.

The FirePro D500's only potential advantage lies in its display output configuration. It offers 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 and 1x SDI, which is a unique feature set for specialized broadcast or video wall applications. The W7500, by contrast, has 4x DisplayPort 2.1. While DisplayPort 2.1 is a newer and higher-bandwidth standard, the D500's six outputs and SDI connectivity could be a deciding factor for a niche use case requiring many simultaneous displays or SDI integration. Additionally, the D500's PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, while older, provides more lanes than the W7500's PCIe 4.0 x8, which might matter in bandwidth-sensitive multi-GPU configurations, though the newer PCIe 4.0 standard offers higher per-lane bandwidth. The D500's dual-slot design and 274 W TDP also suggest it was built for more robust cooling in a workstation chassis, but that is hardly a performance advantage.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the AMD FirePro D500 and the AMD Radeon PRO W7500:

• Chip: Tahiti versus Navi 33
• Architecture: GCN 1.0 versus RDNA 3.0
• Codename: None versus Hotpink Bonefish
• Generation: FirePro Data Center (Dx00) versus Radeon Pro Navi (Navi III Series)
• Process Node: 28 nm versus 6 nm
• Transistors: 4,313 million versus 13,300 million
• Die Size: 352 mm² versus 204 mm²
• Transistor Density: 12.3M / mm² versus 65.2M / mm²
• Base Clock: None versus 1500 MHz
• Boost Clock: None versus 1700 MHz
• Memory Clock: 1270 MHz (5.1 Gbps effective) versus 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective)
• Memory Size: 3 GB versus 8 GB
• Memory Type: GDDR5 versus GDDR6
• Memory Bus Width: 384 bit versus 128 bit
• Memory Bandwidth: 243.8 GB/s versus 256.0 GB/s
• Shading Units: 1536 versus 1792
• TMUs: 96 versus 112
• ROPs: 32 versus 64
• RT Cores: None versus 28
• Pixel Rate: 23.20 GPixel/s versus 108.8 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 69.60 GTexel/s versus 190.4 GTexel/s
• FP32: 2.227 TFLOPS versus 12.19 TFLOPS
• FP16: None versus 24.37 TFLOPS (2:1)
• TDP: 274 W versus 70 W
• Slot Width: Dual-slot versus Single-slot
• Power Connectors: None versus None
• Suggested PSU: 600 W versus 250 W
• Bus Interface: PCIe 3.0 x16 versus PCIe 4.0 x8
• Display Outputs: 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.2, 1x SDI versus 4x DisplayPort 2.1
• DirectX: 12 (11_1) versus 12 Ultimate (12_2)
• Vulkan: 1.2.170 versus 1.4
• Dimensions: 279 mm (11 inches) length versus 216 mm (8.5 inches) length, 115 mm (4.5 inches) height, 20 mm (0.8 inches) width
• Production Status: End-of-life versus Active
• Release Date: 2014-01-17 versus 2023-08-02
• Predecessor: FirePro Terascale versus Radeon Pro Vega
• Successor: Radeon Instinct versus None