AMD FirePro D500 vs AMD Radeon RX 7600S Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable data point between the AMD FirePro D500 and the AMD Radeon RX 7600S is the Geekbench Vulkan test, and the result is decisively one-sided. The Radeon RX 7600S scores 73,868, while the FirePro D500 manages 18,533. That is a delta of -74.9% for the FirePro, meaning the RX 7600S is roughly four times faster in this specific workload. The gap is so large that it is not a close contest; it represents a fundamental generational leap rather than a minor architectural refinement.

Looking at the broader context, the FirePro D500's Vulkan score of 18,533 places it at the 62nd percentile of all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 560X at 18,626 (a 0.5% advantage for the rival) and the Intel Arc A770M at 18,383 (a 0.8% deficit for the rival). The FirePro is essentially trading blows with these cards, sitting in a tight cluster where a 1% swing either way changes the ranking. The AMD Radeon Pro 5700 XT sits just ahead at 18,685, a 0.8% margin, while the AMD Radeon RX 460 trails at 18,373, a 0.9% gap. In other words, the FirePro D500 is firmly entrenched in a mid-tier performance band, and its Vulkan result is neither a standout nor a laggard among its contemporary peers.

The RX 7600S, by contrast, posts a Vulkan score of 73,868 and sits at the 60th percentile across all GPUs. Its average benchmark score across multiple tests is 16,696, but that figure is dragged down by a mix of legacy DirectX and compute tests. Its nearest rivals in the database include the NVIDIA T400 4 GB at 16,792 (a 0.6% advantage for the rival), the NVIDIA T400 at 16,508 (a 1.1% deficit), and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 D V2 at 16,504 (a 1.2% deficit). The NVIDIA Tesla M4 leads the group at 16,932, a 1.4% margin over the RX 7600S. These deltas are small, indicating that the RX 7600S competes in a dense field where minor architectural differences decide placement.

The head-to-head data shows only one benchmark where both cards were measured under identical conditions, and that single test is enough to establish a clear hierarchy. The RX 7600S wins the only shared benchmark, and the win is not marginal: it is a landslide. The FirePro D500 has zero wins in the head-to-head comparison, while the RX 7600S claims one. This does not mean the FirePro is useless; it means that in the one workload where direct comparison is possible, the modern card obliterates the older one.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the AMD Radeon RX 7600S in the shared Geekbench Vulkan test?

A: The RX 7600S scores 73,868 versus the FirePro D500's 18,533, a 74.9% advantage for the RX 7600S. The delta is negative for the FirePro, indicating it trails by nearly three-quarters of its own score.

Q: Does the FirePro D500 have any benchmark where it beats the RX 7600S?

A: No. The head-to-head benchmark record shows zero wins for the FirePro D500 and one win for the RX 7600S. The only shared test is Geekbench Vulkan, and the RX 7600S wins it outright.

Q: How does the FirePro D500 compare to its nearest rivals in the database?

A: Its Vulkan score of 18,533 is within 1% of the AMD Radeon RX 560X (18,626, a 0.5% gap), the Intel Arc A770M (18,383, a 0.8% gap), the AMD Radeon Pro 5700 XT (18,685, a 0.8% gap), and the AMD Radeon RX 460 (18,373, a 0.9% gap). It is effectively tied with all of them.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for the RX 7600S, and does it reflect its Vulkan performance?

A: The RX 7600S has an average benchmark score of 16,696 across all recorded tests, but its Vulkan score is 73,868. The average is heavily influenced by lower scores in legacy tests like Passmark DirectX 9 (211), DirectX 10 (74), and DirectX 12 (65), which pull the mean down substantially.

Q: What percentile rank does each card hold in the database?

A: The FirePro D500 sits at the 62nd percentile of all GPUs, while the RX 7600S sits at the 60th percentile. Despite the RX 7600S being far faster in Vulkan, its overall percentile is slightly lower due to the mix of benchmarks recorded for it.

Q: Which card has a higher raw compute output in the database?

A: The RX 7600S records 15.77 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 31.54 TFLOPS of FP16 (2:1). The FirePro D500 records 2.227 TFLOPS of FP32, with no FP16 figure listed. The RX 7600S is over seven times higher in FP32 throughput.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 7600S wins on every measurable front where data exists. In the shared Vulkan benchmark, it dominates. In raw FP32 compute, it posts 15.77 TFLOPS versus the FirePro D500's 2.227 TFLOPS, a sevenfold advantage. Its texture rate is 246.4 GTexel/s compared to 69.60 GTexel/s, and its pixel rate is 140.8 GPixel/s versus 23.20 GPixel/s. Memory bandwidth is also higher: 256.0 GB/s against 243.8 GB/s, though the margin is modest. The RX 7600S also supports FP16 at 31.54 TFLOPS, a capability the FirePro does not list at all.

The FirePro D500's strengths are not in performance metrics but in its design as a workstation-oriented card. It uses a 384-bit memory bus versus the RX 7600S's 128-bit bus, which historically aids in certain large-data workloads. It also offers six mini-DisplayPort outputs plus one SDI output, making it a multi-display tool for professional environments. The RX 7600S, by contrast, has display outputs listed as "Portable Device Dependent," meaning its connectivity is tied to the laptop or device it is embedded in. For a stationary workstation with multiple monitors, the FirePro's output flexibility is a practical advantage, even if its raw speed is far lower.

Where each one wins depends on the use case. The RX 7600S is the clear choice for any compute-heavy or modern graphics workload: Vulkan rendering, FP32 or FP16 calculations, and high-resolution texture work. The FirePro D500 is the choice for legacy multi-monitor setups or applications that rely on its specific display output configuration. It is also end-of-life, so it may appeal to users maintaining older systems rather than building new ones. The data does not support the FirePro as a performance competitor; it supports it as a niche connectivity solution.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every specification category. The FirePro D500 uses a Tahiti chip on a 28 nm process, while the RX 7600S uses Navi 33 on a 6 nm process. Transistor count jumps from 4,313 million to 13,300 million, and die size shrinks from 352 mm² to 204 mm². Transistor density more than quintuples: 12.3M per mm² versus 65.2M per mm². The FirePro has 1,536 shading units, 96 TMUs, and 32 ROPs; the RX 7600S has 1,792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The RX 7600S also has 28 ray tracing cores, a feature the FirePro lacks entirely.

Memory configurations diverge sharply. The FirePro has 3 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, while the RX 7600S has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus. Despite the narrower bus, the RX 7600S achieves higher bandwidth at 256.0 GB/s versus 243.8 GB/s. Clock speeds also differ: the FirePro lists only a memory clock of 1270 MHz (5.1 Gbps effective), while the RX 7600S has a base clock of 1500 MHz, a boost of 2200 MHz, a game clock of 1865 MHz, and a memory clock of 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective). Power consumption is dramatically different: the FirePro draws 274 W with a suggested 600 W PSU, while the RX 7600S draws 75 W and requires no power connectors. The FirePro is a dual-slot card at 279 mm long; the RX 7600S is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no listed dimensions.

Bus interface and API support also differ. The FirePro uses PCIe 3.0 x16; the RX 7600S uses PCIe 4.0 x16. Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan, but the FirePro's Vulkan is version 1.2.170 while the RX 7600S runs version 1.4. DirectX support is 12 (11_1) on the FirePro versus 12 Ultimate (12_2) on the RX 7600S. The RX 7600S also lists FP16 support, which the FirePro does not.

Architecture Differences

The architectural chasm between these two cards is vast. The FirePro D500 is built on GCN 1.0, a design from the early 2010s, while the RX 7600S uses RDNA 3.0, AMD's latest consumer architecture. GCN 1.0 was designed for compute-heavy workloads in a pre-ray-tracing era, emphasizing raw throughput over feature completeness. RDNA 3.0 is a gaming-first architecture with dedicated ray tracing cores, a unified shader pipeline, and a focus on efficiency per watt.

The process node difference is stark: 28 nm versus 6 nm. This explains the transistor density jump from 12.3M per mm² to 65.2M per mm². The RX 7600S packs more than three times the transistors into a die that is 148 mm² smaller. The manufacturing process also explains the power envelope: 274 W versus 75 W. The RX 7600S delivers higher performance while consuming a fraction of the power, a direct consequence of architectural and process improvements.

The memory subsystem reflects different design philosophies. The FirePro uses a 384-bit bus to compensate for slow GDDR5 memory, achieving 243.8 GB/s. The RX 7600S uses a 128-bit bus but pairs it with faster GDDR6 at 16 Gbps effective, achieving 256.0 GB/s. This is a classic example of newer memory technology enabling a narrower, cheaper bus without sacrificing bandwidth. The RX 7600S also has 8 GB of memory versus 3 GB, a capacity difference that matters for modern textures and datasets.

Feature support is the clearest indicator of generational divide. The RX 7600S has 28 ray tracing cores, DirectX 12 Ultimate, and Vulkan 1.4. The FirePro has no ray tracing, a DirectX 12 (11_1) feature level, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The RX 7600S also lists FP16 at 31.54 TFLOPS, a feature absent from the FirePro's spec sheet. The codenames tell the story: the FirePro's chip is simply "Tahiti," while the RX 7600S is "Hotpink Bonefish" under Navi 33. The former is a first-generation GCN product; the latter is a third-generation RDNA product.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD Radeon RX 7600S is the superior performer in every recorded benchmark and every measurable specification. Its Vulkan score is 73,868 against the FirePro D500's 18,533, a 74.9% advantage. Its FP32 compute is 15.77 TFLOPS versus 2.227 TFLOPS, its pixel rate is 140.8 GPixel/s versus 23.20 GPixel/s, and its texture rate is 246.4 GTexel/s versus 69.60 GTexel/s. It has more memory, faster memory, a smaller die, lower power draw, and modern feature support including ray tracing. There is no performance scenario where the FirePro D500 wins based on the recorded data.

Who should pick the FirePro D500? Only a user with a specific need for its six mini-DisplayPort outputs and SDI connectivity, or someone maintaining a legacy workstation that cannot be migrated. It is end-of-life, so new deployments would be questionable. Its 3 GB memory and 2.227 TFLOPS FP32 are sufficient for basic 2D or light 3D tasks, but the 62nd percentile ranking shows it is not a competitive modern card.

Who should pick the RX 7600S? Anyone needing a mobile GPU with high compute throughput, modern API support, and low power consumption. Its 75 W TDP and IGP form factor make it suitable for laptops. The 60th percentile ranking may seem lower than the FirePro's 62nd, but that is an artifact of the benchmark mix; the RX 7600S's Vulkan score is nearly four times higher. The RX 7600S is the only rational choice for new workloads, and the FirePro D500 should be reserved for legacy or niche display applications. The verdict writes itself: modern architecture, higher scores, and lower power make the RX 7600S the definitive winner.