AMD FirePro D700 vs AMD FirePro S7150 Comparison

The AMD FirePro S7150 and AMD FirePro D700 are both end-of-life workstation cards built on a 28 nm TSMC process, but they target different segments of the professional market. The S7150 is a server-oriented card with no display outputs, while the D700 is a data center card with six mini-DisplayPort outputs. Benchmark data from Geekbench shows the S7150 leading in both tested workloads, but the D700 holds its own in specific scenarios. Below is a detailed comparison based solely on the provided specifications and benchmark results.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD FirePro S7150 wins decisively in both recorded benchmarks. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, it scores 26,543 against the D700’s 23,716, a margin of 11.9%. In the Vulkan test, the S7150 scores 29,690 versus 27,968, a 6.2% advantage. This makes the S7150 the clear choice for compute-heavy tasks that leverage OpenCL or Vulkan APIs, particularly in server environments where its lack of display outputs is irrelevant.

The AMD FirePro D700, while losing both head-to-head matchups, still has a distinct advantage in memory bandwidth. Its 384-bit memory bus and 263.0 GB/s bandwidth far exceed the S7150’s 256-bit bus and 160.0 GB/s. For workloads that are bandwidth-limited rather than compute-limited—such as large data transfers or certain rendering pipelines—the D700’s superior throughput could narrow the gap in real-world applications, even though the synthetic benchmarks favor the S7150.

The D700 also wins on connectivity. With 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 and 1x SDI outputs, it can drive multiple displays directly, while the S7150 has no outputs at all. For any workstation task requiring visual output, the D700 is the only viable option between the two. The S7150, by contrast, is designed for headless server deployment where remote or virtualized access is used.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different generations of AMD’s Graphics Core Next (GCN) architecture. The S7150 uses the Tonga chip with GCN 3.0, while the D700 uses the Tahiti chip with GCN 1.0. This generational gap explains several performance and feature differences.

The S7150 packs 5,000 million transistors on a 366 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 13.7M per mm². The D700 has 4,313 million transistors on a 352 mm² die, with a density of 12.3M per mm². The S7150’s newer architecture allows for higher density and better efficiency per transistor. Both cards have identical core counts: 2,048 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, and 32 render output units. However, the S7150 clocks its memory at 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective), while the D700 runs at 1370 MHz (5.5 Gbps effective) but with a wider 384-bit bus.

The S7150 supports FP16 computation at 7.537 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), a feature absent from the D700, which lists no FP16 capability. The S7150 also has higher peak FP32 performance at 3.768 TFLOPS versus the D700’s 3.482 TFLOPS. Pixel and texture rates follow suit, with the S7150 achieving 29.44 GPixel/s and 117.8 GTexel/s, compared to the D700’s 27.20 GPixel/s and 108.8 GTexel/s.

Power consumption differs dramatically. The S7150 has a TDP of 150 W and requires a single 6-pin power connector with a suggested 450 W power supply. The D700 draws 274 W, needs a 600 W power supply, and occupies a dual-slot form factor versus the S7150’s single-slot design. The S7150 also supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the D700 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_1), reflecting the older architecture.

The Verdict

The data clearly favors the AMD FirePro S7150 for raw compute performance. It wins both the OpenCL benchmark by 11.9% and the Vulkan benchmark by 6.2%. Its higher FP32 throughput, FP16 support, and newer GCN 3.0 architecture make it the superior choice for server-side compute tasks, machine learning inference, or any workload that doesn’t require a physical display connection. The S7150 also consumes 124 W less power and fits in a single slot, making it more efficient for dense server deployments.

However, the AMD FirePro D700 is not without merit. Its 263.0 GB/s memory bandwidth is 64% higher than the S7150’s, which could be decisive for bandwidth-sensitive applications like large texture streaming or multi-display rendering. The D700’s six mini-DisplayPort outputs make it the only option for direct visual output, and its 6 GB of VRAM, while smaller than the S7150’s 8 GB, is paired with a wider bus for faster data movement. The D700’s average benchmark score of 25,842 places it just 0.1% behind the AMD FirePro W7100 and 0.2% behind the AMD Radeon R9 M395X, showing it remains competitive in its class.

Pick the S7150 if you need maximum compute performance, FP16 support, and lower power draw in a headless server. Pick the D700 if you require display outputs, higher memory bandwidth, or are working with bandwidth-bound workloads that favor its wider memory interface.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in OpenCL benchmarks?

A: The AMD FirePro S7150 scores 26,543 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 11.9% higher than the D700’s 23,716.

Q: Does the FirePro D700 support FP16 computation?

A: No. The D700 lists no FP16 capability, while the S7150 offers 7.537 TFLOPS FP16 performance at a 2:1 ratio.

Q: Can either card output to multiple displays?

A: Only the D700 can. It features 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 and 1x SDI outputs, while the S7150 has no display outputs at all.

Q: How do their power requirements compare?

A: The S7150 has a 150 W TDP and requires a 450 W power supply, while the D700 has a 274 W TDP and needs a 600 W power supply.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The D700 offers 263.0 GB/s bandwidth via a 384-bit bus, compared to the S7150’s 160.0 GB/s over a 256-bit bus.

Q: Which card has more VRAM?

A: The S7150 has 8 GB of GDDR5 memory, while the D700 has 6 GB of GDDR5 memory.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench OpenCL test shows the biggest gap between the two cards. The S7150 scores 26,543, while the D700 manages 23,716. This 11.9% delta is substantial and reflects the S7150’s newer architecture and higher FP32 throughput (3.768 TFLOPS versus 3.482 TFLOPS). The S7150’s advantage in shading units is nullified by identical counts (2,048 each), but the GCN 3.0 architecture extracts more performance per clock.

The Vulkan benchmark narrows the gap but still favors the S7150. It scores 29,690 against the D700’s 27,968, a 6.2% difference. This smaller margin suggests that Vulkan workloads are less sensitive to the architectural generational gap, possibly because the D700’s higher memory bandwidth (263.0 GB/s) compensates partially for its older compute units. The D700’s memory clock of 1370 MHz, while lower than typical, is paired with a wider 384-bit bus, which helps in memory-intensive Vulkan scenes.

The S7150’s average benchmark score of 28,117 places it in the 73rd percentile of all GPUs, just 0.3% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti and 0.5% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro W5500X. The D700’s average score of 25,842 puts it in the 71st percentile, trailing the S7150 by about 8.8% overall. In terms of rival positioning, the S7150’s nearest competitor is the GTX 980 Ti (delta 0.3%), while the D700’s closest rival is the AMD FirePro W7100 (delta -0.1%), showing both cards are tightly clustered with their peers.

The pixel rate and texture rate differences are modest but consistent. The S7150 achieves 29.44 GPixel/s and 117.8 GTexel/s, versus the D700’s 27.20 GPixel/s and 108.8 GTexel/s. These translate to roughly 8% and 8.3% advantages, respectively, for the S7150. The D700’s higher memory bandwidth does not overcome these compute deficits in the tested workloads, but it remains a relevant factor for unbenchmarked tasks.