AMD FirePro D700 vs AMD FirePro W7100 Comparison

The AMD FirePro W7100 and AMD FirePro D700 are both end-of-life workstation cards built on the same 28 nm TSMC process, but they represent different design philosophies and eras within AMD’s professional lineup. The W7100, based on the Tonga chip and GCN 3.0 architecture, is the newer part, while the D700, based on Tahiti and GCN 1.0, is engineered for data center density. Benchmark data shows a near-total dead heat in average performance, with the W7100 scoring 25,856 and the D700 scoring 25,842, a delta of just 0.1%. Both cards sit at the 71st percentile of all GPUs, indicating they occupy the same performance tier despite their architectural differences. The head-to-head results split exactly one win each, making the choice between them a matter of workload-specific strengths rather than overall superiority.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark split between these two cards is cleanly defined by the API being exercised. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the AMD FirePro W7100 takes the win with a score of 24,182 against the D700’s 23,716, a 2% advantage. This result aligns with the W7100’s newer GCN 3.0 architecture, which brings improvements to compute scheduling and instruction handling that benefit general-purpose GPU compute workloads. For tasks like OpenCL-based rendering, physics simulation, or data processing, the W7100 holds a measurable, if modest, edge.

Conversely, the AMD FirePro D700 wins the Geekbench Vulkan test decisively, scoring 27,968 versus the W7100’s 27,529, a 1.6% lead. Vulkan is a lower-level API that relies heavily on raw shader throughput and memory bandwidth, both of which favor the D700. Its 2,048 shading units and 384-bit memory bus provide a theoretical peak of 3.482 TFLOPS FP32 and 263.0 GB/s of bandwidth, compared to the W7100’s 1,792 shading units, 256-bit bus, 3.297 TFLOPS, and 160.0 GB/s. The D700’s higher texture rate of 108.8 GTexel/s versus 103.0 GTexel/s for the W7100 also supports its Vulkan advantage, as texture-bound workloads scale with TMU count and bandwidth.

The overall average benchmark score tells the same story of parity: the W7100 averages 25,856, and the D700 averages 25,842. The delta of 0.1% is statistically insignificant, meaning neither card can be declared a global winner. Instead, the data suggests that buyers should select based on the specific application stack: OpenCL-centric environments favor the W7100, while Vulkan-based or bandwidth-hungry workloads favor the D700.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two cards is substantial, reflecting a generational jump within AMD’s GCN lineage. The W7100 uses the Tonga chip on GCN 3.0, fabricated on a 28 nm process with 5,000 million transistors on a 366 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 13.7M per mm². The D700 uses the older Tahiti chip on GCN 1.0, with 4,313 million transistors on a 352 mm² die, for a density of 12.3M per mm². The W7100’s higher density indicates a more modern design that packs more logic into the same area, which contributes to its superior OpenCL efficiency.

Memory configurations diverge sharply. The W7100 offers 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, running at 1250 MHz with 5 Gbps effective speed, delivering 160.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The D700 provides 6 GB of GDDR5 on a wider 384-bit bus, clocked at 1370 MHz with 5.5 Gbps effective speed, achieving 263.0 GB/s. The D700’s 64% bandwidth advantage is a direct result of its wider bus and faster memory clock, making it the better choice for data-intensive tasks that saturate memory throughput. The W7100 counters with 2 GB more capacity, which benefits workloads that require larger working sets, such as high-resolution textures or complex scene data.

Compute resources also differ. The W7100 has 1,792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, while the D700 has 2,048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The D700’s 14% more shaders and TMUs give it a raw throughput advantage that manifests in its higher FP32 peak of 3.482 TFLOPS versus 3.297 TFLOPS. However, the W7100 supports FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, meaning it can process half-precision data at the same rate as full precision; the D700 has no listed FP16 capability. This makes the W7100 significantly more versatile for workloads that leverage mixed-precision computing, such as certain machine learning inference or image processing pipelines.

Power and physical design further differentiate the two. The W7100 consumes 150 W TDP and fits in a single slot with a 1x 6-pin power connector, requiring a 450 W PSU. The D700 draws 274 W, occupies a dual-slot design, and needs a 600 W PSU. The W7100 is also shorter at 241 mm versus the D700’s 279 mm. Display outputs differ as well: the W7100 has 4x DisplayPort 1.2, while the D700 offers 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 plus 1x SDI, catering to broadcast or multi-display environments. Both support PCIe 3.0 x16, DirectX 12 (with the W7100 at feature level 12_0 and the D700 at 11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear, workload-driven recommendation. For general compute and OpenCL applications, the AMD FirePro W7100 is the superior choice. Its 2% lead in the OpenCL benchmark, combined with FP16 support and a 2 GB memory capacity advantage, makes it better suited for modern compute frameworks that value flexibility and precision options. The single-slot form factor and lower 150 W TDP also make it easier to deploy in dense workstation configurations without complex cooling or power delivery.

For Vulkan-based workloads or applications that are heavily bandwidth-bound, the AMD FirePro D700 is the stronger option. Its 1.6% Vulkan lead is backed by a 263.0 GB/s memory bandwidth and 3.482 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, which are the dominant factors in low-level API performance. The six mini-DisplayPort outputs and SDI connection also give it an edge in multi-display or broadcast scenarios where connectivity count matters more than power efficiency.

Given the 0.1% average score difference, neither card can be recommended over the other for general-purpose use. The decision rests entirely on the software environment. If the target applications are OpenCL-centric, pick the W7100. If they are Vulkan-centric or require maximum memory bandwidth, pick the D700. Both cards sit at the 71st percentile of all GPUs, confirming they are equivalent in overall standing. The D700’s 6 GB memory is a limiting factor for large datasets, but its bandwidth mitigates this for streaming workloads. The W7100’s 8 GB capacity is more future-proof but slower per byte.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD FirePro W7100 averages 25,856, while the AMD FirePro D700 averages 25,842, a difference of 0.1% in favor of the W7100.

Q: How do the two cards compare in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The W7100 scores 24,182, which is 2% higher than the D700’s 23,716, making the W7100 the winner in OpenCL.

Q: Which card wins the Geekbench Vulkan test, and by how much?

A: The D700 wins with a score of 27,968 versus the W7100’s 27,529, a margin of 1.6%.

Q: What are the memory capacity and bandwidth differences?

A: The W7100 has 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 160.0 GB/s bandwidth. The D700 has 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus with 263.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Does the W7100 support FP16 computation?

A: Yes, the W7100 supports FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, delivering 3.297 TFLOPS for both. The D700 has no listed FP16 capability.

Q: What are the power consumption requirements for each card?

A: The W7100 has a 150 W TDP and requires a 450 W PSU, while the D700 has a 274 W TDP and requires a 600 W PSU.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two benchmark results provide a precise picture of where each card excels. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the AMD FirePro W7100 achieves 24,182 points, outperforming the AMD FirePro D700’s 23,716 by exactly 2%. This win is attributable to the W7100’s GCN 3.0 architecture, which improves compute unit utilization and instruction efficiency. The W7100’s 1,792 shading units are fewer than the D700’s 2,048, but the newer architecture extracts more useful work per shader in OpenCL’s high-level abstraction. The 8 GB frame buffer also allows larger batch processing without memory swaps, a factor that can disproportionately affect OpenCL kernels that allocate large buffers.

The Geekbench Vulkan test flips the result. The AMD FirePro D700 scores 27,968, beating the W7100’s 27,529 by 1.6%. Vulkan’s explicit control over memory and command buffers rewards raw bandwidth and shader count, both of which favor the D700. Its 263.0 GB/s memory bandwidth is 64% higher than the W7100’s 160.0 GB/s, and its 2,048 shading units provide a 14% compute advantage. The D700’s higher texture rate of 108.8 GTexel/s versus 103.0 GTexel/s further supports its Vulkan lead, as the API exposes texture fetch operations directly to the programmer. The D700 also has a higher memory clock of 1370 MHz versus 1250 MHz, contributing to its bandwidth superiority.

The average scores across both tests confirm the near-parity: the W7100 averages 25,856, and the D700 averages 25,842. The delta of 0.1% is within noise, meaning that real-world performance will be dictated by the specific driver and application optimizations rather than hardware fundamentals. The pixel rates are also closely matched, with the W7100 at 29.44 GPixel/s and the D700 at 27.20 GPixel/s, giving the W7100 a slight edge in fill-rate-bound scenarios. However, the D700’s 384-bit memory bus makes it more resilient to bandwidth stalls, which is critical in Vulkan’s asynchronous compute and multi-threaded rendering paths. Ultimately, the head-to-head data shows a 1-1 split, and the choice between these two cards should be made based on the dominant API in the user’s workflow.