GPU Comparison

# AMD Radeon Pro W5500X vs AMD FirePro D700

The AMD Radeon Pro W5500X and AMD FirePro D700 represent two distinct eras of AMD professional graphics. The W5500X, built on the 7 nm Navi 14 chip with RDNA 1.0 architecture, posts a Geekbench Metal score of 27,973, placing it in the 73rd percentile of all GPUs. The FirePro D700, a 28 nm Tahiti part based on GCN 1.0, delivers a Geekbench OpenCL score of 23,716 and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 27,968, averaging 25,842 across its benchmarks for a 71st percentile ranking. The data shows a clear generational shift, but the specifics reveal a more nuanced comparison than raw averages suggest.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro W5500X has an average benchmark score of 27,973, which is 2,131 points higher than the AMD FirePro D700's average of 25,842.

Q: How does the W5500X compare to its nearest rival in benchmark performance?

A: The W5500X's nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti, which scores 28,020, a delta of -0.2% relative to the W5500X. This places the W5500X within a tight performance cluster, as the AMD Radeon RX 7800M (27,883) trails by only 0.3% and the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 20 (27,839) is 0.5% behind.

Q: What is the FirePro D700's closest competitor according to the data?

A: The FirePro D700's nearest rival is the AMD FirePro W7100, with an average score of 25,856, representing a delta of -0.1% from the D700's 25,842. The AMD Radeon R9 M395X (25,891) is 0.2% ahead, while the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Mobile (25,740) sits 0.4% behind.

Q: Which GPU offers more memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD FirePro D700 provides 263.0 GB/s of bandwidth via its 384-bit bus and GDDR5 memory, exceeding the W5500X's 224.0 GB/s from a 128-bit GDDR6 interface. However, the W5500X's memory runs at 14 Gbps effective, compared to the D700's 5.5 Gbps effective.

Q: What are the pixel and texture fill rates for each card?

A: The W5500X achieves a pixel rate of 56.22 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 168.7 GTexel/s. The FirePro D700 delivers 27.20 GPixel/s and 108.8 GTexel/s respectively, meaning the W5500X more than doubles the pixel throughput and leads by roughly 55% in texture fill.

Q: How do the power requirements differ between the two cards?

A: The W5500X has a TDP of 125 W with a suggested PSU of 300 W, while the FirePro D700 draws 274 W and requires a 600 W suggested PSU. The W5500X's power efficiency is a direct result of its 7 nm process, compared to the D700's 28 nm node.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are separated by five years of architectural evolution, and the data reflects a fundamental redesign. The W5500X uses the Navi 14 chip on TSMC's 7 nm process, packing 6,400 million transistors into a 158 mm² die. That yields a transistor density of 40.5 million per square millimeter, more than three times the 12.3M / mm² of the FirePro D700's Tahiti chip, which crams 4,313 million transistors onto a 352 mm² die at 28 nm.

The RDNA 1.0 architecture in the W5500X introduces a different compute layout: 1,536 shading units, 96 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The GCN 1.0-based FirePro D700 counters with more raw hardware, 2,048 shading units and 128 TMUs, but the same 32 ROPs. Despite having fewer shaders, the W5500X achieves higher FP32 throughput at 5.398 TFLOPS versus the D700's 3.482 TFLOPS, a 55% advantage. The W5500X also supports FP16 at 10.80 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), a capability the FirePro D700 lacks entirely, as no FP16 data is listed for it.

Memory architecture diverges sharply. The W5500X uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, while the D700 uses 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus. The wider bus gives the older card a bandwidth edge (263.0 GB/s vs 224.0 GB/s), but the newer memory technology runs at a much higher effective clock (14 Gbps vs 5.5 Gbps). Clock speeds for the D700's core are not listed, while the W5500X operates at a base of 1187 MHz and boost of 1757 MHz.

API support also differentiates the pair. The W5500X supports DirectX 12_1, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The FirePro D700 manages DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The bus interface changes from PCIe 3.0 x16 on the D700 to Apple MPX on the W5500X, reflecting the latter's Mac-centric design. Display outputs differ as well: the W5500X offers 2x HDMI 2.0b, while the D700 provides 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 and 1x SDI.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Direct head-to-head benchmark data is not available, but the individual scores reveal a consistent pattern. The W5500X's Geekbench Metal score of 27,973 is its only listed benchmark, and it serves as the basis for its 73rd percentile ranking. The FirePro D700's best result is a Geekbench Vulkan score of 27,968, a mere 5 points below the W5500X's Metal score. This near-parity in their strongest respective APIs suggests that the architectural differences largely cancel out in synthetic workloads.

However, the FirePro D700's OpenCL score of 23,716 drags its average down significantly. That 4,257-point gap between its Vulkan and OpenCL results indicates significant API-dependent performance variability. The W5500X, by contrast, shows no such spread because only one benchmark is recorded. If the W5500X were to run OpenCL or Vulkan tests, the data does not say how it would fare, but its higher FP32 throughput and modern architecture suggest it would not suffer the same regression.

In terms of rival comparisons, the W5500X sits in a competitive band where its nearest rivals are within 0.5% of its score. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti is 0.2% behind, the AMD Radeon RX 7800M is 0.3% behind, and the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 20 is 0.5% behind. The AMD FirePro S7150 leads the W5500X by 0.5%. This clustering indicates that the W5500X's performance is well within the expected range for its class.

The FirePro D700's rival set tells a similar story of tight competition. The AMD FirePro W7100 is just 0.1% behind, the AMD Radeon R9 M395X is 0.2% ahead, and the AMD Radeon Pro W5700 is 0.5% ahead. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Mobile trails by 0.4%. Notably, the D700's average score of 25,842 is about 7.6% lower than the W5500X's 27,973, which aligns with the percentile difference of 71 versus 73.

The biggest wins for the W5500X are in compute throughput and fill rates. Its FP32 output of 5.398 TFLOPS is 55% higher than the D700's 3.482 TFLOPS. Pixel fill rate favors the W5500X by more than 2x (56.22 vs 27.20 GPixel/s), and texture fill is 55% higher (168.7 vs 108.8 GTexel/s). The D700's only clear win is memory bandwidth, where its 263.0 GB/s exceeds the W5500X by 17.4%.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon Pro W5500X | AMD FirePro D700 |

|---|---|---|

| Chip | Navi 14 | Tahiti |

| Architecture | RDNA 1.0 | GCN 1.0 |

| Process Node | 7 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 6,400 million | 4,313 million |

| Die Size | 158 mm² | 352 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 40.5M / mm² | 12.3M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1187 MHz | Not listed |

| Boost Clock | 1757 MHz | Not listed |

| Memory Clock | 1750 MHz / 14 Gbps effective | 1370 MHz / 5.5 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 8 GB | 6 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 384 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 224.0 GB/s | 263.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1536 | 2048 |

| TMUs | 96 | 128 |

| ROPs | 32 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 56.22 GPixel/s | 27.20 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 168.7 GTexel/s | 108.8 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 5.398 TFLOPS | 3.482 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 10.80 TFLOPS (2:1) | Not listed |

| TDP | 125 W | 274 W |

| Suggested PSU | 300 W | 600 W |

| Bus Interface | Apple MPX | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | 2x HDMI 2.0b | 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.2, 1x SDI |

| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (11_1) |

| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.2.170 |

| Length | Not listed | 279 mm / 11 inches |

| Launch MSRP | 599 USD | Not listed |

| Release Date | 2019-12-10 | 2014-01-17 |

The W5500X also has a generation listed as "Radeon Pro Mac (Navi Series)" while the D700 falls under "FirePro Data Center (Dx00)". The D700's predecessor is FirePro Terascale and its successor is Radeon Instinct; no such lineage data exists for the W5500X.

The Verdict

The data points to the AMD Radeon Pro W5500X as the stronger performer overall. Its 27,973 average benchmark score beats the FirePro D700's 25,842 by 2,131 points, a margin of roughly 8.2%. The W5500X also achieves a higher percentile ranking (73rd vs 71st) and does so with significantly less power draw, 125 W versus 274 W. For users prioritizing compute performance, the W5500X's 5.398 TFLOPS FP32 and 10.80 TFLOPS FP16 offer capabilities the D700 cannot match.

The FirePro D700 does retain advantages in specific areas. Its 384-bit memory bus provides 263.0 GB/s of bandwidth, which is 17.4% higher than the W5500X's 224.0 GB/s. This could benefit workloads with large datasets that fit within its 6 GB frame buffer. The D700 also offers six mini-DisplayPort outputs and an SDI connection, versus just two HDMI ports on the W5500X, making it more suitable for multi-display or broadcast environments.

Architecturally, the W5500X's 7 nm RDNA 1.0 design delivers superior efficiency and density, with 40.5M transistors per mm² compared to the D700's 12.3M. The W5500X achieves higher fill rates across the board, 56.22 GPixel/s versus 27.20 GPixel/s and 168.7 GTexel/s versus 108.8 GTexel/s, despite having fewer shading units (1,536 vs 2,048) and TMUs (96 vs 128). This indicates that the newer architecture extracts more work per compute unit.

For new system builds, the W5500X is the clear choice based on the data. It offers better raw performance, modern API support (Vulkan 1.4 vs 1.2.170), and a lower power footprint. The D700's higher bandwidth may appeal to niche memory-bound workloads, but its older GCN architecture and lack of FP16 support limit its longevity. The W5500X's launch MSRP of 599 USD is stated here for reference; the D700's launch price is not available in the data. Users with legacy applications requiring the D700's specific display output configuration or its 384-bit memory path may still find it serviceable, but the benchmark results and specification tables clearly favor the Radeon Pro W5500X for general professional use.