AMD FirePro S10000 vs AMD FirePro S7150 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows the AMD FirePro S10000 winning both benchmark tests in the head-to-head comparison, though the margins are consistent and meaningful. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the S10000 scored 30,631 against the S7150's 26,543, a lead of 15.4%. That is a substantial gap, placing the older card clearly ahead in compute workloads that stress raw throughput. The Vulkan results follow a similar pattern: the S10000 posted 34,145 while the S7150 managed 29,690, a 15% advantage. The delta between the two tests is nearly identical, suggesting the S10000's edge is not workload-specific but rather a general performance characteristic across different API environments.

Contextualizing these scores against the wider database, the S10000's average benchmark score of 32,388 puts it in the 77th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 7900 GRE (average score 32,456, a -0.2% difference), the AMD FirePro S9300 X2 (32,540, -0.5%), and the AMD Radeon Pro 570X (32,176, +0.7%). The S10000 sits essentially neck-and-neck with these cards, within a single percentage point in either direction. The S7150, by contrast, averages 28,117 and lands in the 73rd percentile. Its nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti (28,020, +0.3%), the AMD Radeon Pro W5500X (27,973, +0.5%), and the AMD Radeon RX 7800M (27,883, +0.8%). The S7150 leads those cards narrowly, but it sits a full tier below the S10000 in absolute scoring.

The win count is decisive at 2-0 in favor of the S10000. No benchmark in the database shows the S7150 ahead. The margins, 15.4% and 15%, are large enough that they are unlikely to be reversed by driver optimizations or test variance. The S10000 is the clear performance winner in this pairing, though the S7150's lower power envelope and newer architecture may matter in certain server deployments, as covered in later sections.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD FirePro S10000 has an average benchmark score of 32,388, which is higher than the AMD FirePro S7150's 28,117. The S10000 also holds a higher percentile ranking at 77 versus the S7150's 73.

Q: How large is the performance gap in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The S10000 scores 30,631 versus the S7150's 26,543, giving the S10000 a 15.4% lead. In the Vulkan test, the S10000 scores 34,145 versus 29,690, a 15% advantage.

Q: What are the memory specifications of each card?

A: The S10000 has 3 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 384-bit bus with 240.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The S7150 has 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus with 160.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The S7150 carries more capacity, but the S10000 has substantially higher bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has a higher FP32 performance rating?

A: The S7150 is rated at 3.768 TFLOPS for FP32, which is higher than the S10000's 3.405 TFLOPS. The S7150 also supports FP16 at 7.537 TFLOPS (2:1), a capability the S10000 does not list.

Q: How do the power requirements differ?

A: The S10000 has a TDP of 375 W and requires a 750 W suggested PSU with 2x 8-pin power connectors. The S7150 has a TDP of 150 W, a 450 W suggested PSU, and requires only a single 6-pin connector.

Q: What is the DirectX API support for each?

A: The S10000 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), while the S7150 supports DirectX 12 (12_0). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.170.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different generations of AMD's Graphics Core Next architecture, which explains much of their behavioral divergence. The S10000 is built on GCN 1.0 with the Tahiti chip, while the S7150 uses GCN 3.0 with the Tonga chip. Both are fabricated on the same 28 nm process at TSMC, but the transistor counts differ notably: the S10000 packs 4,313 million transistors on a 352 mm² die, while the S7150 uses 5,000 million transistors on a slightly larger 366 mm² die. The resulting transistor density is 12.3M per mm² for the S10000 and 13.7M per mm² for the S7150, reflecting the newer node refinement within the same process family.

The S7150's newer architecture brings a higher shading unit count: 2,048 versus 1,792 for the S10000. Texture mapping units also increase from 112 to 128. Raster operations units remain identical at 32. The S7150's FP32 rating of 3.768 TFLOPS exceeds the S10000's 3.405 TFLOPS, and the S7150 additionally lists FP16 support at 7.537 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, which the S10000 does not specify. Pixel rate is slightly lower on the S7150 at 29.44 GPixel/s versus 30.40 GPixel/s, but texture rate is higher at 117.8 GTexel/s versus 106.4 GTexel/s.

The S7150's GCN 3.0 architecture also enables DirectX 12 (12_0) support, whereas the S10000 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_1). Both share OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.170 support. The S7150 is a compute-focused server card with no display outputs, while the S10000 includes 1x DVI and 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs. This difference reflects their intended deployment scenarios: the S7150 is designed for headless compute in server racks, while the S10000 retains display connectivity for workstation use.

Specification Differences

The two cards diverge on nearly every measurable specification except for a few shared traits. Both use GDDR5 memory and run it at 1250 MHz with 5 Gbps effective speed. Both use a PCIe 3.0 x16 bus interface, have the same 111 mm height, and share the same 28 nm TSMC process node. Both are listed as end-of-life products with a predecessor of FirePro Terascale and a successor of Radeon Pro GCN.

The differences are extensive. The S10000 has 3 GB of memory on a 384-bit bus with 240.0 GB/s bandwidth; the S7150 has 8 GB on a 256-bit bus with 160.0 GB/s. The S10000's base clock is 825 MHz with a boost of 950 MHz; the S7150 lists no base or boost clocks in the database. The S10000 has 1,792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 32 ROPs; the S7150 has 2,048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The S10000's pixel rate is 30.40 GPixel/s versus 29.44 GPixel/s for the S7150; texture rate is 106.4 GTexel/s versus 117.8 GTexel/s; FP32 is 3.405 TFLOPS versus 3.768 TFLOPS.

Power and physical design differ sharply. The S10000 is a dual-slot card with a 375 W TDP, 2x 8-pin power connectors, and a 750 W suggested PSU. It measures 305 mm in length (12 inches). The S7150 is a single-slot card with a 150 W TDP, a single 6-pin connector, and a 450 W suggested PSU. It measures 241 mm in length (9.5 inches). The S10000 offers display outputs; the S7150 has none. Release dates are also far apart: the S10000 launched in November 2012, while the S7150 launched in January 2016. The S10000's launch MSRP was 3,599 USD; the S7150's was 2,399 USD.

The Verdict

The data paints a clear picture for raw performance: the AMD FirePro S10000 is the faster card. It wins both recorded benchmarks by margins of 15.4% and 15%, holds a higher average score (32,388 versus 28,117), and ranks in the 77th percentile of all GPUs versus the S7150's 73rd. Its nearest rivals are all within a fraction of a percent, confirming that it competes at a higher performance tier. The S10000's wins are not narrow; they are consistent across two different APIs, which suggests a fundamental throughput advantage in the measured workloads.

However, the S7150 is not without merits in specific contexts. It offers more than double the memory capacity (8 GB versus 3 GB), which matters for workloads that need large datasets resident on the GPU. It delivers higher FP32 compute (3.768 TFLOPS versus 3.405 TFLOPS) and adds FP16 support at 7.537 TFLOPS, which the S10000 lacks. Its newer GCN 3.0 architecture supports DirectX 12 (12_0) versus the S10000's 11_1. It also draws far less power: 150 W TDP versus 375 W, with a 450 W suggested PSU versus 750 W, and a single-slot form factor versus dual-slot. For dense server deployments where power, cooling, and space are constrained, the S7150 is the more practical choice despite losing on raw scores.

The verdict hinges on the use case. For users who prioritize maximum benchmark performance in OpenCL and Vulkan, the S10000 is the definitive pick, and its 15% lead is large enough to be decisive. For users who need more memory, better compute efficiency per watt, or the architectural benefits of GCN 3.0, the S7150 offers those advantages at a meaningful performance cost. The database shows no benchmark where the S7150 beats the S10000, so the S10000 remains the performance leader, but the S7150's efficiency and capacity profile make it a rational alternative in power-sensitive environments.