AMD FirePro S10000 vs AMD Radeon Pro 575 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clear overall winner in the direct comparison between the AMD Radeon Pro 575 and the AMD FirePro S10000. Across the two shared benchmark tests, the Radeon Pro 575 wins both, giving it a 2-0 record in head-to-head matchups. The FirePro S10000 does not secure a single win in any recorded test.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the Radeon Pro 575 scores 34,596 against the FirePro S10000's 30,631. That is a 12.9% advantage for the newer card. This is not a marginal gap; it represents a meaningful performance lead in compute workloads that rely on OpenCL execution. The Radeon Pro 575's higher shading unit count and newer architecture contribute to this result, though the data itself simply shows the score difference.

The Vulkan test tells a similar story. The Radeon Pro 575 posts 37,878, while the FirePro S10000 manages 34,145. The delta here is 10.9% in favor of the Radeon Pro 575. Vulkan is increasingly relevant for modern workloads, and the Radeon Pro 575's support for Vulkan 1.3 against the FirePro's 1.2.170 gives it an API-level edge as well, though the score gap is the primary takeaway.

Looking at the broader database context, the Radeon Pro 575 sits in the 82nd percentile of all GPUs, while the FirePro S10000 sits in the 77th percentile. The average benchmark score across all recorded tests for the Radeon Pro 575 is 39,555, compared to 32,388 for the FirePro S10000. That is a substantial overall margin of roughly 22% when averaging all available data points.

The Radeon Pro 575's nearest rival in the database is the NVIDIA RTX A500 Mobile, which scores 39,568, a delta of 0%. The FirePro S10000's nearest rival is the AMD Radeon RX 7900 GRE at 32,456, with a delta of -0.2%. These figures place each card in a different performance tier, with the Radeon Pro 575 clearly operating at a higher level.

Where Each One Wins

The Radeon Pro 575 wins in every category where both cards have recorded data. In OpenCL, it leads by 12.9%. In Vulkan, it leads by 10.9%. There are no benchmark tests where the FirePro S10000 comes out ahead.

For compute-heavy tasks that use OpenCL, such as certain rendering, simulation, or data processing workloads, the Radeon Pro 575 is the stronger choice. Its 4.489 TFLOPS of FP32 performance outpaces the FirePro S10000's 3.405 TFLOPS. The Radeon Pro 575 also offers FP16 performance at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, meaning it can handle half-precision workloads at the same rate, while the FirePro S10000 has no recorded FP16 capability.

For Vulkan-based applications, which include modern game engines and some professional visualization tools, the Radeon Pro 575 again takes the lead. The 10.9% advantage in Vulkan scores suggests better driver optimization or hardware compatibility with the newer API version.

The FirePro S10000 does have some advantages in raw specifications, but they do not translate into benchmark wins. It has a wider 384-bit memory bus compared to the Radeon Pro 575's 256-bit bus, and it offers 240.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth versus 217.0 GB/s. However, the Radeon Pro 575 compensates with faster effective memory speed at 6.8 Gbps against 5 Gbps, and a larger 4 GB frame buffer versus 3 GB.

In terms of pixel and texture throughput, the Radeon Pro 575 leads with 35.07 GPixel/s and 140.3 GTexel/s, against the FirePro S10000's 30.40 GPixel/s and 106.4 GTexel/s. These metrics favor the Radeon Pro 575 in rasterization-heavy tasks, even though the FirePro has more memory bandwidth.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different generations of AMD graphics technology. The Radeon Pro 575 uses the Ellesmere chip built on GCN 4.0 architecture, fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The FirePro S10000 uses the Tahiti chip based on GCN 1.0, built on a 28 nm process at TSMC. This process node difference is significant: 14 nm versus 28 nm allows the Radeon Pro 575 to pack more transistors into a smaller area.

The Radeon Pro 575 has 5,700 million transistors on a 232 mm² die, giving it a transistor density of 24.6 million per square millimeter. The FirePro S10000 has 4,313 million transistors on a much larger 352 mm² die, resulting in a density of only 12.3 million per square millimeter. The newer process node is clearly more efficient in terms of density.

Shading unit counts differ as well. The Radeon Pro 575 has 2,048 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The FirePro S10000 has 1,792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The Radeon Pro 575 has more of each compute resource, which explains its higher FP32 throughput.

Memory configurations diverge significantly. The Radeon Pro 575 uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 217.0 GB/s bandwidth. The FirePro S10000 uses 3 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus with 240.0 GB/s bandwidth. The FirePro has more bandwidth per bit due to the wider bus, but less total memory and slower effective clock speed.

Power characteristics reflect the architectural gap. The Radeon Pro 575 consumes 150 W and uses an MXM module form factor with no power connectors, designed for portable or compact systems. The FirePro S10000 draws 375 W, requires dual-slot cooling, uses two 8-pin power connectors, and needs a 750 W suggested power supply. It is also physically large at 305 mm in length and 111 mm in height, making it a full-size server or workstation card.

API support differs in version levels. The Radeon Pro 575 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The FirePro S10000 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The Radeon Pro 575 has a more complete DirectX 12 feature set and a newer Vulkan version.

The FirePro S10000's predecessor is listed as FirePro Terascale, and its successor is Radeon Pro GCN, showing its place at the transition between AMD's older and newer GPU designs. The Radeon Pro 575 has no listed predecessor or successor, indicating it is a standalone product in its generation.

The Verdict

The data points to the AMD Radeon Pro 575 as the superior card in nearly every measurable way. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks, has a higher average score, and sits in a higher percentile of all GPUs. For any workload that uses OpenCL or Vulkan, the Radeon Pro 575 is the better choice.

The FirePro S10000 does have a wider memory bus and more bandwidth, but those advantages do not overcome its lower compute throughput and older architecture. Its 3 GB frame buffer is also smaller, which could limit texture-heavy workloads or larger data sets.

For users considering these two cards, the choice is straightforward. If you need a card for modern compute tasks, the Radeon Pro 575 delivers 12.9% higher OpenCL performance and 10.9% higher Vulkan performance. It also consumes less power, uses a more compact form factor, and supports newer API versions. The FirePro S10000 was launched in 2012 with a launch MSRP of 3,599 USD, but that price point does not reflect current performance standing.

The Radeon Pro 575's 14 nm process and GCN 4.0 architecture make it a fundamentally more efficient design. It achieves higher performance with less than half the power draw of the FirePro S10000. The 150 W TDP versus 375 W TDP is a massive difference in thermal and power requirements.

For server deployments where the FirePro S10000 might still be in service, the Radeon Pro 575 offers a clear upgrade path in compute performance without the need for dual-slot cooling or multiple power connectors. For mobile or compact workstation builds, the MXM module form factor of the Radeon Pro 575 is the only viable option between the two.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 575 has an average benchmark score of 39,555, while the AMD FirePro S10000 has an average of 32,388.

Q: How do the two cards compare in OpenCL performance?

A: The Radeon Pro 575 scores 34,596 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 12.9% higher than the FirePro S10000's score of 30,631.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The FirePro S10000 has 240.0 GB/s of bandwidth on a 384-bit bus, while the Radeon Pro 575 has 217.0 GB/s on a 256-bit bus.

Q: Which card supports a newer version of Vulkan?

A: The Radeon Pro 575 supports Vulkan 1.3, while the FirePro S10000 supports Vulkan 1.2.170.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The Radeon Pro 575 has a 150 W TDP and uses an MXM module with no power connectors. The FirePro S10000 has a 375 W TDP, requires dual-slot cooling, uses two 8-pin connectors, and needs a 750 W power supply.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The Radeon Pro 575 has 2,048 shading units, compared to the FirePro S10000's 1,792 shading units.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon Pro 575 | AMD FirePro S10000 |

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

| Chip | Ellesmere | Tahiti |

| Architecture | GCN 4.0 | GCN 1.0 |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 28 nm |

| Foundry | GlobalFoundries | TSMC |

| Transistors | 5,700 million | 4,313 million |

| Die Size | 232 mm² | 352 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 24.6M / mm² | 12.3M / mm² |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 3 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 384 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 217.0 GB/s | 240.0 GB/s |

| Memory Clock | 1695 MHz, 6.8 Gbps effective | 1250 MHz, 5 Gbps effective |

| Shading Units | 2048 | 1792 |

| TMUs | 128 | 112 |

| ROPs | 32 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 35.07 GPixel/s | 30.40 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 140.3 GTexel/s | 106.4 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 4.489 TFLOPS | 3.405 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 4.489 TFLOPS (1:1) | null |

| TDP | 150 W | 375 W |

| Slot Width | MXM Module | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | 2x 8-pin |

| Suggested PSU | null | 750 W |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 1x DVI, 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 |

| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 (11_1) |

| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.2.170 |

| Dimensions | null | 305 mm length, 111 mm height |

| Release Date | 2017-06-04 | 2012-11-11 |

| Base Clock | null | 825 MHz |

| Boost Clock | null | 950 MHz |