AMD FirePro S10000 vs AMD Radeon Pro W5500X Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark database does not contain a direct head-to-head comparison between the AMD FirePro S10000 and the AMD Radeon Pro W5500X. However, the recorded individual benchmark scores and the surrounding rival data allow for a meaningful performance analysis.

The AMD FirePro S10000 posts an average benchmark score of 32,388 across its recorded tests. Its strongest result is in Geekbench Vulkan, where it reaches 34,145, while its Geekbench OpenCL score sits at 30,631. The Radeon Pro W5500X, by contrast, has an average benchmark score of 27,973, derived entirely from its Geekbench Metal result. This puts the FirePro S10000 roughly 15.8% ahead of the W5500X in average score, a significant gap that reflects different architectural priorities.

Looking at the rival landscape, the FirePro S10000 sits within a tight cluster. It is 0.2% behind the AMD Radeon RX 7900 GRE, which scores 32,456, and 0.5% behind the AMD FirePro S9300 X2 at 32,540. It edges out the AMD Radeon Pro 570X by 0.7% (32,176) and trails the AMD Radeon RX 590 GME by 0.7% (32,601). The picture here is clear: the FirePro S10000 is competitive with modern mid-range and older high-end cards, despite its age.

The W5500X, meanwhile, is 0.2% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti (28,020), 0.3% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 7800M (27,883), 0.5% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 20 (27,839), and 0.5% behind the AMD FirePro S7150 (28,117). This places the W5500X in a lower performance tier than the FirePro S10000, roughly equivalent to a previous-generation enthusiast desktop GPU.

The performance difference becomes more pronounced when considering compute throughput. The FirePro S10000 delivers 3.405 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the W5500X reaches 5.398 TFLOPS. This is a notable inversion: the W5500X has substantially higher raw FP32 throughput, yet its benchmark scores are lower. The explanation lies in the test environments. The FirePro S10000 was tested under Vulkan and OpenCL, while the W5500X was tested under Metal. Different APIs stress different parts of the architecture, and the database shows the FirePro S10000 responding well to the cross-platform Vulkan workload.

Texture and pixel rates tell a similar story. The W5500X achieves 168.7 GTexel/s and 56.22 GPixel/s, while the FirePro S10000 manages 106.4 GTexel/s and 30.40 GPixel/s. The W5500X is 58.6% faster in texture rate and 84.9% faster in pixel rate. These are large margins that would matter in rasterization-heavy workloads. Yet the benchmark average still favors the FirePro S10000, suggesting that the compute-oriented tests in the database reward the older card's wider memory bus and higher shading unit count allocation.

The FirePro S10000 also holds a memory bandwidth advantage, at 240.0 GB/s versus 224.0 GB/s for the W5500X. That 7.1% difference is modest, but it contributes to the FirePro's strength in bandwidth-sensitive compute tasks. The W5500X compensates with a much larger 8 GB frame buffer compared to 3 GB, which matters for holding larger datasets in memory.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD FirePro S10000, with an average score of 32,388 compared to 27,973 for the AMD Radeon Pro W5500X. That is a difference of roughly 15.8%.

Q: How does each card compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The FirePro S10000 is 0.2% behind the AMD Radeon RX 7900 GRE and 0.5% behind the AMD FirePro S9300 X2, while being 0.7% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro 570X and 0.7% behind the AMD Radeon RX 590 GME. The W5500X is 0.2% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti, 0.3% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 7800M, 0.5% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 20, and 0.5% behind the AMD FirePro S7150.

Q: Which card has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro W5500X, at 5.398 TFLOPS, versus 3.405 TFLOPS for the AMD FirePro S10000. The W5500X is approximately 58.6% higher in raw FP32 throughput.

Q: What are the memory specifications of each card?

A: The FirePro S10000 has 3 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus with 240.0 GB/s bandwidth. The W5500X has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 224.0 GB/s bandwidth. The FirePro has the higher bandwidth, while the W5500X has the larger capacity.

Q: How do the pixel and texture rates compare?

A: The W5500X leads in both: 56.22 GPixel/s versus 30.40 GPixel/s for the FirePro S10000, and 168.7 GTexel/s versus 106.4 GTexel/s. The W5500X is 84.9% faster in pixel rate and 58.6% faster in texture rate.

Q: Which card has better API support?

A: The Radeon Pro W5500X supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the FirePro S10000 supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

The Verdict

The data points to two very different tools. The AMD FirePro S10000 is the higher scorer in the database, with an average benchmark score of 32,388 against 27,973 for the Radeon Pro W5500X. It also sits in the 77th percentile among all GPUs, compared to the 73rd percentile for the W5500X. For anyone whose workload is captured by the OpenCL and Vulkan tests, the FirePro S10000 is the stronger choice on paper.

However, the W5500X is not without its arguments. It delivers significantly higher FP32 compute (5.398 TFLOPS versus 3.405 TFLOPS), higher pixel and texture rates, and double the FP16 throughput at 10.80 TFLOPS. Its 8 GB memory capacity is more than double the FirePro's 3 GB. The W5500X also draws 125 W against 375 W, and the database lists a suggested power supply of 300 W versus 750 W for the FirePro S10000.

The FirePro S10000 is a bandwidth-oriented compute card from the GCN 1.0 era, and its 384-bit memory interface and 240.0 GB/s bandwidth serve it well in the recorded benchmarks. The W5500X is a more balanced, modern RDNA 1.0 part with a smaller die, higher clocks, and better efficiency. The choice depends entirely on whether the target workload resembles the Vulkan and OpenCL tests in the database, where the FirePro wins, or leans on raw throughput and memory capacity, where the W5500X excels.

Specification Differences

The two cards diverge sharply across nearly every specification category.

The FirePro S10000 uses the Tahiti chip built on GCN 1.0 architecture at 28 nm, while the W5500X uses the Navi 14 chip on RDNA 1.0 at 7 nm. The FirePro has 4,313 million transistors on a 352 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 12.3M per mm². The W5500X packs 6,400 million transistors into just 158 mm², for a density of 40.5M per mm². The FirePro's die is more than twice the size, yet the W5500X has nearly 50% more transistors.

Clocks favor the W5500X heavily. The FirePro S10000 runs at 825 MHz base and 950 MHz boost, with memory at 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective). The W5500X runs at 1187 MHz base and 1757 MHz boost, with memory at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective). The boost clock difference is roughly 85% in favor of the W5500X, and the memory clock is nearly three times higher.

Memory configuration is a key split. The FirePro has 3 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, while the W5500X has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus. The FirePro's bandwidth is 240.0 GB/s versus 224.0 GB/s for the W5500X. The W5500X has far more capacity but slightly less bandwidth.

Compute units differ as well. The FirePro S10000 has 1792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The W5500X has 1536 shading units, 96 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The FirePro has 16.7% more shading units and 16.7% more TMUs, while ROP counts are equal.

Power and physical requirements are drastically different. The FirePro S10000 is rated at 375 W with dual 8-pin power connectors and a suggested 750 W power supply. The W5500X is rated at 125 W with no power connectors listed and a suggested 300 W power supply. Both are dual-slot cards. The FirePro measures 305 mm in length and 111 mm in height; the W5500X has no dimensions recorded in the database.

Interface and outputs also differ. The FirePro S10000 uses PCIe 3.0 x16 and offers 1x DVI plus 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2. The W5500X uses the Apple MPX bus interface and offers 2x HDMI 2.0b.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two is generational. The FirePro S10000 is built on GCN 1.0, AMD's first Graphics Core Next architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The W5500X uses RDNA 1.0, a complete departure from GCN, on a 7 nm process also at TSMC. The process node shrink from 28 nm to 7 nm is the single largest architectural advantage for the W5500X, enabling higher clocks and far better efficiency.

Transistor count and density tell the story of the node jump. The FirePro S10000 has 4,313 million transistors on a 352 mm² die. The W5500X has 6,400 million transistors on a 158 mm² die. That means the W5500X fits nearly 50% more transistors into less than half the silicon area, a direct result of the 7 nm process.

The shading architecture is fundamentally different. The FirePro's GCN 1.0 design uses 1792 shading units, which are organized in a manner that emphasizes raw throughput per clock. The W5500X's RDNA 1.0 design uses 1536 shading units but achieves higher efficiency per unit, as evidenced by its 5.398 TFLOPS FP32 output against the FirePro's 3.405 TFLOPS despite having fewer units. The W5500X also supports FP16 at 10.80 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio; the FirePro has no recorded FP16 capability.

Cache and memory hierarchy details are not fully recorded in the database, but the memory systems reveal the design intent. The FirePro's 384-bit GDDR5 interface with 240.0 GB/s bandwidth is a classic GCN compute design, prioritizing bandwidth for large data sets. The W5500X's 128-bit GDDR6 interface with 224.0 GB/s bandwidth achieves nearly the same bandwidth with a much narrower bus, relying on faster memory clocks (14 Gbps effective versus 5 Gbps) to compensate.

API support reflects the newer architecture. The W5500X supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the FirePro S10000 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The W5500X also has the advantage of being tested under Metal, the API most relevant to its Mac-oriented design, while the FirePro's recorded tests are OpenCL and Vulkan.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD FirePro S10000 wins in the database's average benchmark score, and by a wide margin: 32,388 versus 27,973. It also holds the bandwidth advantage at 240.0 GB/s, which makes it the better choice for bandwidth-hungry compute workloads that fit within its 3 GB memory capacity. Its Vulkan score of 34,145 is particularly strong, indicating that the card responds well to modern cross-platform compute APIs. The OpenCL score of 30,631 is also respectable and keeps the average high.

The FirePro S10000 also has more shading units (1792 versus 1536) and more TMUs (112 versus 96), which helps in certain parallel workloads. Its 77th percentile ranking among all GPUs is four points higher than the W5500X's 73rd percentile. For users running OpenCL or Vulkan compute tasks, the recorded data clearly favors the FirePro S10000.

The AMD Radeon Pro W5500X wins in nearly every raw throughput metric. Its FP32 output of 5.398 TFLOPS is 58.6% higher than the FirePro's 3.405 TFLOPS. Its FP16 output of 10.80 TFLOPS is a capability the FirePro lacks entirely. Pixel rate is 56.22 GPixel/s versus 30.40 GPixel/s, a 84.9% advantage. Texture rate is 168.7 GTexel/s versus 106.4 GTexel/s, a 58.6% advantage. These are the metrics that matter for rasterization, image processing, and any workload that stresses the front end of the GPU.

The W5500X also wins on memory capacity with 8 GB versus 3 GB, and on efficiency with a 125 W TDP against 375 W. Its suggested power supply of 300 W versus 750 W makes it far easier to integrate into existing systems. The W5500X's Metal benchmark score of 27,973, while lower than the FirePro's average, represents its performance in the Apple ecosystem, and its 2x HDMI 2.0b outputs suit a Mac workstation setup.

The split is clean: the FirePro S10000 for OpenCL and Vulkan compute benchmarks, the W5500X for raw throughput, memory capacity, and efficiency. Neither card dominates the other completely, and the right pick depends entirely on the workload and the platform.