AMD FirePro S10000 vs AMD Radeon R9 M295X Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a clear overall victory for the AMD FirePro S10000, which wins both recorded head-to-head tests against the AMD Radeon R9 M295X. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the FirePro S10000 scores 30,631 points against 22,858 points for the R9 M295X, a decisive 34% advantage. This is the largest performance gap between the two cards in any recorded test, and it highlights the FirePro's raw compute throughput advantage in general-purpose workloads.

The Vulkan test narrows the gap but still favors the FirePro S10000. It scores 34,145 points versus 29,091 points for the R9 M295X, a 17.4% lead. While the R9 M295X comes closer in Vulkan, it does not manage to close the gap entirely. The data shows that the FirePro S10000 maintains a lead in both API environments, though the magnitude of that lead varies significantly: 34% in OpenCL and 17.4% in Vulkan.

Looking at the broader database context, the FirePro S10000's average benchmark score is 32,388 points, placing it in the 77th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rival in the database, the AMD Radeon RX 7900 GRE, averages 32,456 points, a negligible 0.2% difference. The AMD FirePro S9300 X2 sits at 32,540 points, 0.5% higher, while the AMD Radeon Pro 570X trails by 0.7% and the AMD Radeon RX 590 GME is 0.7% ahead. These figures indicate that the FirePro S10000 sits in a tightly contested performance band where the differences among rivals are minimal.

The Radeon R9 M295X, by contrast, has an average benchmark score of 28,580 points, placing it in the 74th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000, averages 28,421 points, meaning the R9 M295X leads by 0.6%. The AMD Radeon RX 570 trails by 0.6%, the AMD Radeon RX 6800M trails by 1%, and the AMD Radeon RX 470 trails by 1.4%. The R9 M295X also occupies a competitive band, but at a lower absolute performance level than the FirePro S10000. The FirePro S10000's average score is 13.3% higher than the R9 M295X's average, a substantial margin that aligns with the head-to-head results.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD FirePro S10000 wins in both recorded benchmark categories: Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. Its 34% OpenCL lead is particularly notable, suggesting that compute-heavy workloads that rely on OpenCL will see a significant advantage on the FirePro S10000. The 17.4% Vulkan lead is also meaningful, indicating that the FirePro S10000 remains competitive even in graphics-oriented API workloads.

The Radeon R9 M295X does have one benchmark result that the FirePro S10000 does not: a Geekbench Metal score of 33,790 points. However, since the FirePro S10000 has no recorded Metal benchmark, this cannot be directly compared. The Metal score is high, even exceeding the FirePro S10000's OpenCL score, but the absence of a corresponding FirePro result means the database cannot verify a head-to-head winner in Metal. The R9 M295X also shows a notably lower OpenCL score of 22,858 and a Vulkan score of 29,091, both below the FirePro S10000's corresponding results.

For users prioritizing OpenCL compute, the FirePro S10000 is the clear choice. For users in environments where Vulkan performance matters, the FirePro S10000 still leads, though by a smaller margin. The R9 M295X's strongest recorded result is its Metal score, which suggests it may be better suited to ecosystems where Metal is the primary API, but the database lacks the comparative data to confirm this against the FirePro S10000.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD FirePro S10000 has an average benchmark score of 32,388 points, while the AMD Radeon R9 M295X averages 28,580 points. The FirePro S10000 also ranks higher in the overall percentile standings at 77th percentile versus 74th.

Q: How large is the FirePro S10000's lead in OpenCL?

A: The FirePro S10000 scores 30,631 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the R9 M295X scores 22,858. This represents a 34% advantage for the FirePro S10000, the largest gap between the two in any shared test.

Q: Does the R9 M295X win in any shared benchmark?

A: No. In the two tests where both GPUs have recorded scores, Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan, the FirePro S10000 wins both. The R9 M295X has an additional Metal score of 33,790, but the FirePro S10000 has no Metal result for comparison.

Q: How does the FirePro S10000 compare to its nearest database rivals?

A: The FirePro S10000's average score of 32,388 is within 0.7% of all its nearest rivals. The AMD Radeon RX 7900 GRE is 0.2% higher, the AMD FirePro S9300 X2 is 0.5% higher, the AMD Radeon Pro 570X is 0.7% lower, and the AMD Radeon RX 590 GME is 0.7% higher.

Q: How does the R9 M295X compare to its nearest database rivals?

A: The R9 M295X leads its nearest rivals by a slim margin. It is 0.6% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000, 0.6% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 570, 1% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 6800M, and 1.4% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 470.

Q: What is the difference in memory bandwidth between the two cards?

A: The FirePro S10000 has 240.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth, while the R9 M295X has 160.0 GB/s. The FirePro S10000 also has a wider memory bus at 384 bit versus 256 bit for the R9 M295X, though both use GDDR5 memory at an effective speed of 5 Gbps.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every major specification category. The FirePro S10000 has 3 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 384 bit bus, delivering 240.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The R9 M295X has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256 bit bus, delivering 160.0 GB/s of bandwidth. Despite having less memory, the FirePro S10000 offers 50% more bandwidth due to its wider bus.

In compute units, the FirePro S10000 has 1,792 shading units, 112 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The R9 M295X has 2,048 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The R9 M295X therefore has more shading units and TMUs, but the same number of ROPs. The FirePro S10000 compensates with higher clock speeds: a base clock of 825 MHz and a boost clock of 950 MHz, while the R9 M295X has no recorded base or boost clocks in the database.

The FirePro S10000 achieves a pixel rate of 30.40 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 106.4 GTexel/s, while the R9 M295X achieves 23.14 GPixel/s and 92.54 GTexel/s. The FirePro S10000's FP32 throughput is 3.405 TFLOPS, exceeding the R9 M295X's 2.961 TFLOPS. The R9 M295X does record an FP16 rate of 2.961 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, while the FirePro S10000 has no FP16 figure in the database.

Physical specifications also differ. The FirePro S10000 has a TDP of 375 W, requires dual-slot cooling, uses 2x 8-pin power connectors, and has a suggested PSU of 750 W. It measures 305 mm in length and 111 mm in height. The R9 M295X has a TDP of 250 W, uses an MXM Module form factor, requires no power connectors, and has no suggested PSU or dimensions recorded. The FirePro S10000 uses a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, while the R9 M295X uses MXM-B (3.0). The FirePro S10000 offers display outputs of 1x DVI and 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2, while the R9 M295X's outputs are portable device dependent.

The FirePro S10000 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The R9 M295X supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The DirectX feature level differs between the two, with the R9 M295X supporting the higher 12_0 feature level.

Architecture Differences

The FirePro S10000 is based on the Tahiti chip using the GCN 1.0 architecture, built on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It contains 4,313 million transistors on a die size of 352 mm², giving a transistor density of 12.3M per mm². The R9 M295X uses the Amethyst chip with the GCN 3.0 architecture, also built on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It contains 5,000 million transistors on a die size of 366 mm², giving a transistor density of 13.7M per mm². The R9 M295X therefore has more transistors, a slightly larger die, and a higher transistor density.

The generation labels differ as well. The FirePro S10000 belongs to the FirePro Server (Sx000) generation, while the R9 M295X belongs to the Gem System (R9 M200) generation. The FirePro S10000's predecessor is FirePro Terascale and its successor is Radeon Pro GCN. The R9 M295X's predecessor is Solar System and its successor is Polaris Mobile. The FirePro S10000 was released in November 2012, while the R9 M295X was released in November 2014. Both are end-of-life products.

The FirePro S10000 has a launch MSRP of 3,599 USD. The R9 M295X has no recorded launch MSRP. Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.170, but the R9 M295X has a higher DirectX feature level at 12_0 compared to 11_1 for the FirePro S10000. The architectural generational gap from GCN 1.0 to GCN 3.0 explains some of the feature differences, though the older FirePro still outperforms the newer R9 M295X in the recorded benchmarks.

The Verdict

The data points to the AMD FirePro S10000 as the stronger performer in shared workloads. It wins both head-to-head tests, with a 34% lead in OpenCL and a 17.4% lead in Vulkan. Its average benchmark score of 32,388 places it in the 77th percentile, above the R9 M295X's 74th percentile and 28,580 average. Its higher memory bandwidth of 240.0 GB/s, higher pixel rate of 30.40 GPixel/s, higher texture rate of 106.4 GTexel/s, and higher FP32 throughput of 3.405 TFLOPS all support the benchmark results.

The Radeon R9 M295X does have advantages in certain specifications. It has 4 GB of memory versus 3 GB, more shading units (2,048 versus 1,792), more TMUs (128 versus 112), a higher DirectX feature level (12_0 versus 11_1), and a lower TDP of 250 W versus 375 W. It also has a recorded Metal score of 33,790, which is its strongest individual result. However, without a comparable FirePro Metal score, that result cannot be used to establish a head-to-head win.

For users selecting between these two, the FirePro S10000 is the choice for OpenCL and Vulkan compute workloads, where its benchmark wins are decisive. The R9 M295X is the choice for users who need more memory, a higher DirectX feature level, lower power consumption, or who operate in Metal-centric environments, based on its recorded Metal score. The FirePro S10000's higher average score and higher percentile ranking make it the stronger overall option in the database's recorded measurements.