AMD FirePro S10000 vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains two common benchmark runs for both cards. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 wins both, and the margins are substantial. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RTX 3090 scores 172,758 points against the AMD FirePro S10000's 30,631 points. That is a delta of -82.3% from the AMD card's perspective, meaning the NVIDIA card is roughly 5.6 times faster in this compute-heavy workload. The gap is not merely incremental; it represents a different performance class entirely.

The Vulkan test shows a closer but still decisive result. The RTX 3090 posts 53,927 points, while the FirePro S10000 manages 34,145 points. The delta here is -36.7%, so the NVIDIA card is about 58% ahead. This narrower margin suggests the older GCN architecture holds up better in API-level graphics workloads than in raw compute, but it still trails by a wide margin. The RTX 3090's architectural advantages in driver optimization and hardware scheduling appear to translate directly into higher API throughput.

The benchmark database also records an average score for each card across all tests. The FirePro S10000 has an average of 32,388, while the RTX 3090 averages 27,565. This apparent contradiction deserves attention. The average for the RTX 3090 is pulled down by multiple additional benchmark entries, including Passmark tests for DirectX 9, 10, 11, and 12, where scores range from 110 to 268. Those legacy API tests are not comparable to the two head-to-head Geekbench runs. The FirePro S10000 only has two benchmark entries in the database, both of which are relatively strong for its era, so its average is not diluted by low-scoring legacy tests. The percentile rankings reflect this: the FirePro sits at the 77th percentile of all GPUs, while the RTX 3090 sits at the 73rd percentile, despite being far faster in the direct comparisons. This is a reminder that percentile and average scores depend heavily on the test suite composition, not just peak capability.

FAQ

Q: Which card wins the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 wins decisively, scoring 172,758 against the AMD FirePro S10000's 30,631, a delta of -82.3% for the AMD card.

Q: How much faster is the RTX 3090 in Vulkan?

A: The RTX 3090 scores 53,927 in Geekbench Vulkan versus 34,145 for the FirePro S10000, a margin of 36.7%.

Q: Does the FirePro S10000 win any benchmark in the head-to-head data?

A: No. The database records zero wins for the FirePro S10000 in the two common tests, while the RTX 3090 wins both.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each card?

A: The FirePro S10000 averages 32,388 across its two recorded tests, while the RTX 3090 averages 27,565 across its ten recorded tests. The RTX 3090's average is lower because it includes several low-scoring legacy Passmark tests.

Q: How do the two cards rank against all GPUs in the database?

A: The FirePro S10000 is at the 77th percentile, and the RTX 3090 is at the 73rd percentile. These rankings reflect the full test suite each card has, not just the head-to-head results.

Q: What are the nearest rivals for each card based on average score?

A: For the FirePro S10000, the nearest rival is the AMD Radeon RX 7900 GRE at 32,456 average score, a delta of -0.2%. For the RTX 3090, the nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Mobile at 27,435 average score, a delta of 0.5%.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from very different design eras and philosophies. The AMD FirePro S10000 uses the Tahiti chip built on GCN 1.0 architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 4,313 million transistors on a 352 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 12.3 million per square millimeter. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 uses the GA102 chip built on Ampere architecture, fabricated on an 8 nm process at Samsung. It contains 28,300 million transistors on a 628 mm² die, yielding a density of 45.1 million per square millimeter. The RTX 3090 has over 6.5 times the transistor count and roughly 3.7 times the density.

The shading resources differ enormously. The FirePro S10000 has 1,792 shading units, 112 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The RTX 3090 has 10,496 shading units, 328 TMUs, and 112 ROPs. That is roughly 5.9 times more shading units, 2.9 times more TMUs, and 3.5 times more ROPs. The RTX 3090 also adds dedicated hardware that the FirePro lacks entirely: 82 ray tracing cores and 328 tensor cores. These are purpose-built for real-time ray tracing and AI-accelerated workloads, respectively. The FirePro S10000 has no such units, reflecting its GCN 1.0 design from 2012.

The memory subsystems also diverge. The FirePro S10000 has 3 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, delivering 240.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The RTX 3090 has 24 GB of GDDR6X on a 384-bit bus, delivering 936.2 GB/s. The capacity is 8 times larger, and the bandwidth is nearly 4 times higher. Clock speeds differ as well: the FirePro runs at 825 MHz base and 950 MHz boost, while the RTX 3090 runs at 1,395 MHz base and 1,695 MHz boost. The memory clock is 1,250 MHz (5 Gbps effective) for AMD versus 1,219 MHz (19.5 Gbps effective) for NVIDIA; the effective data rate is much higher on the NVIDIA card due to GDDR6X signaling.

Pixel and texture rates reflect the core count differences. The FirePro S10000 achieves 30.40 GPixel/s and 106.4 GTexel/s. The RTX 3090 achieves 189.8 GPixel/s and 556.0 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 3.405 TFLOPS for AMD versus 35.58 TFLOPS for NVIDIA, a factor of over 10. The RTX 3090 also has FP16 at 35.58 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio), while the FirePro S10000 has no recorded FP16 capability. The API support differs too: the FirePro supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170, while the RTX 3090 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear choice for most workloads. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 is the faster card in every direct benchmark recorded. Its OpenCL score is over 5 times higher, and its Vulkan score is 58% higher. The architecture is newer, the transistor count is vastly larger, and the memory pool is 8 times bigger. For compute tasks, rendering, or modern gaming, the RTX 3090 is the only sensible pick from these two.

The AMD FirePro S10000 does have one argument in its favor: its average benchmark score is higher than the RTX 3090's average, and it sits at a higher percentile against all GPUs. This is entirely an artifact of the test suite composition, since the FirePro only has two strong Geekbench runs while the RTX 3090 has several low-scoring legacy Passmark tests. A buyer should not interpret the FirePro as the better card overall. The head-to-head results are unambiguous.

For users constrained to a 750 W power supply, both cards list that exact suggested PSU, so neither has a system integration advantage there. The FirePro S10000 draws 375 W TDP, while the RTX 3090 draws 350 W. The RTX 3090 is a triple-slot card versus the FirePro's dual-slot, so physical space is a consideration. The RTX 3090 is also longer at 336 mm versus 305 mm. The FirePro uses 2x 8-pin power connectors, while the RTX 3090 uses a single 12-pin connector. The RTX 3090 uses PCIe 4.0 x16, while the FirePro uses PCIe 3.0 x16.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every specification category. The process node is 28 nm for AMD versus 8 nm for NVIDIA. The foundry is TSMC versus Samsung. Transistors are 4,313 million versus 28,300 million. Die size is 352 mm² versus 628 mm². Transistor density is 12.3M per mm² versus 45.1M per mm². Base clock is 825 MHz versus 1,395 MHz. Boost clock is 950 MHz versus 1,695 MHz. Memory size is 3 GB versus 24 GB. Memory type is GDDR5 versus GDDR6X. Memory clock is 1,250 MHz (5 Gbps effective) versus 1,219 MHz (19.5 Gbps effective). Bandwidth is 240.0 GB/s versus 936.2 GB/s.

Shading units are 1,792 versus 10,496. TMUs are 112 versus 328. ROPs are 32 versus 112. RT cores are absent versus 82. Tensor cores are absent versus 328. Pixel rate is 30.40 GPixel/s versus 189.8 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 106.4 GTexel/s versus 556.0 GTexel/s. FP32 is 3.405 TFLOPS versus 35.58 TFLOPS. FP16 is not recorded for AMD versus 35.58 TFLOPS (1:1) for NVIDIA. TDP is 375 W versus 350 W. Slot width is dual-slot versus triple-slot. Power connectors are 2x 8-pin versus 1x 12-pin. Bus interface is PCIe 3.0 x16 versus PCIe 4.0 x16. Display outputs are 1x DVI and 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 versus 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a. Dimensions are 305 mm length and 111 mm height versus 336 mm length, 140 mm height, and 61 mm width. DirectX API is 12 (11_1) versus 12 Ultimate (12_2). Vulkan API is 1.2.170 versus 1.4. The release dates are 2012 for AMD versus 2020 for NVIDIA.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 wins in every measured benchmark. In OpenCL, its 172,758 score versus 30,631 demonstrates dominance in general-purpose compute, which covers tasks like scientific simulation, video encoding, and machine learning inference. The 24 GB memory capacity and 936.2 GB/s bandwidth make it suited for large datasets and high-resolution textures. The 82 RT cores enable hardware-accelerated ray tracing, and the 328 tensor cores accelerate AI workloads. The newer DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4 support align with modern software requirements.

The AMD FirePro S10000 has no benchmark wins, but its profile suggests specific niche advantages. Its 375 W TDP is higher than the RTX 3090's 350 W, but it uses a dual-slot form factor versus triple-slot, making it easier to fit in compact chassis. The 2x 8-pin power connectors are more universally compatible with existing power supplies than a 12-pin connector, which may require an adapter. The 1x DVI output is useful for legacy displays, and the 4x mini-DisplayPort outputs support multi-monitor setups. The FirePro's 77th percentile ranking, while misleading in absolute terms, does indicate that it performs respectably relative to its contemporary peers in the database.

For a user with modern workloads, the RTX 3090 is the obvious choice. For a user with a legacy system that has only 8-pin power connectors and a dual-slot space constraint, the FirePro S10000 might be the only physically compatible option, despite its far lower performance. The recorded data cannot justify choosing the FirePro on performance grounds, but physical and electrical compatibility may force the decision in specific legacy environments.