AMD FirePro S10000 vs NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data is decisive in every recorded test. The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 wins both head-to-head comparisons by a very large margin, with no recorded wins for the AMD FirePro S10000.

In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Quadro RTX 8000 scores 101,883, while the FirePro S10000 scores 30,631. The delta of -69.9% means the AMD card trails by nearly 70%, or put another way, the NVIDIA card delivers more than three times the compute performance. This is a massive gap, not a marginal difference.

The Vulkan result is even more lopsided. The Quadro RTX 8000 posts 122,637 versus 34,145 for the FirePro S10000, a delta of -72.2%. The AMD card manages only about 28% of the NVIDIA card's Vulkan score. For any workload relying on Vulkan compute or graphics, the RTX 8000 is in a different performance class entirely.

Looking at the broader database context, the FirePro S10000's average benchmark score is 32,388, which places it in the 77th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 7900 GRE at 32,456 (0.2% higher) and the AMD FirePro S9300 X2 at 32,540 (0.5% higher). The FirePro S10000 sits within a tight cluster, edging out the Radeon Pro 570X (32,176) by 0.7%. In contrast, the Quadro RTX 8000's average score is 28,421, which places it in the 74th percentile. Its nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon R9 M295X (28,580, 0.6% higher), the AMD FirePro S7150 (28,117, 1.1% lower), the AMD Radeon RX 570 (28,766, 1.2% higher), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti (28,020, 1.4% lower). The two cards occupy similar percentile ranks, but the head-to-head results show the NVIDIA card pulling far ahead in the specific tests recorded.

The FirePro S10000's own benchmark scores are 30,631 in OpenCL and 34,145 in Vulkan. The Quadro RTX 8000's scores are 101,883 in OpenCL and 122,637 in Vulkan. The database also records additional tests for the RTX 8000: PassMark DirectX 9 at 211, DirectX 10 at 137, DirectX 11 at 188, DirectX 12 at 79, G2D at 866, G3D at 19,799, and GPU compute at 9,992. No comparable PassMark scores exist for the FirePro S10000 in the recorded data, so a full multi-API comparison is not possible.

The Verdict

The data points to one clear conclusion: the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 is the substantially faster card in every recorded benchmark. For any user prioritizing raw compute performance in OpenCL or Vulkan, the choice is unambiguous. The RTX 8000 delivers roughly 3.3 times the OpenCL score and 3.6 times the Vulkan score of the FirePro S10000. Those are not small advantages; they represent a generational leap in capability.

The FirePro S10000 does have one advantage in the database: its percentile rank is higher (77th versus 74th), and its average benchmark score (32,388) is higher than the RTX 8000's average (28,421). This is because the RTX 8000's average is dragged down by its low PassMark scores, which are not comparable to the Geekbench tests. The FirePro S10000's average is based solely on its two Geekbench scores. So while the RTX 8000 dominates the head-to-head tests, the FirePro S10000 holds a higher overall percentile ranking in the database's aggregate scoring.

For professional workstation users, the RTX 8000's 48 GB of GDDR6 memory, 72 RT cores, and 576 tensor cores make it suited for ray tracing, deep learning, and large dataset workloads. The FirePro S10000 with 3 GB of GDDR5 and no ray tracing or tensor cores is a much older design, end-of-life since 2012, versus the RTX 8000's 2018 release. Both are end-of-life products now, but the RTX 8000 is from a later generation with far more modern features.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two cards is enormous, reflecting their six-year release gap. The FirePro S10000 uses the Tahiti chip built on GCN 1.0 architecture, manufactured on TSMC's 28 nm process. The RTX 8000 uses the TU102 chip on Turing architecture, built on TSMC's 12 nm process. The transistor counts tell the story: the FirePro packs 4,313 million transistors on a 352 mm² die, giving a density of 12.3 million transistors per square millimeter. The RTX 8000 has 18,600 million transistors on a 754 mm² die, with a density of 24.7 million per square millimeter. The RTX 8000 has more than 4 times the transistor count on a die that is just over twice the size.

Clock speeds also differ sharply. The FirePro S10000 runs at a base of 825 MHz with a boost of 950 MHz. The RTX 8000 runs at 1,395 MHz base and 1,770 MHz boost. Memory clocks are 1,250 MHz (5 Gbps effective) for the AMD card versus 1,750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) for the NVIDIA card.

The compute resources are massively different. The FirePro has 1,792 shading units, 112 texture mapping units, and 32 raster operations pipelines. The RTX 8000 has 4,608 shading units, 288 TMUs, and 96 ROPs. The RTX 8000 also includes 72 RT cores for hardware ray tracing and 576 tensor cores for AI acceleration, features entirely absent from the FirePro S10000. Pixel rate is 30.40 GPixel/s for the AMD card versus 169.9 GPixel/s for the NVIDIA card. Texture rate is 106.4 GTexel/s versus 509.8 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 3.405 TFLOPS versus 16.31 TFLOPS. The RTX 8000 also has FP16 capability at 32.62 TFLOPS (2:1), while the FirePro S10000 has no recorded FP16 performance.

API support differs as well. The FirePro supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The RTX 8000 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA card has a more modern DirectX feature level and a newer Vulkan version.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher raw compute performance in the recorded benchmarks?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 wins both recorded head-to-head tests. In Geekbench OpenCL it scores 101,883 versus 30,631 for the AMD FirePro S10000, and in Geekbench Vulkan it scores 122,637 versus 34,145.

Q: Does the AMD FirePro S10000 have any advantage in the database?

A: Yes, its percentile rank is higher at 77th versus the RTX 8000's 74th, and its average benchmark score of 32,388 is higher than the RTX 8000's 28,421. However, this is based on different test sets, and the head-to-head results favor the NVIDIA card.

Q: What are the memory capacities and types of each card?

A: The FirePro S10000 has 3 GB of GDDR5 memory with a 384-bit bus and 240.0 GB/s bandwidth. The RTX 8000 has 48 GB of GDDR6 memory with a 384-bit bus and 672.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Does the RTX 8000 support ray tracing or AI features?

A: Yes, the RTX 8000 has 72 RT cores for ray tracing and 576 tensor cores for AI workloads. The FirePro S10000 has no RT cores or tensor cores recorded in the database.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The FirePro S10000 has a TDP of 375 W with dual 8-pin power connectors and a suggested PSU of 750 W. The RTX 8000 has a TDP of 260 W with one 6-pin and one 8-pin connector, and a suggested PSU of 600 W.

Q: Which card has a higher transistor density?

A: The RTX 8000 has a density of 24.7 million transistors per square millimeter, while the FirePro S10000 has a density of 12.3 million per square millimeter. The RTX 8000 also has a much larger total transistor count of 18,600 million versus 4,313 million.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 wins in every recorded head-to-head benchmark: Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. It also wins decisively in raw specifications that drive performance: FP32 compute (16.31 TFLOPS versus 3.405 TFLOPS), memory bandwidth (672.0 GB/s versus 240.0 GB/s), memory capacity (48 GB versus 3 GB), pixel rate (169.9 GPixel/s versus 30.40 GPixel/s), and texture rate (509.8 GTexel/s versus 106.4 GTexel/s). It has more shading units (4,608 versus 1,792), more TMUs (288 versus 112), more ROPs (96 versus 32), and higher clock speeds. It is the clear choice for any workload that stresses compute, memory capacity, or modern API features like DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4.

The AMD FirePro S10000 wins in no recorded benchmark against the RTX 8000. Its only advantages are its higher percentile rank (77th versus 74th) and higher average benchmark score (32,388 versus 28,421) in the database's aggregate metrics. It also has a lower TDP requirement in one sense: it consumes more power (375 W versus 260 W), so it does not win on efficiency. The FirePro S10000's only practical niche is as a legacy part for systems that specifically require GCN 1.0 architecture or dual 8-pin power connectors, but the performance data gives no reason to choose it over the RTX 8000 for any modern workload.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every recorded specification. The process node is 28 nm for the AMD card versus 12 nm for the NVIDIA card. Transistors are 4,313 million versus 18,600 million. Die size is 352 mm² versus 754 mm². Transistor density is 12.3M per mm² versus 24.7M per mm².

Base clock is 825 MHz versus 1,395 MHz. Boost clock is 950 MHz versus 1,770 MHz. Memory clock is 1,250 MHz (5 Gbps effective) versus 1,750 MHz (14 Gbps effective).

Memory size is 3 GB versus 48 GB. Memory type is GDDR5 versus GDDR6. Memory bus width is 384 bit for both, but bandwidth is 240.0 GB/s versus 672.0 GB/s.

Shading units are 1,792 versus 4,608. TMUs are 112 versus 288. ROPs are 32 versus 96. The RTX 8000 has 72 RT cores and 576 tensor cores; the FirePro S10000 has none recorded.

Pixel rate is 30.40 GPixel/s versus 169.9 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 106.4 GTexel/s versus 509.8 GTexel/s. FP32 is 3.405 TFLOPS versus 16.31 TFLOPS. FP16 is not recorded for the AMD card, while the RTX 8000 has 32.62 TFLOPS (2:1).

TDP is 375 W versus 260 W. Power connectors are 2x 8-pin versus 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin. Suggested PSU is 750 W versus 600 W. Both are dual-slot and use PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs are 1x DVI and 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 for the AMD card, versus 4x DisplayPort 1.4a and 1x USB Type-C for the NVIDIA card.

DirectX support is 12 (11_1) versus 12 Ultimate (12_2). OpenGL is 4.6 for both. Vulkan is 1.2.170 versus 1.4. Length is 305 mm versus 267 mm. Height is 111 mm for both. Release date is November 2012 versus August 2018. The AMD card's launch MSRP was 3,599 USD, while the NVIDIA card's launch MSRP was 9,999 USD. Both are end-of-life products.