AMD FirePro S7150 vs AMD FirePro W7100 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD FirePro S7150 leads with an average score of 28117, compared to 25856 for the AMD FirePro W7100. This places the S7150 in the 73rd percentile of all GPUs, while the W7100 sits at the 71st percentile.

Q: How large is the performance gap in OpenCL compute?

A: In Geekbench OpenCL, the S7150 scores 26543 versus 24182 for the W7100, a 9.8% advantage for the S7150. This is the largest single-test delta between the two cards.

Q: Do both cards use the same graphics chip and manufacturing process?

A: Yes. Both are built on the Tonga chip using GCN 3.0 architecture, fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process. Both have 5,000 million transistors on a 366 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 13.7M / mm².

Q: What are the memory specifications for each card?

A: Both cards feature 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, with 1250 MHz memory clock (5 Gbps effective) and 160.0 GB/s bandwidth. Memory configuration is identical.

Q: Which card supports display outputs?

A: The FirePro W7100 has 4x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs. The FirePro S7150 has no display outputs, indicating a server-oriented design.

Q: How do the cards compare in Vulkan performance?

A: The S7150 scores 29690 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the W7100 scores 27529. The S7150 leads by 7.8%.

The Verdict

The data clearly favors the AMD FirePro S7150 across both benchmark tests. It wins the OpenCL test by 9.8% and the Vulkan test by 7.8%, resulting in a 2–0 sweep in head-to-head comparisons. Its average benchmark score of 28117 is 8.7% higher than the W7100's 25856.

For compute-focused workloads, the S7150 is the superior choice. It delivers higher FP32 throughput (3.768 TFLOPS vs 3.297 TFLOPS) and nearly double the FP16 performance (7.537 TFLOPS vs 3.297 TFLOPS). The S7150 also has more shading units (2048 vs 1792) and TMUs (128 vs 112), which directly contributes to its higher texture rate (117.8 GTexel/s vs 103.0 GTexel/s).

However, the W7100 has one decisive advantage: display outputs. With 4x DisplayPort 1.2, it can drive multiple monitors directly. The S7150 has no outputs at all, making it unsuitable for workstation use that requires visual output. The W7100 is the pick for professional visualization, while the S7150 is the pick for headless compute servers.

Both cards share identical memory specs, power draw (150 W), slot width (single-slot), power connector (1x 6-pin), and physical dimensions (241 mm length, 111 mm height). They also share the same API support: DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The choice between them comes down to whether you need display connectivity or maximum compute performance.

The S7150's launch MSRP was 2,399 USD. The W7100 has no listed launch MSRP in the data. Both are end-of-life products, with the S7150 released in early 2016 and the W7100 in mid-2014.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench OpenCL test shows the S7150 at 26543 against the W7100's 24182. That 9.8% delta is the largest margin in either test. The S7150's higher shading unit count (2048 vs 1792) and higher texture rate (117.8 GTexel/s vs 103.0 GTexel/s) explain this gap in raw compute throughput.

The Geekbench Vulkan test narrows the gap slightly. The S7150 scores 29690, while the W7100 scores 27529, a 7.8% difference. Both cards support Vulkan 1.2.170, so the performance difference comes down to hardware resources rather than API capability.

Looking at the nearest rivals provides context for these scores. The S7150's average score of 28117 puts it 0.3% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti (28020), 0.5% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro W5500X (27973), and 0.8% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 7800M (27883). It is 1% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 20 (27839). These are tight margins, indicating the S7150 sits in a competitive performance band.

The W7100's average score of 25856 places it 0.1% ahead of the AMD FirePro D700 (25842), 0.5% behind the AMD Radeon R9 M395X (25891), and 0.5% ahead of both the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Mobile (25740) and the AMD Radeon Pro W5700 (25726). The W7100 is effectively in the same performance tier as these cards, with all deltas under 1%.

The S7150's performance advantage over the W7100 is consistent across both tests, but the magnitude is moderate — under 10% in each case. This is not a generational leap, but rather a meaningful step up within the same architecture family.

Specification Differences

The two cards share many specifications, but key differences exist in compute resources and output capabilities.

Shading Units: The S7150 has 2048, while the W7100 has 1792. This is a 14.3% increase for the S7150.

Texture Mapping Units: The S7150 has 128 TMUs versus 112 on the W7100, a 14.3% increase.

ROP Count: Both cards have 32 ROPs.

Pixel Rate: Both cards achieve 29.44 GPixel/s.

Texture Rate: The S7150 reaches 117.8 GTexel/s, while the W7100 reaches 103.0 GTexel/s. The S7150 is 14.4% faster.

FP32 Performance: The S7150 delivers 3.768 TFLOPS, while the W7100 delivers 3.297 TFLOPS. The S7150 is 14.3% faster.

FP16 Performance: The S7150 delivers 7.537 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio. The W7100 delivers 3.297 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio. The S7150 is more than twice as fast in FP16 workloads.

Display Outputs: The S7150 has none. The W7100 has 4x DisplayPort 1.2.

Release Date: The S7150 launched in early 2016, while the W7100 launched in mid-2014.

Successor: The S7150's successor is listed as Radeon Pro GCN, while the W7100's successor is Radeon Pro Polaris.

Launch MSRP: The S7150 had a launch MSRP of 2,399 USD. The W7100 has no listed launch MSRP.

All other specifications are identical: 8 GB GDDR5, 256-bit bus, 160.0 GB/s bandwidth, 150 W TDP, single-slot, 1x 6-pin power, 450 W suggested PSU, PCIe 3.0 x16, 241 mm length, 111 mm height, and 28 nm process.

Architecture Differences

Both cards use the Tonga chip with GCN 3.0 architecture, so the fundamental design is the same. They share the same 28 nm TSMC process, 5,000 million transistors, and 366 mm² die size.

The primary architectural difference is in the compute configuration. The S7150 enables more of the Tonga die's resources: 2048 shading units and 128 TMUs, versus 1792 shading units and 112 TMUs on the W7100. This means the S7150 uses a fuller implementation of the same chip, yielding higher texture and compute throughput.

The FP16 capabilities differ notably. The S7150 achieves 7.537 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio, doubling its FP32 throughput. The W7100 achieves 3.297 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio, meaning no FP16 acceleration. This makes the S7150 substantially better suited for workloads that leverage half-precision math, such as certain machine learning inference tasks.

Both cards support the same API set: DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. Neither has ray tracing cores or tensor cores.

The W7100's display outputs (4x DisplayPort 1.2) suggest it retains the full display controller functionality of the Tonga chip. The S7150's lack of outputs indicates a server variant where the display engine is disabled or not brought out to connectors.

The generation labels differ: the S7150 belongs to the FirePro Server (Sx100) generation, while the W7100 belongs to the FirePro GCN (Wx100) generation. This reflects their intended market segments — server compute versus workstation graphics.

Both cards share the same predecessor (FirePro Terascale) and are now end-of-life products. The S7150's successor is Radeon Pro GCN, while the W7100's successor is Radeon Pro Polaris, indicating AMD moved the workstation line to newer architectures after these products.