AMD FirePro S7150 vs AMD FirePro W8000 Comparison

The AMD FirePro W8000 and AMD FirePro S7150 deliver a split decision in head-to-head testing, with the S7150 taking the OpenCL crown while the W8000 dominates in Vulkan. The S7150 posts a higher average benchmark score, but the W8000 achieves a higher percentile ranking among all GPUs. This is a tale of two architectures, two very different design goals, and two distinct user profiles.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data reveals a clear division of labor between these two cards. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the AMD FirePro S7150 comes out on top with a score of 26,543, defeating the AMD FirePro W8000’s 24,440. That is a 7.9% advantage for the S7150, a significant margin that reflects its newer architecture and higher raw compute specifications. The OpenCL workload appears to scale well with the S7150’s increased shading unit count and FP32 throughput.

The story flips dramatically in the Geekbench Vulkan test. Here, the AMD FirePro W8000 scores 33,981, which is a substantial 14.5% higher than the S7150’s 29,690. This is a decisive victory for the older card and suggests that the W8000’s driver implementation or hardware scheduling handles Vulkan’s low-level API overhead more efficiently. The 14.5% delta is one of the largest performance gaps in this comparison, and it gives the W8000 its single win in the head-to-head tally.

With one win apiece, the overall average benchmark score becomes a useful tiebreaker. The S7150’s average score is 28,117, while the W8000 trails with 29,211? No, the data shows the W8000’s average is 29,211, which is higher than the S7150’s 28,117. This is an interesting nuance: despite losing OpenCL, the W8000’s massive Vulkan win pulls its average above the S7150’s. The percentile rankings reinforce this, with the W8000 sitting at the 75th percentile of all GPUs, compared to the S7150’s 73rd percentile.

Looking at the competitive landscape, the S7150’s average score of 28,117 places it within 0.3% of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti, which scores 28,020. The W8000’s average of 29,211 puts it in a virtual tie with the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH, which scores 29,197, a delta of 0%. The W8000 also edges out the Intel Arc A370M (29,175) by 0.1% and the AMD Radeon RX 470 (28,996) by 0.7%. On the other side, the S7150 sits just 0.5% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro W5500X and 1% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 20.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD FirePro W8000 has a higher average benchmark score of 29,211, compared to the AMD FirePro S7150’s 28,117.

Q: How do the two cards compare in Vulkan performance?

A: The AMD FirePro W8000 wins decisively, scoring 33,981 in Geekbench Vulkan, which is 14.5% higher than the S7150’s 29,690.

Q: Which card wins in OpenCL performance?

A: The AMD FirePro S7150 wins, scoring 26,543 in Geekbench OpenCL, a 7.9% advantage over the W8000’s 24,440.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The S7150 has 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, while the W8000 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on the same 256-bit bus. The W8000 offers higher bandwidth at 176.0 GB/s versus the S7150’s 160.0 GB/s.

Q: Do these cards have any display outputs?

A: The AMD FirePro W8000 has 4x DisplayPort 1.2 and 1x SDI outputs. The AMD FirePro S7150 has no display outputs, making it a server-oriented card.

Q: What are the power and physical requirements?

A: The S7150 is a single-slot card with a 150 W TDP and one 6-pin power connector, requiring a 450 W PSU. The W8000 is a dual-slot card with a 225 W TDP and two 6-pin connectors, requiring a 550 W PSU.

Architecture Differences

The two cards represent different generations of AMD’s Graphics Core Next (GCN) architecture. The AMD FirePro W8000 is built on GCN 1.0, using the Tahiti chip, while the AMD FirePro S7150 uses the newer GCN 3.0 architecture with the Tonga chip. Both are manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC, but the S7150 packs more transistors: 5,000 million versus 4,313 million for the W8000. The S7150’s die size is slightly larger at 366 mm², compared to 352 mm², giving it a higher transistor density of 13.7M per mm² versus 12.3M per mm².

The S7150’s newer architecture brings a significant increase in shading units, with 2,048 compared to the W8000’s 1,792. It also has more texture mapping units (128 vs. 112), though both cards share the same 32 ROPs. The FP32 compute output reflects this: the S7150 delivers 3.768 TFLOPS versus the W8000’s 3.226 TFLOPS. Notably, the S7150 also supports FP16 compute at 7.537 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, a feature the W8000 does not list.

The API support differs slightly. While both cards support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.170, the DirectX support is different: the S7150 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the W8000 only supports DirectX 12 (11_1). This is a direct consequence of the architectural generation gap, with GCN 3.0 offering more complete DirectX 12 feature support.

Specification Differences

The memory subsystems differ in capacity and speed. The S7150 has 8 GB of GDDR5, while the W8000 has 4 GB. Both use a 256-bit bus, but the W8000’s memory is clocked at 1375 MHz (5.5 Gbps effective) versus the S7150’s 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective). This results in the W8000 having higher memory bandwidth at 176.0 GB/s, compared to the S7150’s 160.0 GB/s.

Physical specifications diverge considerably. The W8000 is a dual-slot card measuring 279 mm in length, while the S7150 is a single-slot card at 241 mm. Both have the same height of 111 mm. Power requirements are lower on the S7150, which has a 150 W TDP and requires a single 6-pin connector and a 450 W power supply. The W8000 has a 225 W TDP, needs two 6-pin connectors, and a 550 W power supply.

Display outputs are a major differentiator. The W8000 features 4x DisplayPort 1.2 and 1x SDI outputs, making it a workstation card for visual output. The S7150 has no display outputs, confirming its role as a server-side compute accelerator. The release dates show a significant gap: the W8000 launched on 2012-06-13, while the S7150 launched on 2016-01-31.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear, if not simple, conclusion: choose the AMD FirePro W8000 if your workload is Vulkan-centric or requires display outputs, and choose the AMD FirePro S7150 if your priority is raw compute performance in OpenCL or you need more memory capacity. The W8000’s 14.5% Vulkan lead is difficult to ignore, and it also has a higher average benchmark score (29,211 vs. 28,117) and a better percentile rank (75th vs. 73rd). However, the S7150 counters with a 7.9% OpenCL advantage and doubles the memory to 8 GB.

The S7150 is the more modern design with a newer architecture, more shading units, higher FP32 throughput, and lower power consumption at 150 W versus 225 W. It also supports FP16 compute, which the W8000 does not. For compute-heavy tasks that leverage OpenCL and benefit from larger memory buffers, the S7150 is the data-backed choice. For those who need a display output or are running Vulkan-based applications, the W8000’s benchmark dominance in that API is the deciding factor. The W8000’s launch MSRP was 1,599 USD, while the S7150’s was 2,399 USD.

Where Each One Wins

AMD FirePro W8000 wins in: Vulkan compute workloads, where its 33,981 score outpaces the S7150 by 14.5%. It also wins on memory bandwidth (176.0 GB/s vs. 160.0 GB/s) and has the advantage of integrated display outputs, making it suitable for workstation environments that require visual output.

AMD FirePro S7150 wins in: OpenCL compute workloads, where its 26,543 score beats the W8000 by 7.9%. It offers double the memory capacity (8 GB vs. 4 GB), higher FP32 performance (3.768 TFLOPS), and additional FP16 support. Its lower TDP of 150 W and single-slot design make it more efficient for dense server deployments.

Benchmark percentile and average: The W8000 holds the edge in overall average score (29,211 vs. 28,117) and percentile ranking (75th vs. 73rd), suggesting it is the more broadly capable card in the benchmark suite tested, despite the S7150’s superior raw compute specs.