AMD FirePro S7150 vs AMD Radeon 860M Comparison

AMD FirePro S7150 and AMD Radeon 860M represent two completely different design philosophies from the same manufacturer, yet benchmark results show them trading blows with unexpected closeness. The FirePro S7150, a server-focused discrete GPU from the GCN 3.0 era, and the Radeon 860M, a modern integrated processor from the RDNA 3.5 generation, land within 6% of each other in average benchmark score despite being separated by nearly a decade of architectural evolution.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The direct comparison reveals a split decision. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the AMD FirePro S7150 delivers a score of 26,543, which is 16.6% higher than the Radeon 860M's 22,759. This is a substantial margin, driven by the FirePro's dedicated memory subsystem and higher raw compute throughput. The FirePro S7150 also holds a slight edge in overall average benchmark score, posting 28,117 compared to the 860M's 26,401, a difference of roughly 6.5%.

However, the tables turn in the Geekbench Vulkan test. Here, the AMD Radeon 860M scores 30,043, edging out the FirePro S7150's 29,690 by 1.2%. While the margin is narrow, it is significant because Vulkan represents modern graphics API workloads that take advantage of newer hardware features. The 860M's victory in this test suggests that its architectural efficiency compensates for its lower raw compute numbers.

The percentile rankings reinforce this close contest. The FirePro S7150 sits at the 73rd percentile among all GPUs, while the Radeon 860M is just one point behind at the 72nd percentile. In terms of nearest rivals, the FirePro S7150's average score of 28,117 places it 0.3% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti (28,020) and 0.5% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro W5500X (27,973). The Radeon 860M's 26,401 average score is essentially neck-and-neck with the NVIDIA GeForce MX550 (26,421), showing a negligible 0.1% deficit.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD FirePro S7150 wins decisively in compute-heavy OpenCL workloads. Its 16.6% advantage in the OpenCL benchmark points to strengths in general-purpose GPU computing, scientific simulations, and professional render tasks that leverage OpenCL. The FirePro S7150's 8 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory with 160.0 GB/s bandwidth provides a clear advantage for datasets that fit within its frame buffer, as the data shows this translates directly into higher OpenCL throughput.

The AMD Radeon 860M wins in Vulkan-based workloads, albeit by a smaller margin. Its 1.2% lead in the Vulkan test indicates better optimization for modern game engines and graphics APIs that utilize Vulkan's low-overhead design. The 860M also carries the advantage of being an Active product with current driver support, whereas the FirePro S7150 is marked as End-of-life. For users running contemporary software that takes advantage of Vulkan 1.4 support, the 860M is the more future-proof option.

The architecture split is telling: the FirePro S7150 wins on pure throughput metrics with its 3.768 TFLOPS FP32 performance, while the 860M counters with 3.072 TFLOPS FP32. But the 860M's advantage lies in efficiency and feature set, as evidenced by its higher pixel rate of 48.00 GPixel/s versus the FirePro's 29.44 GPixel/s.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from radically different architectural eras. The AMD FirePro S7150 uses the Tonga chip built on GCN 3.0 architecture, manufactured on TSMC's 28 nm process node. This older design uses 5,000 million transistors on a 366 mm² die, with a transistor density of 13.7M per mm². In contrast, the AMD Radeon 860M uses the Krackan Point chip on RDNA 3.5 architecture, built on TSMC's 4 nm process node, with transistor count and die size listed as unknown.

The compute unit configuration differs substantially. The FirePro S7150 packs 2,048 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, and 32 raster output pipelines. The Radeon 860M is far leaner with 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. However, the 860M includes 8 ray tracing cores, a feature entirely absent from the FirePro S7150. This explains the 860M's Vulkan performance advantage, as ray tracing hardware acceleration is increasingly utilized in modern workloads.

Memory architecture represents another fundamental divergence. The FirePro S7150 uses 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 160.0 GB/s of dedicated bandwidth. The Radeon 860M uses System Shared memory, with the bus width and bandwidth listed as System Dependent. This means the 860M's memory performance varies based on the host system's RAM configuration, while the FirePro S7150 has predictable, fixed memory performance.

Clock speeds tell a story of efficiency versus brute force. The FirePro S7150's memory runs at 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective), while the 860M's base clock is 600 MHz with a boost clock of 3000 MHz. The 860M's high boost clock enables its competitive performance despite fewer compute units.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear conclusion: choose the AMD FirePro S7150 for OpenCL-heavy professional compute workloads where dedicated memory and raw throughput matter most. Its 16.6% OpenCL lead and higher average benchmark score make it the stronger choice for server deployments, rendering farms, and compute clusters that rely on OpenCL acceleration. The 8 GB dedicated frame buffer is a decisive advantage for applications that need to keep large datasets resident in graphics memory.

Choose the AMD Radeon 860M for modern graphics applications, Vulkan-based workloads, and power-constrained environments. Its 1.2% Vulkan victory, combined with 8 ray tracing cores, DirectX 12 Ultimate support, and Vulkan 1.4 compatibility, makes it the better fit for contemporary gaming and graphics APIs. The 860M's 15 W TDP versus the FirePro's 150 W TDP represents a 90% reduction in power consumption, which is critical for mobile devices and compact systems where the 860M operates as an IGP with no power connectors required.

The 860M's 3000 MHz boost clock and higher pixel rate of 48.00 GPixel/s indicate better efficiency in rasterization-heavy tasks, despite having fewer ROPs. For users who need a balance of compute and modern feature support, the 860M's Active production status and PCIe 4.0 x8 interface provide better longevity than the End-of-life FirePro S7150 with its PCIe 3.0 x16 connection.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD FirePro S7150 has an average benchmark score of 28,117, which is 6.5% higher than the AMD Radeon 860M's 26,401.

Q: How large is the OpenCL performance gap between the two?

A: The FirePro S7150 leads in Geekbench OpenCL with a score of 26,543 versus the 860M's 22,759, representing a 16.6% advantage.

Q: Does the Radeon 860M win any benchmark tests?

A: Yes, the 860M wins the Geekbench Vulkan test with a score of 30,043 compared to the FirePro S7150's 29,690, a 1.2% lead.

Q: What are the TDP requirements for each GPU?

A: The FirePro S7150 has a 150 W TDP and requires a 450 W power supply, while the Radeon 860M has a 15 W TDP with no power connectors listed.

Q: Which GPU supports ray tracing hardware?

A: Only the AMD Radeon 860M includes 8 ray tracing cores; the FirePro S7150 has no ray tracing hardware listed.

Q: How do these GPUs compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The FirePro S7150 sits 0.3% ahead of the GTX 980 Ti, while the Radeon 860M is 0.1% behind the GeForce MX550 and 0.3% ahead of the RTX 5060.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD FirePro S7150 | AMD Radeon 860M |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | GCN 3.0 | RDNA 3.5 |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 4 nm |

| Transistors | 5,000 million | Unknown |

| Die Size | 366 mm² | Unknown |

| Shading Units | 2048 | 512 |

| TMUs | 128 | 32 |

| ROPs | 32 | 16 |

| Ray Tracing Cores | None | 8 |

| FP32 Performance | 3.768 TFLOPS | 3.072 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 7.537 TFLOPS (2:1) | 3.072 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| Memory Size | 8 GB GDDR5 | System Shared |

| Memory Bus | 256 bit | System Shared |

| Memory Bandwidth | 160.0 GB/s | System Dependent |

| TDP | 150 W | 15 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |

| DirectX Support | 12 (12_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.2.170 | 1.4 |

| Production Status | End-of-life | Active |

| Release Date | 2016-01-31 | 2025-02-28 |