AMD FirePro S7150 vs AMD Radeon R9 M295X Comparison

# AMD Radeon R9 M295X vs AMD FirePro S7150

The AMD Radeon R9 M295X and AMD FirePro S7150 are both GCN 3.0 parts built on the same 28 nm process at TSMC, but they target very different environments—one is a mobile module, the other a server accelerator. The benchmark data shows the FirePro S7150 winning both head-to-head tests, but the margin is far from uniform. In Geekbench OpenCL, the FirePro S7150 scores 26,543 against the R9 M295X’s 22,858, a 13.9% advantage. That is a substantial lead in compute-heavy workloads, reflecting the FirePro’s higher peak FP32 throughput. In Geekbench Vulkan, the gap narrows dramatically: the FirePro S7150 posts 29,690 versus 29,091, a mere 2% edge. The R9 M295X is clearly competitive in graphics-oriented API tests, even if it cannot match the FirePro’s raw compute output. Neither card wins every category, but the FirePro S7150 takes both recorded tests, leaving the R9 M295X with zero wins in this head-to-head.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most significant difference appears in OpenCL, where the FirePro S7150’s 26,543 score is 13.9% higher than the R9 M295X’s 22,858. This is not a marginal gap; it suggests the FirePro S7150 is better suited to general-purpose compute tasks that rely on OpenCL acceleration. The R9 M295X’s FP32 rating of 2.961 TFLOPS trails the FirePro S7150’s 3.768 TFLOPS, and that 27% theoretical advantage in raw floating-point throughput explains much of the OpenCL delta. However, the FirePro S7150 also has a notable FP16 capability: it delivers 7.537 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio, whereas the R9 M295X is capped at 2.961 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio. For workloads that can leverage half-precision math, the FirePro S7150 is in a different league. The Vulkan test tells a different story. Here, the FirePro S7150 wins again, but only by 2%—29,690 versus 29,091. That small margin indicates that in graphics-driven Vulkan workloads, the two cards are nearly interchangeable. The R9 M295X’s lower pixel rate (23.14 GPixel/s vs 29.44 GPixel/s) and texture rate (92.54 GTexel/s vs 117.8 GTexel/s) do not translate into a large Vulkan deficit, likely because the test is not purely fill-rate bound. Overall, the FirePro S7150’s wins are decisive in compute but narrow in graphics API performance.

The Verdict

From the data alone, the AMD FirePro S7150 is the stronger performer in both recorded benchmarks, making it the default choice for anyone prioritizing raw compute throughput or Vulkan graphics performance. Its 13.9% OpenCL lead is significant, and even its 2% Vulkan edge, while small, is consistent. The R9 M295X is not without merit—its avgBenchmarkScore of 28,580 versus the FirePro S7150’s 28,117 actually shows the R9 M295X slightly ahead in overall average score across all benchmarks, not just the head-to-head tests. That is a counterintuitive result: the R9 M295X has a higher average benchmark score but loses both direct comparisons. The explanation lies in the benchmark mix—the R9 M295X has a Geekbench Metal score of 33,790, which is not part of the head-to-head set, and that strong Metal showing boosts its average. If your software stack uses Metal, the R9 M295X becomes more attractive. If you rely on OpenCL or Vulkan, the FirePro S7150 is the safer bet. The FirePro S7150 also offers double the memory (8 GB vs 4 GB) at the same 256-bit bus width and bandwidth, which matters for large datasets. Its 150 W TDP is also far lower than the R9 M295X’s 250 W, making it easier to cool in a server chassis. The R9 M295X’s only clear advantage is its portable form factor (MXM Module) and display outputs, which are irrelevant in a server context. For compute servers, pick the FirePro S7150. For a mobile workstation where Metal performance matters, the R9 M295X has a case—but only if you can tolerate its higher power draw.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built on GCN 3.0, but they are distinct chips: the R9 M295X uses the Amethyst chip, while the FirePro S7150 uses Tonga. The underlying silicon is identical in size—both have 5,000 million transistors on a 366 mm² die, yielding the same transistor density of 13.7M / mm². The compute resources match exactly: 2048 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The memory subsystem is also identical in width and bandwidth: 256-bit GDDR5 at 160.0 GB/s, running at 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective). The architectural divergence appears in clock behavior and peak rates. The FirePro S7150 achieves higher pixel and texture rates—29.44 GPixel/s and 117.8 GTexel/s, respectively—compared to the R9 M295X’s 23.14 GPixel/s and 92.54 GTexel/s. That implies the FirePro S7150 runs at higher clocks, even though the fact pack does not list base or boost clocks for either. The FP16 capability differs sharply: the R9 M295X offers FP16 at a 1:1 ratio (2.961 TFLOPS), while the FirePro S7150 doubles that to 7.537 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio. This makes the FirePro S7150 markedly better for half-precision compute, a feature that is increasingly relevant in machine learning inference. Both support DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170, so API compatibility is a non-issue. The production status is end-of-life for both, and both were fabricated by TSMC on 28 nm.

Specification Differences

The most obvious difference is memory capacity: the R9 M295X has 4 GB, while the FirePro S7150 has 8 GB. Both use GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with the same 160.0 GB/s bandwidth. The FirePro S7150’s higher pixel rate (29.44 GPixel/s vs 23.14 GPixel/s) and texture rate (117.8 GTexel/s vs 92.54 GTexel/s) indicate faster clock speeds, though base and boost clocks are not listed. FP32 throughput is 3.768 TFLOPS for the FirePro S7150 versus 2.961 TFLOPS for the R9 M295X. FP16 throughput is 7.537 TFLOPS (2:1) versus 2.961 TFLOPS (1:1). Power consumption is a major differentiator: the FirePro S7150 is rated at 150 W TDP, while the R9 M295X consumes 250 W. The FirePro S7150 uses a single 6-pin power connector and requires a 450 W suggested PSU; the R9 M295X has no power connectors listed, as it is an MXM module. The physical form factors are entirely different: the R9 M295X is an MXM-B (3.0) module, while the FirePro S7150 is a single-slot PCIe 3.0 x16 card measuring 241 mm (9.5 inches) in length and 111 mm (4.4 inches) in height. The R9 M295X has display outputs described as "Portable Device Dependent," whereas the FirePro S7150 has no display outputs at all. The FirePro S7150 has a launch MSRP of 2,399 USD; the R9 M295X has no listed launch MSRP. Release dates differ by over a year: the R9 M295X launched on 2014-11-22, while the FirePro S7150 launched on 2016-01-31. Their successors also differ—the R9 M295X was succeeded by Polaris Mobile, and the FirePro S7150 by Radeon Pro GCN.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in OpenCL?

A: The AMD FirePro S7150 wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 26,543, which is 13.9% higher than the R9 M295X’s 22,858.

Q: Is the R9 M295X better in any benchmark?

A: In the head-to-head benchmarks, the R9 M295X does not win either test. However, its average benchmark score across all tests (28,580) is slightly higher than the FirePro S7150’s (28,117), driven by its Geekbench Metal score of 33,790.

Q: How much memory does each card have?

A: The R9 M295X has 4 GB of GDDR5, while the FirePro S7150 has 8 GB of GDDR5. Both use a 256-bit bus with 160.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Can the FirePro S7150 output video to a display?

A: No. The FirePro S7150 has no display outputs, while the R9 M295X’s outputs are described as "Portable Device Dependent," meaning they rely on the host laptop.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The FirePro S7150 has a TDP of 150 W, while the R9 M295X has a TDP of 250 W. The FirePro S7150 requires a 450 W suggested PSU and uses a single 6-pin connector.

Q: Which card has better FP16 performance?

A: The FirePro S7150 delivers 7.537 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1 ratio), which is more than double the R9 M295X’s 2.961 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio).

Where Each One Wins

The AMD FirePro S7150 wins in raw compute and server deployment. Its 13.9% OpenCL lead and 2% Vulkan lead make it the clear choice for compute-heavy workloads like OpenCL-based rendering, simulation, or data processing. The 8 GB memory capacity is double the R9 M295X’s 4 GB, which helps when working with large datasets that exceed 4 GB. The FP16 throughput of 7.537 TFLOPS is a major asset for half-precision compute tasks, where it outperforms the R9 M295X by a factor of 2.5. The lower 150 W TDP also makes it easier to integrate into dense server environments, and the single-slot PCIe form factor with a 6-pin connector is standard for rack deployment. The R9 M295X wins in mobile workstation scenarios and Metal-based graphics. Its Geekbench Metal score of 33,790 is the highest single benchmark score in either card’s data set, and its average benchmark score of 28,580 edges out the FirePro S7150’s 28,117. The MXM-B form factor means it slots into laptops, and its display outputs are portable-device dependent, which is exactly what a mobile GPU needs. If your primary API is Metal—which is common on macOS—the R9 M295X’s stronger Metal showing (33,790 vs no Metal score for the FirePro S7150) makes it the better choice despite losing the OpenCL and Vulkan head-to-head tests. The R9 M295X also has a lower transistor density requirement in terms of power delivery, since it uses no external power connectors, but that comes at the cost of a 250 W TDP that is impractical for many laptops. Ultimately, the FirePro S7150 is the better compute card, and the R9 M295X is the better mobile graphics card—choose based on your platform and API priorities.