AMD FirePro S7150 vs AMD Radeon R9 M395X Comparison

The AMD FirePro S7150 and AMD Radeon R9 M395X are both built on the same fundamental GCN 3.0 architecture and 28 nm process, yet they serve entirely different market segments. The data reveals a stark performance hierarchy, with the FirePro S7150 holding a commanding lead in raw compute workloads, while the R9 M395X offers a distinct feature set geared toward mobile integration. This comparison is based on their respective benchmark scores, architectural specifications, and performance percentiles.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct head-to-head benchmark available is Geekbench OpenCL, and the results are decisively in favor of the AMD FirePro S7150. The FirePro S7150 scores 26,543 points, while the Radeon R9 M395X manages 17,829 points. This represents a 48.9% performance delta, meaning the FirePro S7150 is nearly half again as fast as its rival in this compute test. This is not a marginal victory; it is a dominant one that underscores the FirePro’s purpose as a server-grade compute workhorse.

The FirePro S7150’s advantage in this benchmark is consistent with its overall average benchmark score of 28,117, compared to the R9 M395X’s 25,891. This 8.6% gap in average scores is significant, but the OpenCL delta is far larger, suggesting that the R9 M395X’s performance is more variable across different workloads. In fact, the R9 M395X does not win a single benchmark in the head-to-head comparison. The FirePro S7150 claims victory in the only shared test, leaving the wins tally at 1–0.

When placed in the broader context of their respective peer groups, both cards hold their own. The FirePro S7150 sits at the 73rd percentile of all GPUs, while the R9 M395X is at the 71st percentile. This means both are above-average performers, but the FirePro is closer to the top tier. The FirePro S7150’s nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti, has an average score of 28,020, which is only 0.3% higher. This places the FirePro S7150 in rarefied air, essentially trading blows with one of NVIDIA’s most celebrated high-end cards of its generation.

Where Each One Wins

The data paints a clear picture of workload specialization. The AMD FirePro S7150 is the undisputed winner in pure compute throughput, as evidenced by its OpenCL score. This is the card for tasks that demand massive parallel processing power, such as scientific simulation, rendering, or data analytics. Its 48.9% lead in OpenCL over the R9 M395X indicates that it is not just faster, but fundamentally better suited for compute-heavy applications. The FirePro S7150’s FP32 throughput of 3.768 TFLOPS, nearly 27% higher than the R9 M395X’s 2.961 TFLOPS, confirms this.

The Radeon R9 M395X, however, has its own strengths. Its Geekbench Metal score of 33,953 is notably higher than the FirePro S7150’s OpenCL score, though these are different APIs and not directly comparable. The Metal score suggests that the R9 M395X is well-optimized for Apple’s Metal framework, likely making it a strong choice for graphics work within macOS environments. Furthermore, the R9 M395X is a mobile MXM module, meaning it is designed for laptops, whereas the FirePro S7150 is a single-slot server card with no display outputs. The R9 M395X’s display outputs are described as "Portable Device Dependent," indicating its flexibility in various laptop form factors.

The R9 M395X also wins on power efficiency. Its TDP is rated at 75 W, exactly half of the FirePro S7150’s 150 W. This makes the R9 M395X a far more practical option for battery-powered devices, where thermal and power constraints are paramount. The FirePro S7150 requires a dedicated 6-pin power connector and a 450 W power supply, while the R9 M395X requires no external power connectors at all, drawing everything from its MXM slot. This is a crucial differentiator for mobile workstations.

Architecture Differences

Despite sharing the same GCN 3.0 architecture, 28 nm process node, and TSMC foundry, the two cards have distinct identities. Both feature the same transistor count of 5,000 million and a die size of 366 mm², resulting in an identical transistor density of 13.7M / mm². This means the core silicon is essentially the same, but the configuration and implementation differ.

The most striking architectural difference is in the FP16 capabilities. The FirePro S7150 supports FP16 at a 2:1 ratio, delivering 7.537 TFLOPS, which is double its FP32 rate. The R9 M395X, on the other hand, offers FP16 at a 1:1 ratio, meaning its FP16 performance is capped at the same 2.961 TFLOPS as its FP32. This is a massive differentiator for workloads that can leverage half-precision arithmetic, such as machine learning inference or certain image processing tasks. The FirePro S7150 is clearly designed to accelerate these modern workloads, while the R9 M395X is not.

The core counts are identical: both have 2048 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. However, the clock speeds must differ to explain the performance gap. The FirePro S7150 achieves a pixel rate of 29.44 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 117.8 GTexel/s, while the R9 M395X is limited to 23.14 GPixel/s and 92.54 GTexel/s. This translates to a 27.2% advantage for the FirePro in pixel throughput and a 27.3% advantage in texture throughput, directly correlating with the FP32 performance difference. The memory subsystems are identical: both use 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 160.0 GB/s of bandwidth and a 1250 MHz memory clock (5 Gbps effective). The FirePro’s higher compute throughput is therefore purely a function of its higher shader clock.

Physically, they are polar opposites. The FirePro S7150 is a 241 mm (9.5 inches) long, single-slot card with no display outputs, designed to be mounted in a server chassis. The R9 M395X is an MXM module with no specified dimensions, intended for internal installation in portable devices. The FirePro S7150’s lack of display outputs is a clear sign of its compute-only focus, while the R9 M395X’s "Portable Device Dependent" outputs indicate its role as a primary graphics solution for laptops.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD FirePro S7150 has a higher average benchmark score of 28,117, compared to the Radeon R9 M395X’s 25,891. This places the FirePro at the 73rd percentile of all GPUs, while the R9 M395X is at the 71st percentile.

Q: What is the performance difference in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The FirePro S7150 scores 26,543, while the R9 M395X scores 17,829. The FirePro S7150 wins this test by a 48.9% margin, making it significantly faster for OpenCL compute workloads.

Q: How does the FP16 performance compare between the two cards?

A: The FirePro S7150 supports FP16 at a 2:1 ratio, achieving 7.537 TFLOPS. The R9 M395X only supports FP16 at a 1:1 ratio, capping its performance at 2.961 TFLOPS, identical to its FP32 rate. This makes the FirePro S7150 far more capable for half-precision tasks.

Q: Are the display outputs different on these cards?

A: Yes. The FirePro S7150 has no display outputs at all, being a server-oriented compute card. The Radeon R9 M395X has display outputs that are "Portable Device Dependent," meaning they vary based on the laptop or mobile device it is installed in.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The Radeon R9 M395X has a TDP of 75 W and requires no external power connectors. The FirePro S7150 has a TDP of 150 W and requires a single 6-pin power connector, along with a suggested 450 W power supply.

Q: Do both cards have the same memory configuration?

A: Yes, both cards feature 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, with a bandwidth of 160.0 GB/s and a memory clock of 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective). Their memory subsystems are completely identical.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: for raw compute performance, the AMD FirePro S7150 is the superior choice. Its 48.9% lead in OpenCL, its 27% advantage in FP32 throughput, and its double-rate FP16 capability make it a far more powerful tool for server-side compute tasks. The FirePro S7150 is also positioned favorably against its rivals, sitting within 1% of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti’s average score. Anyone needing a single-slot card for dense compute, scientific analysis, or machine learning workloads should select the FirePro S7150 without hesitation.

The Radeon R9 M395X is not a bad card; it is simply a different kind of product. Its 75 W TDP, lack of external power connectors, and MXM form factor make it the only viable choice for mobile workstations. Its higher Geekbench Metal score of 33,953 indicates strong performance in graphics APIs favored by Apple’s ecosystem. For users who need a capable GPU inside a laptop, the R9 M395X is the obvious pick, as the FirePro S7150’s server form factor and power requirements preclude its use in portable devices. The R9 M395X also trades blows with high-end mobile GPUs like the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Mobile, which scores only 0.6% higher on average.

In summary, the choice is dictated by the use case, not by which card is "better" in an absolute sense. The FirePro S7150 is a compute monster for the datacenter, while the R9 M395X is a power-efficient mobile powerhouse. Both are end-of-life products, but their distinct architectures and capabilities ensure they remain relevant for their respective niches.