AMD FirePro S7150 vs AMD Radeon RX 7800M Comparison

The AMD FirePro S7150 and AMD Radeon RX 7800M represent two distinct eras of AMD GPU design, separated by nearly a decade of architectural evolution. The benchmark data shows that the Radeon RX 7800M dominates the head-to-head comparison, winning both shared tests by substantial margins. However, the FirePro S7150, a server-oriented card with no display outputs, still holds a place in the market for specific compute workloads. This analysis breaks down where each card excels, the architectural chasm between them, and which user should prioritize which product.

Where Each One Wins

The Radeon RX 7800M is the clear victor in every benchmark where both cards have data. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RX 7800M scores 120,778 against the FirePro S7150’s 26,543, a delta of -78% (meaning the FirePro lags by 78%). In Geekbench Vulkan, the RX 7800M posts 126,668 versus 29,690, a -76.6% delta. These are not marginal wins; they are decisive generational leaps. The RX 7800M’s average benchmark score of 27,883 is also higher than the FirePro’s 28,117? No, that is incorrect—the FirePro’s average is higher at 28,117, but this is skewed by the limited test set. The RX 7800M has a broader benchmark suite, including Passmark tests, where it scores 17,613 in G3D and 9,342 in GPU Compute. It also has a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 2,994.

The FirePro S7150’s wins are not in raw performance but in its specific positioning. It is a single-slot, 150 W card with a 1x 6-pin power connector, designed for server racks where density and power efficiency matter. Its 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus is smaller than the RX 7800M’s 12 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus, but the FirePro’s lack of display outputs makes it a pure compute accelerator. For workloads that rely on OpenCL or Vulkan compute without needing modern feature sets, the FirePro’s GCN 3.0 architecture can still be a stable, if slow, workhorse. The data shows it has a 73rd percentile ranking across all GPUs, matching the RX 7800M’s percentile, indicating that in its niche, it is not obsolete.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap is enormous. The FirePro S7150 uses the Tonga chip on GCN 3.0, built on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 5,000 million transistors into a 366 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 13.7M / mm². In contrast, the RX 7800M uses the Navi 32 chip on RDNA 3.0, built on a 5 nm process at TSMC, with 28,100 million transistors in a 346 mm² die—a density of 81.2M / mm². This is a 5.9x density improvement, explaining the massive performance per watt gains.

The FirePro has 2,048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, while the RX 7800M has 3,840 shading units, 240 TMUs, and 96 ROPs. The RX 7800M also introduces 60 ray tracing cores, a feature the FirePro completely lacks. Clock speeds tell a similar story: the FirePro’s memory runs at 1,250 MHz (5 Gbps effective), while the RX 7800M’s memory runs at 2,250 MHz (18 Gbps effective), contributing to a bandwidth jump from 160.0 GB/s to 432.0 GB/s. The RX 7800M’s boost clock is 2,335 MHz, with a game clock of 2,145 MHz, versus the FirePro’s unlisted base and boost clocks.

Compute capabilities are starkly different. The FirePro delivers 3.768 TFLOPS FP32 and 7.537 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1 ratio), while the RX 7800M delivers 35.87 TFLOPS FP32 and 35.87 TFLOPS FP16 (1:1 ratio)—a 9.5x FP32 advantage. Pixel rate jumps from 29.44 GPixel/s to 224.2 GPixel/s, and texture rate from 117.8 GTexel/s to 560.4 GTexel/s. API support also diverges: the FirePro supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170, while the RX 7800M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The RX 7800M is a mobile IGP with no power connectors, whereas the FirePro is a single-slot card requiring a 6-pin connector and a 450 W PSU.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD Radeon RX 7800M is the superior product for almost any compute or graphics task. Its Geekbench scores are 4.5x higher in OpenCL and 4.3x higher in Vulkan than the FirePro S7150. It has more memory, faster memory, higher clock speeds, more shading units, and ray tracing support. The RX 7800M is an active product, released in 2024, while the FirePro S7150 is end-of-life, released in 2016. The FirePro’s only advantages are its lower TDP (150 W vs 180 W), its single-slot form factor for dense server installs, and its launch MSRP of 2,399 USD. However, that MSRP is outdated, and the performance gap is too large to justify.

Users who must run legacy GCN-optimized compute kernels in a server environment with strict power and space limits might still consider the FirePro S7150. Its 8 GB of GDDR5 is sufficient for many older workloads, and its 73rd percentile ranking shows it is not a slouch. But for anyone needing modern features, higher throughput, or any display output (the FirePro has none), the RX 7800M is the only rational choice. The RX 7800M’s 12 GB GDDR6, 60 RT cores, and 35.87 TFLOPS FP32 make it a portable-device-dependent powerhouse, far ahead of the FirePro’s 3.768 TFLOPS. The verdict is simple: if the RX 7800M is available for your platform, take it.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the RX 7800M in Geekbench OpenCL compared to the FirePro S7150?

A: The RX 7800M scores 120,778, which is 78% higher than the FirePro’s 26,543 in the head-to-head comparison.

Q: Does the FirePro S7150 support ray tracing?

A: No. The FirePro S7150 has no RT cores, while the RX 7800M has 60 ray tracing cores.

Q: Which card has more memory bandwidth?

A: The RX 7800M has 432.0 GB/s from its 12 GB GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus, versus the FirePro’s 160.0 GB/s from 8 GB GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus.

Q: What are the process node differences between the two?

A: The FirePro S7150 is on a 28 nm process with 5,000 million transistors, while the RX 7800M is on a 5 nm process with 28,100 million transistors.

Q: Is the FirePro S7150 still in production?

A: No, the FirePro S7150 is marked as end-of-life, while the RX 7800M is listed as active.

Q: Which card has a higher pixel rate?

A: The RX 7800M has a pixel rate of 224.2 GPixel/s, compared to the FirePro’s 29.44 GPixel/s.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data consists of two tests, both won decisively by the RX 7800M. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RX 7800M’s score of 120,778 crushes the FirePro S7150’s 26,543. The deltaPct of -78% means the FirePro is 78% slower. This is a massive gap, driven by the RX 7800M’s 35.87 TFLOPS FP32 output versus the FirePro’s 3.768 TFLOPS, a 9.5x difference. The RX 7800M’s 1:1 FP16 ratio (35.87 TFLOPS) also outpaces the FirePro’s 2:1 ratio (7.537 TFLOPS), making it far more capable for mixed-precision compute.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the RX 7800M scores 126,668 against the FirePro’s 29,690, a delta of -76.6%. Again, the RX 7800M wins by a factor of 4.3. This test reflects the RX 7800M’s superior Vulkan 1.4 support versus the FirePro’s Vulkan 1.2.170, as well as its higher shading unit count (3,840 vs 2,048) and texture rate (560.4 GTexel/s vs 117.8 GTexel/s). The RX 7800M also has a higher average benchmark score across all tests, though the FirePro’s limited suite (only two Geekbench tests) gives it a higher average of 28,117 due to those specific scores. The RX 7800M’s full suite includes Passmark G3D at 17,613, which dwarfs the FirePro’s capabilities, and a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 2,994.

The RX 7800M wins 2 out of 2 head-to-head tests, with zero wins for the FirePro. The biggest win is in OpenCL, where the RX 7800M is 78% ahead. The smallest win is in Vulkan, where it is 76.6% ahead. Both are decisive. In the broader rival context, the FirePro S7150’s nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti, with a delta of 0.3%, meaning they are nearly identical in average score. The RX 7800M, meanwhile, sits close to the AMD Radeon Pro W5500X (delta -0.3%) and the NVIDIA GTX 980 Ti (delta -0.5%). This shows that while the RX 7800M is far ahead of the FirePro, it is not an outlier in its own generation—it competes with high-end cards from several years ago, but the FirePro is simply outclassed. The data recommends the RX 7800M without reservation for any user seeking performance.