AMD FirePro S7150 vs AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH Comparison

AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH and AMD FirePro S7150 are both end-of-life AMD GPUs, but they target very different computing environments. The RX Vega M GH is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) designed for portable devices, while the FirePro S7150 is a single-slot server card with no display outputs. Benchmark data from Geekbench shows the RX Vega M GH winning both head-to-head tests, though the margins are modest. The average benchmark score for the RX Vega M GH is 29,197, placing it in the 74th percentile of all GPUs, while the FirePro S7150 averages 28,117, landing in the 73rd percentile. This places the two cards adjacent in overall performance, but their architectural and physical characteristics diverge significantly.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH scores 27,125, while the AMD FirePro S7150 scores 26,543. This gives the RX Vega M GH a 2.2% lead, a narrow but consistent advantage in compute workloads that leverage OpenCL. The FirePro S7150’s nearest rival in this performance class is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti, which averages 28,020, a 0.3% delta from the FirePro’s score. The RX Vega M GH, meanwhile, sits near the AMD FirePro W8000, which scores 29,211, just 0% different, and the Intel Arc A370M at 29,175, a 0.1% delta. These comparisons show both cards clustering within a tight performance band, where a single-digit percentage separates them from their closest competitors.

Moving to the Geekbench Vulkan test, the RX Vega M GH extends its lead, scoring 31,268 against the FirePro S7150’s 29,690. That is a 5.3% advantage, a more pronounced difference than in OpenCL, suggesting the RX Vega M GH has stronger Vulkan API performance. The RX Vega M GH’s Vulkan support is listed as version 1.3, while the FirePro S7150 supports Vulkan 1.2.170, which may contribute to this gap. In this test, the RX Vega M GH’s nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 470 at 28,996 (0.7% delta) and the AMD Radeon RX 6800M at 28,874 (1.1% delta), both of which it outperforms. The FirePro S7150’s Vulkan score places it near the AMD Radeon Pro W5500X, which averages 27,973, a 0.5% delta, and the AMD Radeon RX 7800M at 27,883, a 0.8% delta.

Overall, the RX Vega M GH wins both head-to-head benchmarks, taking 2 wins to 0. The data indicates that despite being an integrated part, it delivers superior compute performance in these specific tests. The FirePro S7150, while having a higher raw FP32 throughput of 3.768 TFLOPS compared to the RX Vega M GH’s 3.656 TFLOPS, still trails in actual benchmark scores. This suggests that factors beyond theoretical peak performance, such as memory bandwidth or API optimization, play a role in real-world results.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different generations of AMD’s Graphics Core Next (GCN) architecture. The AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH uses GCN 4.0, built on a 14 nm process node at GlobalFoundries, with the Polaris 22 chip. In contrast, the AMD FirePro S7150 uses GCN 3.0, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC, with the Tonga chip. This process node difference is significant: the 14 nm node allows for a much smaller die size of 208 mm² for the RX Vega M GH, compared to the FirePro S7150’s 366 mm² die. Both chips pack 5,000 million transistors, but the RX Vega M GH achieves a transistor density of 24.0 million per mm², while the FirePro S7150 manages 13.7 million per mm². This indicates the RX Vega M GH’s design is far more space-efficient.

Memory architecture also differs markedly. The RX Vega M GH uses 4 GB of HBM2 memory on a 1024-bit bus, delivering 204.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The FirePro S7150 uses 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, providing 160.0 GB/s. Despite having half the memory capacity, the RX Vega M GH offers 28% more memory bandwidth, which can be critical for compute workloads. The FirePro S7150’s advantage lies in capacity, offering double the VRAM for larger datasets.

Compute unit configurations vary as well. The FirePro S7150 has 2048 shading units, 128 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 32 render output units (ROPs). The RX Vega M GH has 1536 shading units, 96 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The FirePro S7150 has more shading units and TMUs, but the RX Vega M GH has double the ROPs, leading to a pixel rate of 76.16 GPixel/s for the RX Vega M GH versus 29.44 GPixel/s for the FirePro S7150. Texture rates are closer, at 114.2 GTexel/s for the RX Vega M GH and 117.8 GTexel/s for the FirePro S7150. FP32 performance is nearly identical, with the FirePro S7150 slightly ahead at 3.768 TFLOPS versus 3.656 TFLOPS. However, the FirePro S7150 excels in FP16, delivering 7.537 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio, while the RX Vega M GH offers only 3.656 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH has an average benchmark score of 29,197, while the AMD FirePro S7150 scores 28,117. This gives the RX Vega M GH a lead of about 1,080 points, translating to roughly a 3.8% advantage.

Q: How does memory capacity and bandwidth compare between the two?

A: The FirePro S7150 has 8 GB of GDDR5 memory, which is double the RX Vega M GH’s 4 GB of HBM2. However, the RX Vega M GH has significantly higher bandwidth at 204.8 GB/s compared to the FirePro S7150’s 160.0 GB/s, despite the latter’s larger capacity.

Q: What are the power consumption differences?

A: The RX Vega M GH has a TDP of 100 W, while the FirePro S7150 has a TDP of 150 W. The FirePro S7150 also requires a 1x 6-pin power connector and a suggested power supply of 450 W, whereas the RX Vega M GH is an integrated part with no power connectors listed.

Q: Which GPU supports a newer Vulkan version?

A: The AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH supports Vulkan 1.3, while the AMD FirePro S7150 supports Vulkan 1.2.170. The RX Vega M GH’s newer Vulkan support likely contributes to its 5.3% lead in the Geekbench Vulkan test.

Q: Are there any display output differences?

A: Yes, the RX Vega M GH has display outputs described as "Portable Device Dependent," meaning it relies on the host device. The FirePro S7150 has no display outputs at all, as it is designed for server use.

Q: What is the release date and production status of each?

A: The RX Vega M GH was released on January 31, 2018, and the FirePro S7150 was released on January 31, 2016. Both are marked as end-of-life products.

Specification Differences

The clock speeds differ, with the RX Vega M GH having a base clock of 1063 MHz and a boost clock of 1190 MHz, while the FirePro S7150 has no base or boost clock listed. Memory clocks also vary: the RX Vega M GH runs at 800 MHz with 1600 Mbps effective, while the FirePro S7150 runs at 1250 MHz with 5 Gbps effective. Memory bus width differs, with the RX Vega M GH using 1024 bit and the FirePro S7150 using 256 bit. The process nodes differ, with the RX Vega M GH on 14 nm and the FirePro S7150 on 28 nm, leading to different die sizes (208 mm² vs 366 mm²) and transistor densities (24.0M/mm² vs 13.7M/mm²). TDPs are 100 W for the RX Vega M GH and 150 W for the FirePro S7150. Slot widths differ, with the RX Vega M GH being an IGP and the FirePro S7150 being single-slot. The FirePro S7150 has a PCIe 3.0 x16 bus interface, while the RX Vega M GH uses an IGP interface. Display outputs differ, with the RX Vega M GH being portable-device dependent and the FirePro S7150 having none. FP16 performance differs significantly, with the FirePro S7150 offering 7.537 TFLOPS (2:1) versus the RX Vega M GH’s 3.656 TFLOPS (1:1). The FirePro S7150 also has a launch MSRP of 2,399 USD. Dimensions differ, with the FirePro S7150 measuring 241 mm in length and 111 mm in height, while the RX Vega M GH has no listed dimensions.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH wins in benchmark performance, taking both the OpenCL and Vulkan tests. It also leads in pixel rate, with 76.16 GPixel/s versus 29.44 GPixel/s, and memory bandwidth, at 204.8 GB/s versus 160.0 GB/s. Its smaller process node and die size indicate better power efficiency, supported by its lower TDP of 100 W versus 150 W. The RX Vega M GH is clearly the better choice for compute tasks that benefit from high bandwidth and pixel throughput, such as certain graphics workloads or portable device applications.

The AMD FirePro S7150 wins in memory capacity, offering 8 GB versus 4 GB, which is advantageous for large datasets that exceed the RX Vega M GH’s capacity. It also has more shading units (2048 vs 1536) and TMUs (128 vs 96), contributing to its slightly higher FP32 throughput of 3.768 TFLOPS. More notably, the FirePro S7150 excels in FP16 compute, delivering 7.537 TFLOPS, more than double the RX Vega M GH’s 3.656 TFLOPS. This makes it well-suited for workloads that leverage FP16 precision, such as certain machine learning or scientific computing tasks. As a server card with no display outputs, it is designed for headless compute environments, while the RX Vega M GH is meant for integrated portable systems.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the benchmark data, the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH is the superior performer in both Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan tests. It wins both head-to-head matchups, with deltas of 2.2% and 5.3%, and holds a higher average benchmark score of 29,197 versus 28,117. For users prioritizing raw compute performance in these specific APIs, the RX Vega M GH is the clear choice. Its higher memory bandwidth and pixel rate further reinforce its performance edge.

However, the AMD FirePro S7150 is not without merit. Its 8 GB memory capacity is double that of the RX Vega M GH, which is crucial for memory-intensive applications. Its FP16 performance of 7.537 TFLOPS is a standout feature, offering more than double the RX Vega M GH’s FP16 capability, making it attractive for specialized compute workloads. Its server-oriented design, with a single-slot form factor and no display outputs, suits rack-mounted environments where the RX Vega M GH’s IGP nature cannot apply. The FirePro S7150’s launch MSRP was 2,399 USD, but it is now end-of-life. Ultimately, the RX Vega M GH wins on general benchmark performance, while the FirePro S7150 wins on memory capacity and FP16 throughput. The choice depends on whether the user needs an integrated solution with higher benchmark scores or a server card with larger memory and FP16 capabilities.