AMD FirePro S7150 vs NVIDIA RTX A4000 Comparison

The AMD FirePro S7150 and NVIDIA RTX A4000 represent two very different eras of workstation graphics, and the benchmark data reflects a generational chasm rather than a close competition. In the two shared head-to-head tests, the RTX A4000 delivers a decisive victory, posting a Geekbench OpenCL score of 105,739 against the FirePro’s 26,543—a 74.9% margin—and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 127,645 against 29,690, a 76.7% margin. These are not incremental gains; the RTX A4000 is roughly four times faster in both compute APIs, which fundamentally changes what workloads are feasible on each card.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable data points are the two Geekbench tests, and they tell a stark story. In OpenCL, the RTX A4000’s 105,739 score dwarfs the FirePro S7150’s 26,543, a delta of -74.9%. This is a massive gap that suggests the FirePro is not merely slower but is operating in a different performance class entirely. For compute-heavy tasks like rendering or simulation that rely on OpenCL, the RTX A4000 delivers roughly 4x the throughput, which can translate into dramatically reduced render times or the ability to handle larger datasets without swapping.

The Vulkan result is even more lopsided. The RTX A4000 scores 127,645, while the FirePro S7150 manages only 29,690, a delta of -76.7%. Vulkan is increasingly important for modern game engines and real-time visualization tools, and this result shows the RTX A4000 is far better suited for those tasks. The FirePro’s score, while not negligible, places it at a severe disadvantage for any modern, low-overhead graphics API workload.

Given that the FirePro S7150 wins zero of the two head-to-head tests, its average benchmark score of 28,117 reflects its position in the bottom tier of the comparison. The RTX A4000’s average score of 26,683 is actually lower than the FirePro’s, but this is skewed by its inclusion of several Passmark tests, which are not comparable to Geekbench. The RTX A4000’s percentile ranking of 72nd versus the FirePro’s 73rd is nearly identical, but this is a holistic measure across all GPUs; within this specific pairing, the RTX A4000 is the clear winner.

The RTX A4000 also shows its strength in dedicated DirectX tests, scoring 2,604 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, a test the FirePro does not appear in. This indicates the RTX A4000 is not just a compute monster but also a capable gaming and DirectX 12 Ultimate performer, which the FirePro, with its older DirectX 12 (12_0) support, cannot match.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gulf between these two cards is vast, explaining the performance disparity. The FirePro S7150 is built on AMD’s GCN 3.0 architecture, using the Tonga chip fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 5,000 million transistors on a 366 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 13.7M per mm². In contrast, the RTX A4000 uses NVIDIA’s Ampere architecture with the GA104 chip, built on Samsung’s 8 nm process. It houses 17,400 million transistors on a 392 mm² die, achieving a much higher density of 44.4M per mm². This newer process node and denser design allow the RTX A4000 to do far more work per clock and per watt.

The compute resources are not even close. The FirePro has 2,048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The RTX A4000 boasts 6,144 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 96 ROPs—roughly triple the shader count and ROP count. This is reflected in the pixel rate (149.8 GPixel/s for the RTX A4000 vs. 29.44 GPixel/s for the FirePro) and texture rate (299.5 GTexel/s vs. 117.8 GTexel/s). The RTX A4000 also features 48 dedicated RT cores and 192 tensor cores, which are entirely absent from the FirePro. This means the RTX A4000 can handle hardware-accelerated ray tracing and AI-accelerated workflows, while the FirePro cannot.

Memory is another major differentiator. The FirePro uses 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 160.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The RTX A4000 uses 16 GB of GDDR6 on the same 256-bit bus, but with a much higher effective speed of 14 Gbps, achieving 448.0 GB/s. This is a 2.8x increase in memory bandwidth, which is critical for large textures, high-resolution compute, and machine learning datasets. The RTX A4000 also supports PCIe 4.0 x16, while the FirePro is limited to PCIe 3.0 x16, halving the potential data transfer rate to the host system.

Clock speeds also favor the newer card. The RTX A4000 has a base clock of 735 MHz and a boost clock of 1560 MHz, while the FirePro’s base and boost clocks are not listed in the data. The RTX A4000’s FP32 throughput is 19.17 TFLOPS, and its FP16 throughput is also 19.17 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio). The FirePro manages 3.768 TFLOPS FP32 and 7.537 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1 ratio). This shows the RTX A4000 is not only faster in raw FP32 but also maintains full FP16 rate, which is essential for modern AI and mixed-precision workloads.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the data, the RTX A4000 wins virtually everywhere. Its massive lead in Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan makes it the obvious choice for general-purpose GPU compute, rendering, and any modern graphics API workload. The presence of RT cores means it excels in ray-traced rendering and real-time ray tracing, which the FirePro cannot accelerate. The tensor cores give it a clear edge in AI inference and training tasks, where the FirePro has no dedicated hardware.

The FirePro S7150’s only theoretical advantages are its lower TDP of 150 W versus the RTX A4000’s 140 W—actually, the RTX A4000 is more power-efficient despite being far faster—and its single-slot design, which it shares with the RTX A4000. The FirePro also has no display outputs, making it a pure compute server card, whereas the RTX A4000 has 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, allowing it to drive displays directly. For a workstation user needing a visual output, the RTX A4000 is the only option.

For legacy compatibility, the FirePro supports Vulkan 1.2.170, while the RTX A4000 supports Vulkan 1.4, and the FirePro is limited to DirectX 12 (12_0) versus the RTX A4000’s DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2). This means the RTX A4000 supports the latest features like mesh shaders and variable rate shading, while the FirePro does not. In every measurable category, the RTX A4000 is the superior card.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the RTX A4000 in OpenCL?

A: The RTX A4000 scores 105,739 in Geekbench OpenCL, compared to the FirePro S7150’s 26,543, making it 74.9% faster.

Q: Does the FirePro S7150 support ray tracing?

A: No. The FirePro S7150 has no RT cores listed in its specifications, while the RTX A4000 includes 48 RT cores for hardware-accelerated ray tracing.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The RTX A4000 has 448.0 GB/s of bandwidth from 16 GB of GDDR6, while the FirePro S7150 has 160.0 GB/s from 8 GB of GDDR5.

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The FirePro S7150 has an average benchmark score of 28,117, which is higher than the RTX A4000’s 26,683, but this is due to the RTX A4000’s inclusion of Passmark tests; in head-to-head Geekbench tests, the RTX A4000 wins decisively.

Q: Are both cards single-slot?

A: Yes, both the FirePro S7150 and the RTX A4000 are listed as single-slot cards, and both are 241 mm long.

Q: What is the process node difference?

A: The FirePro S7150 uses a 28 nm process at TSMC, while the RTX A4000 uses an 8 nm process at Samsung.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA RTX A4000 is the superior card in virtually every way. Its 74.9% lead in OpenCL and 76.7% lead in Vulkan are decisive, and its architecture is several generations ahead. The RTX A4000 offers triple the shading units, 2.8x the memory bandwidth, and dedicated RT and tensor cores, which enable entirely new workflows like real-time ray tracing and AI acceleration. Its support for PCIe 4.0 and DirectX 12 Ultimate also future-proofs it for modern software.

The AMD FirePro S7150 is an end-of-life product from 2016, built on a 28 nm process, and its only claim to relevance is its higher average benchmark score, which is misleading due to test selection. For any modern workstation task—whether it be 3D rendering, scientific compute, or machine learning—the RTX A4000 is the clear choice. The FirePro should only be considered for legacy applications that require its specific GCN 3.0 feature set, and even then, its lack of display outputs and lower compute performance make it a poor purchase today. If you have a choice, pick the RTX A4000 without hesitation.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD FirePro S7150 | NVIDIA RTX A4000 |

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

| Architecture | GCN 3.0 | Ampere |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 8 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Samsung |

| Transistors | 5,000 million | 17,400 million |

| Die Size | 366 mm² | 392 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 13.7M / mm² | 44.4M / mm² |

| Base Clock | N/A | 735 MHz |

| Boost Clock | N/A | 1560 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective) | 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 8 GB | 16 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bandwidth | 160.0 GB/s | 448.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 2048 | 6144 |

| TMUs | 128 | 192 |

| ROPs | 32 | 96 |

| RT Cores | N/A | 48 |

| Tensor Cores | N/A | 192 |

| Pixel Rate | 29.44 GPixel/s | 149.8 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 117.8 GTexel/s | 299.5 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 3.768 TFLOPS | 19.17 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 7.537 TFLOPS (2:1) | 19.17 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 150 W | 140 W |

| Suggested PSU | 450 W | 300 W |

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

| Display Outputs | No outputs | 4x DisplayPort 1.4a |

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

| Vulkan | 1.2.170 | 1.4 |

| Release Date | 2016-01-31 | 2021-04-11 |

| Launch MSRP | 2,399 USD | N/A |