AMD FirePro W2100 vs AMD Radeon R7 240 Comparison

The Verdict

The recorded data shows a clear, though narrow, performance hierarchy between these two Oland-based cards. The AMD Radeon R7 240 holds a decisive advantage in the single compute benchmark where both were measured, posting a Geekbench OpenCL score of 5063 against 4093 for the AMD FirePro W2100, a delta of 23.7%. In the database, the R7 240 sits at the 30th percentile of all GPUs, while the FirePro W2100 sits lower at the 25th percentile. For a user prioritizing raw compute throughput, the R7 240 is the straightforward pick. The FirePro W2100, however, brings a different connectivity profile with dual DisplayPort 1.2 outputs versus the R7 240's DVI, HDMI 1.4a, and VGA combination. The choice ultimately hinges on whether compute performance or display flexibility matters more for the target workstation. The data does not support choosing the FirePro W2100 for speed; it only makes sense when its specific output configuration is required.

Architecture Differences

Both cards share the same fundamental silicon. They are built on the Oland chip, using the GCN 1.0 architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. Each die contains 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² area, yielding a transistor density of 12.3M per mm². The core configurations are identical: 320 shading units, 20 texture mapping units, and 8 raster operation units. Neither card supports hardware ray tracing or tensor cores. Memory subsystems match exactly, with 2 GB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus, producing 28.80 GB/s of bandwidth. The memory clock is 900 MHz, or 1800 Mbps effective.

The differences lie in clock speeds and power characteristics. The Radeon R7 240 operates at a base clock of 730 MHz with a boost of 780 MHz. The FirePro W2100 runs lower, at 630 MHz base and 680 MHz boost. This clock disparity cascades into the fill rates and compute throughput. The R7 240 achieves a pixel rate of 6.240 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 15.60 GTexel/s, while the W2100 manages 5.440 GPixel/s and 13.60 GTexel/s respectively. Floating point performance, measured as FP32, is 499.2 GFLOPS for the R7 240 versus 435.2 GFLOPS for the W2100. Neither card lists FP16 capability.

Thermal and power envelopes also differ. The R7 240 has a TDP of 30 W, while the W2100 is rated at 26 W. Both are single-slot cards with no power connectors, and both suggest a 200 W power supply. They share identical physical dimensions: 168 mm in length and 69 mm in height. The bus interface is PCIe 3.0 x8 for both. API support is the same, with DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The release timeline shows the R7 240 launching in October 2013, while the W2100 followed in August 2014. Both are now end-of-life products, with the R7 240 succeeding the Sea Islands generation and preceding Pirate Islands, while the W2100 follows FirePro Terascale and precedes Radeon Pro Polaris.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available in the database is the Geekbench OpenCL test. In this test, the AMD Radeon R7 240 scores 5063, and the AMD FirePro W2100 scores 4093. The R7 240 wins by 23.7%. This is a substantial margin, reflecting the clock advantage. The R7 240's core runs 730 MHz to 780 MHz, versus 630 MHz to 680 MHz on the W2100. The resulting FP32 throughput is 499.2 GFLOPS against 435.2 GFLOPS. The pixel and texture rates follow the same pattern, with the R7 240 delivering 6.240 GPixel/s and 15.60 GTexel/s, versus 5.440 GPixel/s and 13.60 GTexel/s on the W2100. The memory bandwidth is identical, so the performance gap is purely a function of core clock speeds. The W2100's lower TDP of 26 W versus 30 W suggests it achieves its lower performance at slightly reduced power consumption, but the benchmark data does not quantify efficiency.

Looking at the broader rival landscape, the R7 240's score of 5063 places it exactly level with the AMD Radeon R7 M340, which also scores 5063. It is 0.6% ahead of the AMD FirePro W4170M (5034) and 0.9% ahead of the AMD Radeon R5 M430 (5018). The R7 240 is 1.3% ahead of the AMD Radeon R7 Graphics (4998). These are tight margins, indicating the R7 240 sits at the top of a cluster of similar-performing mobile and integrated parts. The FirePro W2100's average score of 4295 is lower. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M at 4282, which is 0.3% behind, and the AMD Radeon Vega 3 at 4268, which is 0.6% behind. Interestingly, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 GDDR6 scores 4335, which is 0.9% ahead of the W2100, a surprising result given the generational gap. The NVIDIA Quadro K3000M scores 4241, 1.3% behind the W2100. The W2100's percentile ranking of 25 versus the R7 240's 30 confirms the R7 240 is the stronger performer in the database's overall hierarchy.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 240 scores 5063 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the AMD FirePro W2100 scores 4093. The R7 240 leads by 23.7%.

Q: Are the two cards based on the same chip?

A: Yes, both use the Oland chip with GCN 1.0 architecture, built on a 28 nm process at TSMC. Each has 950 million transistors and a 77 mm² die size.

Q: What are the memory specifications for both cards?

A: Both cards have 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus, with 28.80 GB/s bandwidth and a 900 MHz memory clock (1800 Mbps effective).

Q: How do the core clocks compare?

A: The Radeon R7 240 runs at 730 MHz base and 780 MHz boost. The FirePro W2100 runs at 630 MHz base and 680 MHz boost.

Q: Which card has a lower power draw?

A: The FirePro W2100 has a TDP of 26 W, while the Radeon R7 240 has a TDP of 30 W. Both suggest a 200 W power supply and require no power connectors.

Q: What display outputs does each card provide?

A: The Radeon R7 240 offers 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x VGA. The FirePro W2100 offers 2x DisplayPort 1.2.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon R7 240 wins decisively on raw compute performance. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 5063 is 23.7% higher than the FirePro W2100's 4093. This advantage extends across all measured throughput metrics: FP32 is 499.2 GFLOPS versus 435.2 GFLOPS, pixel rate is 6.240 GPixel/s versus 5.440 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 15.60 GTexel/s versus 13.60 GTexel/s. The R7 240 is the card to choose for any workload that stresses the GPU's shading units, such as general-purpose compute tasks or graphics rendering that leverages OpenCL. Its benchmark score also places it in a higher percentile bracket, 30th versus 25th, and it edges out a cluster of rivals including the R7 M340, W4170M, R5 M430, and R7 Graphics. The R7 240's higher TDP of 30 W versus 26 W is a minor trade-off for the substantial performance gain.

The AMD FirePro W2100 wins on connectivity and power efficiency. Its dual DisplayPort 1.2 outputs are a significant advantage for professional multi-monitor setups, especially in workstation environments where DisplayPort is the standard. The R7 240's output set of DVI, HDMI 1.4a, and VGA is more consumer-oriented. The W2100 also draws less power, rated at 26 W versus 30 W, making it the more frugal option in a low-power build. However, the benchmark data shows it sacrifices 23.7% performance in OpenCL to achieve this. Its average score of 4295 places it in a lower performance tier, competing with older mobile parts like the GTX 460M and Quadro K3000M. The W2100 is the correct choice only when the display output configuration or the slightly lower TDP is more critical than compute throughput. For any scenario where raw GPU speed matters, the R7 240 is the superior option according to the recorded measurements.