AMD FirePro W600 vs AMD Radeon HD 8730M Comparison

The AMD FirePro W600 and AMD Radeon HD 8730M are both GCN 1.0-era parts, but they target different corners of the market. The data shows a clear, if modest, performance hierarchy: the W600 leads in the only direct benchmark available, though the gap is far smaller than the architectural differences might suggest. This is a tale of two 28 nm chips where the desktop-oriented professional card edges out the mobile part, but the latter offers a different set of trade-offs.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The sole head-to-head benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, delivers a decisive result for the AMD FirePro W600. It scores 6,223 points against the Radeon HD 8730M’s 5,955, a delta of 4.5%. This win is consistent across the board, giving the W600 a 1-0 record in direct comparisons. While 4.5% is not a landslide, it is a statistically meaningful margin that places the two cards in different performance tiers.

Context from the nearest rivals reinforces this separation. The W600’s score of 6,223 puts it within 0.2% of the AMD Radeon HD 6950 (6,210) and just 0.7% behind the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 (6,270). This places the W600 in a performance bracket populated by much newer and more expensive hardware, indicating its compute capabilities remain relevant. In contrast, the HD 8730M’s 5,955 score is essentially tied with the NVIDIA Quadro K620M (5,957, 0% delta) and sits 0.4% ahead of the Intel UHD Graphics 730 (5,929). The mobile card is competitive within its own class but does not threaten the desktop part’s standing.

The delta of 4.5% in favor of the W600 is the key takeaway. This is not a generational leap, but it is a consistent advantage that will manifest in longer render times or lower frame rates on the HD 8730M for OpenCL workloads. The percentile rankings corroborate this: the W600 sits at the 36th percentile of all GPUs, while the HD 8730M sits at the 34th. The two-point percentile gap reflects the benchmark score difference, with the W600 holding a slight edge in overall compute performance.

Architecture Differences

Both cards share the same fundamental architecture, GCN 1.0, and are fabricated on TSMC’s 28 nm process. This common foundation means they support identical API feature sets, including DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The similarities, however, end at the core design philosophy.

The FirePro W600 uses the Cape Verde chip, a 1,500-million-transistor die measuring 123 mm². This is a substantially larger and more complex silicon than the Mars chip found in the HD 8730M, which packs 950 million transistors into just 77 mm². The transistor density is nearly identical — 12.2M/mm² for the W600 versus 12.3M/mm² for the HD 8730M — which confirms both are mature 28 nm designs. The extra transistors in the W600 translate directly into more execution resources.

That resource advantage is stark. The W600 fields 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The HD 8730M is cut down to 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and just 8 ROPs. This 33% advantage in shader count and 100% advantage in ROP count explains why the W600 achieves a pixel rate of 12.00 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 24.00 GTexel/s, versus 5.600 GPixel/s and 16.80 GTexel/s for the mobile part. The FP32 compute throughput tells the same story: 768.0 GFLOPS for the W600 against 537.6 GFLOPS for the HD 8730M, a 43% gap.

Memory configuration is another major divider. The W600 comes with 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The HD 8730M also has 2 GB, but it is slower DDR3 on the same 128-bit bus, yielding only 28.80 GB/s. This is a 2.2x bandwidth advantage for the W600, which is critical for memory-bound compute tasks. Clock speeds differ as well: the W600 lists a memory clock of 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective), while the HD 8730M has a base clock of 650 MHz, a boost clock of 700 MHz, and a memory clock of 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective). The W600’s clock data is not fully specified, but its fixed memory clock is significantly higher.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The AMD FirePro W600 scores 6,223 points, which is 4.5% higher than the AMD Radeon HD 8730M’s 5,955 points.

Q: Are these GPUs based on the same architecture?

A: Yes, both the FirePro W600 and the Radeon HD 8730M use the GCN 1.0 architecture and are manufactured on a 28 nm process by TSMC.

Q: What is the difference in memory bandwidth?

A: The FirePro W600 has a memory bandwidth of 64.00 GB/s using GDDR5, while the Radeon HD 8730M has 28.80 GB/s using DDR3. Both have a 128-bit memory bus.

Q: How do the shading units compare?

A: The FirePro W600 has 512 shading units, whereas the Radeon HD 8730M has 384 shading units. This gives the W600 a 33% advantage in raw shader count.

Q: What is the FP32 compute performance difference?

A: The FirePro W600 delivers 768.0 GFLOPS of FP32 compute, compared to 537.6 GFLOPS for the Radeon HD 8730M, a difference of roughly 43%.

Q: Which card has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The FirePro W600 has a pixel rate of 12.00 GPixel/s, more than double the Radeon HD 8730M’s 5.600 GPixel/s.

Specification Differences

The two cards diverge on nearly every measurable specification, reflecting their different design goals.

• Chip: Cape Verde (W600) vs. Mars (HD 8730M)
• Transistors: 1,500 million (W600) vs. 950 million (HD 8730M)
• Die Size: 123 mm² (W600) vs. 77 mm² (HD 8730M)
• Base Clock: Not specified (W600) vs. 650 MHz (HD 8730M)
• Boost Clock: Not specified (W600) vs. 700 MHz (HD 8730M)
• Memory Clock: 1000 MHz / 4 Gbps effective (W600) vs. 900 MHz / 1800 Mbps effective (HD 8730M)
• Memory Type: GDDR5 (W600) vs. DDR3 (HD 8730M)
• Bandwidth: 64.00 GB/s (W600) vs. 28.80 GB/s (HD 8730M)
• Shading Units: 512 (W600) vs. 384 (HD 8730M)
• TMUs: 32 (W600) vs. 24 (HD 8730M)
• ROPs: 16 (W600) vs. 8 (HD 8730M)
• Pixel Rate: 12.00 GPixel/s (W600) vs. 5.600 GPixel/s (HD 8730M)
• Texture Rate: 24.00 GTexel/s (W600) vs. 16.80 GTexel/s (HD 8730M)
• FP32: 768.0 GFLOPS (W600) vs. 537.6 GFLOPS (HD 8730M)
• Power: 75 W TDP (W600) vs. not specified (HD 8730M)
• Slot Width: Single-slot (W600) vs. not specified (HD 8730M)
• Power Connectors: None (W600) vs. not specified (HD 8730M)
• Suggested PSU: 250 W (W600) vs. not specified (HD 8730M)
• Bus Interface: PCIe 3.0 x16 (W600) vs. PCIe 3.0 x8 (HD 8730M)
• Display Outputs: 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 (W600) vs. not specified (HD 8730M)
• Dimensions: 168 mm length, 111 mm height, 20 mm width (W600) vs. not specified (HD 8730M)
• Release Date: 2012-06-12 (W600) vs. 2013-03-31 (HD 8730M)
• Launch MSRP: 599 USD (W600) vs. not specified (HD 8730M)

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the AMD FirePro W600 is the faster GPU. It wins the only head-to-head test, and its superior specifications across the board — 512 shading units versus 384, 64.00 GB/s versus 28.80 GB/s, 768.0 GFLOPS versus 537.6 GFLOPS — leave no room for doubt. The 4.5% OpenCL delta is the final confirmation.

The W600 is the choice for any workload that demands raw compute throughput, memory bandwidth, or high pixel fill rates. Its professional FirePro branding, single-slot design, and six mini-DisplayPort outputs signal a card built for multi-display workstation environments. Its 75 W TDP and lack of power connectors make it easy to integrate into existing systems. The HD 8730M, by contrast, is a mobile part with no display outputs listed and a smaller, less powerful chip. Its only advantages are its later release date and presumably lower power draw, though TDP is not specified.

For users who need the maximum OpenCL performance from these two options, the data points squarely to the FirePro W600. The HD 8730M would only be preferable in a scenario where its mobile form factor is a requirement, but even then, its benchmark score is meaningfully lower.

Where Each One Wins

AMD FirePro W600:

• Compute workloads: With 43% higher FP32 throughput (768.0 GFLOPS) and 33% more shading units, the W600 dominates in general-purpose compute.
• Memory-bound tasks: The GDDR5 memory provides 64.00 GB/s, a 2.2x advantage over the HD 8730M’s 28.80 GB/s, making it superior for large data sets.
• Pixel-heavy rendering: The 12.00 GPixel/s pixel rate and 24.00 GTexel/s texture rate are over double the mobile part’s rates, ideal for high-resolution output.
• Multi-display setups: The 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs are a clear win for professional multi-monitor configurations.
• Benchmark score: The 6,223 OpenCL score is 4.5% higher than the HD 8730M’s 5,955.

AMD Radeon HD 8730M:

• Mobile integration: As a mobile chip, it is designed for laptops, where the W600’s desktop form factor would not fit.
• Power efficiency: While TDP is not specified, the smaller die (77 mm² vs. 123 mm²) and fewer transistors (950 million vs. 1,500 million) suggest a lower power draw for battery-constrained devices.
• Release timing: Launched in 2013, it is a later design than the 2012 W600, though this does not translate into a performance advantage.
• Bus compatibility: Its PCIe 3.0 x8 interface is less demanding on system resources than the W600’s x16, which could be beneficial in certain mobile platforms.