AMD FirePro W600 vs AMD Radeon HD 8750M Comparison

The AMD FirePro W600 and AMD Radeon HD 8750M are both built on the same GCN 1.0 architecture and 28 nm TSMC process, but they target different segments and deliver measurably different performance. In the sole available benchmark, the FirePro W600 scores 6223 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 4.2% ahead of the HD 8750M’s 5970. This translates to a 36th percentile ranking for the FirePro versus 34th for the HD 8750M, placing both in the lower-midrange of all GPUs but with the FirePro holding a consistent edge. The FirePro W600 also shows a higher transistor count and die size, reflecting its more robust design, while the HD 8750M is a smaller, mobile-oriented chip with lower raw throughput.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The AMD FirePro W600 scores 6223, while the AMD Radeon HD 8750M scores 5970. The FirePro W600 wins this head-to-head by a 4.2% margin.

Q: How do these two compare in terms of memory bandwidth?

A: The FirePro W600 has a bandwidth of 64.00 GB/s using 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus. The HD 8750M has 28.80 GB/s bandwidth with 1024 MB of DDR3 memory on the same 128-bit bus, a significant gap favoring the FirePro.

Q: Are both GPUs based on the same architecture?

A: Yes, both the FirePro W600 and the HD 8750M use GCN 1.0 architecture and are manufactured on a 28 nm process by TSMC. However, their chips differ: the FirePro uses “Cape Verde,” while the HD 8750M uses “Mars.”

Q: What are the shading unit counts for each card?

A: The FirePro W600 has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The HD 8750M has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs, giving the FirePro a 33% advantage in shading units.

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel rate?

A: The FirePro W600 achieves a pixel rate of 12.00 GPixel/s, compared to the HD 8750M’s 6.600 GPixel/s. This means the FirePro can fill nearly twice as many pixels per second.

Q: Do both cards support the same DirectX and Vulkan versions?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. Their API feature sets are identical, so software compatibility is not a differentiator.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs share a common foundation—both are GCN 1.0 parts on TSMC’s 28 nm node—but their internal configurations diverge sharply. The FirePro W600 uses the “Cape Verde” chip, which packs 1,500 million transistors onto a 123 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 12.2M / mm². The HD 8750M uses the smaller “Mars” chip, with 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die and a slightly higher density of 12.3M / mm². This die-size difference is substantial; the FirePro’s chip is roughly 60% larger in area, accommodating more compute resources.

The FirePro W600 carries 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 raster operation units. The HD 8750M is cut down to 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and just 8 ROPs. These counts directly drive the performance metrics: the FirePro achieves 768.0 GFLOPS of FP32 throughput and a texture rate of 24.00 GTexel/s, while the HD 8750M delivers 633.6 GFLOPS and 19.80 GTexel/s. The ROP difference is especially pronounced, explaining why the FirePro’s pixel rate (12.00 GPixel/s) is almost double that of the HD 8750M (6.600 GPixel/s).

Memory architecture also separates the two. The FirePro W600 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 with a 128-bit bus, running at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective), producing 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The HD 8750M relies on 1024 MB of DDR3 at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) on the same 128-bit bus, yielding only 28.80 GB/s—less than half the FirePro’s bandwidth. This memory difference is critical for bandwidth-sensitive workloads, as the FirePro can move data far more quickly.

Clocking is another differentiator. The HD 8750M has explicit base and boost clocks of 775 MHz and 825 MHz, respectively. The FirePro W600 lists no base or boost clock in the data, only a memory clock. This absence suggests the FirePro’s core clock is either fixed or not publicly specified, but its higher shading unit count and memory bandwidth compensate regardless.

Form factor and power delivery also differ. The FirePro W600 is a single-slot, 168 mm long card with no power connectors and a 75 W TDP, requiring a 250 W power supply. The HD 8750M has no listed TDP, slot width, or power connector information, indicating it is a mobile or embedded part without a standard desktop form factor. The FirePro also supports PCIe 3.0 x16, while the HD 8750M is limited to PCIe 3.0 x8, halving the interface bandwidth.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is Geekbench OpenCL, and the FirePro W600 wins decisively. The FirePro scores 6223 against the HD 8750M’s 5970, a delta of 4.2%. While a 4.2% gap is not enormous, it is consistent with the FirePro’s architectural advantages: more shading units, higher pixel rate, and over twice the memory bandwidth.

Context from nearest rivals reinforces this result. The FirePro W600’s score of 6223 places it 0.2% above the AMD Radeon HD 6950 (6210) and 0.7% below the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 (6270) and RTX 5070 Ti SUPER (6270). It also sits 0.9% behind the NVIDIA Quadro K620 (6282). This shows the FirePro is competitive with much newer and more expensive GPUs in OpenCL compute, despite its age and lower-tier positioning.

The HD 8750M’s 5970 score is similarly clustered. It is 0.2% below the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 (5982) and 0.3% below the Quadro K4000M (5986), while sitting 0.2% above the Quadro K620M (5957) and 0.3% above the AMD Radeon HD 8730M (5955). The HD 8750M’s nearest rivals are all low-power or mobile parts, highlighting its intended segment. The FirePro, by contrast, competes with desktop cards and even newer RTX models, making its 4.2% lead over the HD 8750M more impressive given the different market targets.

In terms of percentile ranks, the FirePro W600 is at the 36th percentile of all GPUs, while the HD 8750M is at the 34th. This 2-percentile difference may seem small, but it reflects the FirePro’s ability to outperform a broader set of GPUs in the database. The FirePro also records one win in the head-to-head benchmarks, while the HD 8750M records zero.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD FirePro W600 outperforms the AMD Radeon HD 8750M in the only measured benchmark, and it does so with a 4.2% higher OpenCL score. The FirePro’s advantages are structural—more shading units, double the pixel rate, nearly double the memory bandwidth, and a wider PCIe interface. These are not marginal tweaks but fundamental design choices that favor the FirePro in compute-heavy tasks.

For users choosing between these two, the FirePro W600 is the clear pick for any workload that relies on GPGPU compute, OpenCL acceleration, or high-resolution rendering where pixel fill rate matters. Its 2 GB GDDR5 frame buffer and 64.00 GB/s bandwidth provide a solid foundation for professional applications, while its 75 W TDP and single-slot design make it feasible for workstation builds.

The HD 8750M, on the other hand, is a mobile-oriented chip with no desktop form factor details. Its 1024 MB DDR3 memory and 28.80 GB/s bandwidth severely limit its throughput in memory-intensive scenarios. It is not a bad part for its class—it sits within 0.3% of several Quadro mobile GPUs—but it cannot match the FirePro’s compute muscle. The HD 8750M’s only advantages are its lower transistor count (950 million vs 1,500 million) and smaller die (77 mm² vs 123 mm²), which imply lower power consumption and easier integration into compact systems, though no TDP is listed to confirm.

Neither GPU is current—both are end-of-life, with the FirePro released in June 2012 and the HD 8750M in February 2013. But for legacy systems or specific compute tasks, the FirePro W600 offers measurably better performance per the benchmark data.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD FirePro W600 | AMD Radeon HD 8750M |

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

| Chip | Cape Verde | Mars |

| Transistors | 1,500 million | 950 million |

| Die Size | 123 mm² | 77 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.2M / mm² | 12.3M / mm² |

| Base Clock | Not listed | 775 MHz |

| Boost Clock | Not listed | 825 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) | 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | 1024 MB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | DDR3 |

| Memory Bandwidth | 64.00 GB/s | 28.80 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 512 | 384 |

| TMUs | 32 | 24 |

| ROPs | 16 | 8 |

| Pixel Rate | 12.00 GPixel/s | 6.600 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 24.00 GTexel/s | 19.80 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 768.0 GFLOPS | 633.6 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 75 W | Not listed |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | Not listed |

| Power Connectors | None | Not listed |

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | Not listed |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |

| Display Outputs | 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 | Not listed |

| Dimensions | 168 mm x 111 mm x 20 mm | Not listed |

| Release Date | June 12, 2012 | February 25, 2013 |

| Launch MSRP | 599 USD | Not listed |

Where Each One Wins

The FirePro W600 wins in every measured performance category. In OpenCL compute, it is 4.2% faster. In pixel fill rate, it is 12.00 GPixel/s versus 6.600 GPixel/s—an 82% advantage. In texture rate, it is 24.00 GTexel/s versus 19.80 GTexel/s, a 21% lead. In FP32 throughput, it is 768.0 GFLOPS versus 633.6 GFLOPS, a 21% advantage. Memory bandwidth is the largest gap: 64.00 GB/s versus 28.80 GB/s, meaning the FirePro can move 122% more data per second.

These numbers point to clear use cases. The FirePro W600 is better suited for professional rendering, compute acceleration, and any workload that stresses memory bandwidth or pixel throughput. Its 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs also make it a natural fit for multi-display configurations or video walls, while the HD 8750M has no listed display outputs.

The HD 8750M, however, has its own niche. Its smaller die (77 mm² vs 123 mm²) and lower transistor count (950 million vs 1,500 million) suggest a more power-efficient design, though no TDP is listed to confirm. Its base and boost clocks are explicitly defined, which may offer more predictable performance in thermally constrained environments. It also uses DDR3 memory, which is cheaper and more widely available than GDDR5. For a laptop or compact system where the FirePro’s 168 mm length and single-slot profile are impractical, the HD 8750M could be the only option that fits.

In terms of nearest rivals, the FirePro W600’s closest competitor is the AMD Radeon HD 6950 (0.2% difference), while the HD 8750M’s closest is the AMD Radeon HD 8730M (0.3% difference). This shows both GPUs are positioned at the edge of their respective performance tiers. The FirePro edges into desktop-class territory, whereas the HD 8750M stays within the mobile GPU hierarchy.

Ultimately, the FirePro W600 is the superior part for compute and display performance, while the HD 8750M is a compact, mobile alternative with no measurable performance wins in the benchmark data.