AMD FirePro W600 vs AMD Radeon R7 250 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains a single direct benchmark comparison between the AMD Radeon R7 250 and the AMD FirePro W600: the Geekbench OpenCL test. In this matchup, the Radeon R7 250 posts a score of 7557, while the FirePro W600 trails at 6223. This gives the R7 250 a decisive 21.4% advantage in raw compute performance. The delta is substantial, not a marginal edge. In percentage terms, the R7 250 is nearly a quarter faster in this particular OpenCL workload, which is a meaningful gap for two cards based on the same underlying chip.

Looking at the wider competitive landscape from the database, the R7 250's score of 7557 places it just ahead of the Intel Arc A310, which averages 7550, a delta of only 0.1%. That is effectively a statistical tie. The R7 250 also edges out the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650, which scores 7472, by 1.1%. It sits slightly behind the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100, which scores 7580, a deficit of 0.3%. These nearest rival comparisons show the R7 250 operating in a tightly packed cluster of cards, where small percentage swings separate competitors.

The FirePro W600, scoring 6223, occupies a different tier entirely. Its nearest rival, the AMD Radeon HD 6950, scores 6210, a delta of just 0.2%, indicating the W600 is essentially matched with that older card. Interestingly, the database lists the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti SUPER as nearby rivals, both scoring 6270. The W600 trails those two by 0.7%. The NVIDIA Quadro K620 scores 6282, and the W600 is 0.9% behind it. While these modern RTX cards are far removed in class, the OpenCL scores place them close in this specific test, a quirk of the benchmark rather than a reflection of real-world gaming capability.

The head-to-head result is unambiguous: the R7 250 wins the only recorded benchmark. The 21.4% delta is the largest gap observed in any of the rival pairings for either card. For context, the R7 250's lead over the GTX 1650 is only 1.1%, and its deficit to the WX 3100 is 0.3%. The 21.4% advantage over the W600 dwarfs these neighbor-level differences. The data suggests that the R7 250 is the stronger compute performer in OpenCL workloads, with a score that places it in the 41st percentile of all GPUs, compared to the W600's 36th percentile. That five-percentile gap is consistent with the raw score difference.

Architecture Differences

Both cards share a striking number of architectural fundamentals. They use the same chip, Cape Verde, built on the GCN 1.0 architecture. Both are manufactured by AMD at TSMC on a 28 nm process node. The transistor count is identical at 1,500 million, and the die size is the same at 123 mm². The transistor density, 12.2M per mm², is naturally identical as well. The shading unit count matches at 512, as do the texture mapping units at 32 and the render output units at 16. Neither card features ray tracing cores or tensor cores. Both support DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The bus interface is PCIe 3.0 x16 for both, and each uses a single-slot cooling solution with no power connectors and a recommended 250 W power supply.

The differences emerge in memory configuration and clock speeds. The R7 250 uses 1024 MB of DDR3 memory, while the FirePro W600 uses 2 GB of GDDR5. Both have a 128 bit memory bus, but the memory clock differs: the R7 250 runs at 900 MHz, translating to 1800 Mbps effective, while the W600 runs at 1000 MHz, translating to 4 Gbps effective. This yields a bandwidth of 28.80 GB/s for the R7 250 versus 64.00 GB/s for the W600. That is a large gap, more than double the bandwidth for the FirePro card.

The clock speeds also affect compute rates. The R7 250 achieves a pixel rate of 14.80 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 29.60 GTexel/s, with FP32 performance of 947.2 GFLOPS. The W600, despite faster memory, posts lower rates: 12.00 GPixel/s, 24.00 GTexel/s, and 768.0 GFLOPS. This is counterintuitive at first glance. The W600 has superior memory bandwidth, yet its compute throughput is about 19% lower. The explanation lies in the core clock behavior, which is not explicitly listed in the database, but the derived rates indicate the W600 operates at a lower core frequency. The power draw reflects this: the R7 250 has a TDP of 55 W, while the W600 consumes 75 W.

The display outputs are a clear differentiator. The R7 250 offers 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x DisplayPort 1.2. The FirePro W600, aimed at professional multi-display setups, offers 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.2. The physical dimensions are similar in length at 168 mm or 6.6 inches, but the W600 adds listed height and width values of 111 mm and 20 mm, while the R7 250 lacks those specs. The generations differ: the R7 250 belongs to the Volcanic Islands (R7 200) generation, while the W600 is from the FirePro GCN (Wx000) line.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data points to the R7 250 as the compute winner. Its 7557 OpenCL score against the W600's 6223 gives it a 21.4% edge. For tasks that rely on raw FP32 throughput, such as general-purpose GPU compute or OpenCL-accelerated applications, the R7 250 is the stronger choice. Its 947.2 GFLOPS versus 768.0 GFLOPS reinforces this, a difference of roughly 23%. The higher pixel rate of 14.80 GPixel/s and texture rate of 29.60 GTexel/s also suggest the R7 250 handles rasterization and texture-heavy workloads better, despite its slower memory. In gaming, where the R7 250 is positioned, these rates matter. The lower TDP of 55 W versus 75 W also means the R7 250 is more power-efficient per unit of compute.

The FirePro W600, however, wins on memory capacity and bandwidth. Its 2 GB of GDDR5 memory with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth is more than double the R7 250's 28.80 GB/s. For workloads that are memory-bound, such as large framebuffer operations or multi-display output, the W600 holds an advantage. The 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs are a clear signal that this card is built for professional environments requiring many simultaneous displays. The higher bandwidth could benefit tasks like video editing or data visualization where textures and buffers exceed 1 GB. The W600 also has a higher memory clock at 1000 MHz versus 900 MHz, though the effective rate difference is larger due to the GDDR5 versus DDR3 types.

The launch MSRP of 599 USD for the W600, stated once here, positions it as a professional tool, while the R7 250 has no recorded launch price. The W600's percentile rank of 36 places it below the R7 250's 41, but the database also shows the W600's nearest rivals include the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 and RTX 5070 Ti SUPER, both scoring 6270. This is an odd grouping, likely due to OpenCL-specific quirks, but it indicates the W600's score is in a range where some modern cards also land. The R7 250's nearest rivals, including the Arc A310 and GTX 1650, are more typical of a consumer-oriented card.

The Verdict

The data is clear for compute performance: the AMD Radeon R7 250 is the superior card. Its 7557 OpenCL score beats the FirePro W600's 6223 by 21.4%, a decisive margin. The R7 250 also delivers higher FP32 throughput, pixel rate, and texture rate, all while consuming less power at 55 W versus 75 W. For anyone running OpenCL workloads, gaming, or general GPU compute, the R7 250 is the pick based on the recorded measurements. Its 41st percentile rank among all GPUs, compared to the W600's 36th, confirms this ordering.

The FirePro W600, however, is not without merit. It offers 2 GB of GDDR5 memory versus 1 GB of DDR3, and its 64.00 GB/s bandwidth is a massive advantage over the R7 250's 28.80 GB/s. For professional use cases involving multiple displays, the 6x mini-DisplayPort outputs are unmatched by the R7 250's single DVI, HDMI, and DisplayPort combo. The W600's 75 W TDP is higher, but it is still a single-slot card with no external power connectors, making it easy to install. The lower compute rates, 768.0 GFLOPS versus 947.2 GFLOPS, mean it will take longer for compute-heavy tasks, but memory-bound operations may benefit.

The choice hinges on use case. The R7 250 is the all-around performer, stronger in raw compute and rasterization, with a lower power draw. The W600 is the specialist, built for multi-display professional environments where memory capacity and bandwidth matter more than raw FLOPs. The database records only one benchmark, so the verdict rests on that single data point, but the architectural differences support the split. The R7 250 wins for compute and gaming; the W600 wins for display density and memory throughput. Neither card is current, both are end-of-life, but the R7 250's 21.4% benchmark lead is too large to ignore for most buyers.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 250 scores 7557, while the AMD FirePro W600 scores 6223. The R7 250 leads by 21.4%.

Q: How much memory does each card have?

A: The R7 250 has 1024 MB of DDR3 memory, while the FirePro W600 has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The FirePro W600 has 64.00 GB/s bandwidth, while the R7 250 has 28.80 GB/s. The W600 offers more than double the bandwidth.

Q: Which card supports more display outputs?

A: The FirePro W600 has 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, while the R7 250 has 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x DisplayPort 1.2.

Q: Are the power requirements different?

A: Yes, the R7 250 has a TDP of 55 W, while the FirePro W600 has a TDP of 75 W. Both use a single-slot design with no power connectors and a recommended 250 W power supply.

Q: Do both cards share the same chip?

A: Yes, both use the Cape Verde chip with GCN 1.0 architecture, built on a 28 nm process at TSMC, with 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon R7 250 | AMD FirePro W600 |

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

| Generation | Volcanic Islands (R7 200) | FirePro GCN (Wx000) |

| Memory Size | 1024 MB | 2 GB |

| Memory Type | DDR3 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Clock | 900 MHz, 1800 Mbps effective | 1000 MHz, 4 Gbps effective |

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

| Pixel Rate | 14.80 GPixel/s | 12.00 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 29.60 GTexel/s | 24.00 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 947.2 GFLOPS | 768.0 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 55 W | 75 W |

| Display Outputs | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 1x DisplayPort 1.2 | 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 |

| Dimensions (Height) | Not listed | 111 mm (4.4 inches) |

| Dimensions (Width) | Not listed | 20 mm (0.8 inches) |

| Release Date | 2013-10-07 | 2012-06-12 |

| Predecessor | Sea Islands | FirePro Terascale |

| Successor | Pirate Islands | Radeon Pro Polaris |

| Launch MSRP | Not listed | 599 USD |

| OpenCL Score | 7557 | 6223 |

| Percentile vs All GPUs | 41 | 36 |

Shared specifications: same chip (Cape Verde), architecture (GCN 1.0), process node (28 nm), foundry (TSMC), transistors (1,500 million), die size (123 mm²), transistor density (12.2M / mm²), shading units (512), TMUs (32), ROPs (16), no RT or tensor cores, PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, single-slot width, no power connectors, 250 W suggested PSU, DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.2.170, length 168 mm (6.6 inches), and end-of-life production status.