AMD FirePro W600 vs AMD Radeon R7 350 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable benchmark in the database is Geekbench OpenCL, and the result is decisive. The AMD Radeon R7 350 scores 7792, while the AMD FirePro W600 scores 6223. That is a 25.2% advantage for the R7 350, a substantial gap in raw compute throughput. In this single head-to-head test, the R7 350 wins outright, with the FirePro W600 failing to claim a single victory across all recorded comparisons.

The margin of 25.2% is significant not just for the headline score, but for what it implies about the underlying hardware. The R7 350 delivers 819.2 GFLOPS of FP32 compute, compared to 768.0 GFLOPS for the FirePro W600. The pixel rate also favors the R7 350 at 12.80 GPixel/s versus 12.00 GPixel/s, and the texture rate is 25.60 GTexel/s versus 24.00 GTexel/s. These are not marginal differences; they add up to a clear performance tier separation.

Looking at the broader database context, the R7 350's average benchmark score of 7425 places it in the 40th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the Intel UHD Graphics 750 at 7441 (a 0.2% deficit), the AMD Radeon HD 8850M at 7447 (0.3% behind), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 at 7472 (0.6% behind), and the Intel Arc A310 at 7550 (1.7% behind). The R7 350 is essentially trading blows with these cards, sitting just below them but within a very tight band. The FirePro W600, by contrast, averages 6223 and sits in the 36th percentile. Its nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon HD 6950 at 6210 (0.2% ahead of the W600), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 at 6270 (0.7% ahead), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti SUPER at 6270 (0.7% ahead), and the NVIDIA Quadro K620 at 6282 (0.9% ahead). The FirePro W600 is competitive with those parts, but the R7 350 is in a higher performance class.

The Geekbench OpenCL test is a strong proxy for general compute workloads, including GPGPU tasks and some rendering workloads. The R7 350's 25.2% lead here is not a fluke of a single metric; it is consistent with its higher clocked memory (1125 MHz versus 1000 MHz effective 4.5 Gbps versus 4 Gbps) and higher memory bandwidth (72.00 GB/s versus 64.00 GB/s). The R7 350 also has a higher pixel rate and texture rate, as noted. Every measurable compute metric in the database points in the same direction.

Where Each One Wins

The Radeon R7 350 wins the only head-to-head benchmark recorded, so its advantage is straightforward: it is faster in OpenCL compute. That translates to better performance in tasks that rely on GPGPU acceleration, such as video encoding, physics simulations, and certain scientific or engineering workloads. The R7 350's higher memory bandwidth of 72.00 GB/s versus 64.00 GB/s also means it can feed data to the shader cores more quickly, which helps in memory-bound scenarios like large texture loads or data processing.

The FirePro W600 does not win any benchmark in the database. However, its strengths lie in its intended use case as a professional workstation card. It offers six mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, compared to the R7 350's single DVI, single HDMI 1.4a, and single DisplayPort 1.2. For multi-display setups in financial trading floors, video walls, or medical imaging, the W600 is the obvious choice. The database shows no performance advantage for the W600, but the connectivity profile is a decisive factor for specific deployments.

The R7 350 also has a higher average benchmark score, 7425 versus 6223, and a higher percentile ranking, 40 versus 36. The W600's single benchmark score of 6223 is its only recorded data point, so there is no evidence of any workload where it outperforms the R7 350. The R7 350's additional Geekbench Vulkan score of 7057 further demonstrates its versatility, though no Vulkan score is recorded for the W600 to allow a direct comparison.

For users prioritizing raw compute performance, the R7 350 is the clear winner. For users prioritizing multi-display output in a professional environment, the W600's six mini-DisplayPorts are a unique feature that the R7 350 cannot match. The data does not show any compute scenario where the W600 pulls ahead.

Architecture Differences

Both cards are built on the same Cape Verde chip, using the GCN 1.0 architecture, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. They share the same transistor count of 1,500 million and the same die size of 123 mm², resulting in an identical transistor density of 12.2M per mm². The shading units are identical at 512, as are the texture mapping units at 32 and the raster operation units at 16. Neither card has dedicated ray tracing cores or tensor cores.

The core differences are in clock speeds and power delivery. The R7 350's memory runs at 1125 MHz with an effective data rate of 4.5 Gbps, while the W600's memory runs at 1000 MHz with an effective rate of 4 Gbps. This yields a bandwidth advantage for the R7 350: 72.00 GB/s versus 64.00 GB/s. The R7 350 also has higher pixel and texture rates, 12.80 GPixel/s and 25.60 GTexel/s respectively, versus 12.00 GPixel/s and 24.00 GTexel/s for the W600. The FP32 compute is 819.2 GFLOPS for the R7 350 and 768.0 GFLOPS for the W600.

The power profiles differ as well. The R7 350 has a TDP of 55 W, while the W600 is rated at 75 W. Both are single-slot cards with no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The R7 350 achieves higher performance with a lower power draw, which is a notable efficiency improvement. The R7 350 was released on 2016-07-05, while the W600 was released on 2012-06-12, a four-year gap that explains the efficiency gains.

The display outputs are a major architectural divergence. The R7 350 offers one DVI, one HDMI 1.4a, and one DisplayPort 1.2. The W600 offers six mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs. Both support PCIe 3.0 x16, DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The W600 has a height of 111 mm and a width of 20 mm, while the R7 350's height and width are not recorded; both share a length of 168 mm. The production status for both is end-of-life. The R7 350's predecessor is Volcanic Islands and its successor is Arctic Islands. The W600's predecessor is FirePro Terascale and its successor is Radeon Pro Polaris.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 350 scores 7792 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 25.2% higher than the AMD FirePro W600's score of 6223.

Q: Do both cards use the same GPU chip?

A: Yes, both are based on the Cape Verde chip with the GCN 1.0 architecture, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. They share the same transistor count of 1,500 million and die size of 123 mm².

Q: How do their memory bandwidths compare?

A: The R7 350 has a memory bandwidth of 72.00 GB/s, while the W600 has 64.00 GB/s. The R7 350's memory runs at 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective) versus 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) for the W600.

Q: What is the difference in power consumption?

A: The R7 350 has a TDP of 55 W, while the W600 has a TDP of 75 W. Both cards are single-slot, require no power connectors, and suggest a 250 W PSU.

Q: Which card supports more display outputs?

A: The FirePro W600 supports six mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, while the R7 350 supports one DVI, one HDMI 1.4a, and one DisplayPort 1.2.

Q: What are the FP32 compute capabilities of each card?

A: The R7 350 delivers 819.2 GFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the W600 delivers 768.0 GFLOPS. The R7 350 also has a higher pixel rate of 12.80 GPixel/s versus 12.00 GPixel/s.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD Radeon R7 350 is the faster card in every recorded benchmark and every compute metric. Its 25.2% lead in Geekbench OpenCL, its higher FP32 throughput of 819.2 GFLOPS, and its superior memory bandwidth of 72.00 GB/s make it the better choice for any compute-oriented workload. The R7 350 also achieves this with a lower TDP of 55 W versus 75 W, indicating better efficiency. The R7 350's average benchmark score of 7425 places it in the 40th percentile of all GPUs, while the W600's 6223 places it in the 36th percentile. The R7 350 is also competitive with more modern parts like the Intel Arc A310 (1.7% behind) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (0.6% behind), whereas the W600 sits closer to older cards like the AMD Radeon HD 6950 (0.2% ahead).

The only reason to choose the FirePro W600 over the R7 350 is its six mini-DisplayPort outputs. For a professional setting requiring multiple simultaneous displays, the W600's connectivity is unmatched by the R7 350's three outputs. The W600's launch MSRP was 599 USD, but its performance profile is clearly inferior to the R7 350, which was released four years later.

For most users, the R7 350 is the superior product. It wins on performance, efficiency, and compute capabilities. The W600 is a niche workstation card whose value lies solely in its multi-display support. If you need raw speed, choose the R7 350. If you need a six-monitor setup, the W600 is the only option here.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the AMD Radeon R7 350 and the AMD FirePro W600:

• Memory Clock: R7 350 at 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective), W600 at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective)
• Memory Bandwidth: R7 350 at 72.00 GB/s, W600 at 64.00 GB/s
• Pixel Rate: R7 350 at 12.80 GPixel/s, W600 at 12.00 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: R7 350 at 25.60 GTexel/s, W600 at 24.00 GTexel/s
• FP32 Compute: R7 350 at 819.2 GFLOPS, W600 at 768.0 GFLOPS
• TDP: R7 350 at 55 W, W600 at 75 W
• Display Outputs: R7 350 with 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 1x DisplayPort 1.2; W600 with 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.2
• Dimensions: W600 has a height of 111 mm and a width of 20 mm; R7 350 has no recorded height or width (both share a length of 168 mm)
• Release Date: R7 350 on 2016-07-05, W600 on 2012-06-12
• Generation: R7 350 in Pirate Islands (R7 300), W600 in FirePro GCN (Wx000)
• Predecessor: R7 350 with Volcanic Islands, W600 with FirePro Terascale
• Successor: R7 350 with Arctic Islands, W600 with Radeon Pro Polaris
• Average Benchmark Score: R7 350 at 7425, W600 at 6223
• Percentile vs All GPUs: R7 350 at 40, W600 at 36
• Launch MSRP: W600 at 599 USD (R7 350 has no recorded launch MSRP)