AMD FirePro W7000 vs AMD Radeon 780M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains two direct benchmark comparisons between the AMD FirePro W7000 and the AMD Radeon 780M, and the results show a clear pattern of dominance for the integrated Radeon part. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Radeon 780M scores 18,602 against the FirePro W7000's 17,808, a margin of 4.3% in favor of the newer chip. This is not a dramatic gap, but it is consistent across the two available tests, and the second test widens considerably.

The Geekbench Vulkan result is where the separation becomes stark. The Radeon 780M posts 33,683, while the FirePro W7000 manages 22,001. That represents a 34.7% advantage for the Radeon 780M, a massive swing that reflects both architectural maturity and driver support for modern APIs. The FirePro W7000, despite being a discrete card with dedicated memory, cannot keep pace in this workload.

Looking at the broader database context, the FirePro W7000 holds an average benchmark score of 19,905 across all recorded tests, which places it in the 65th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Tesla K40m at 19,885 (a 0.1% difference), the AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT at 19,765 (0.7% behind), the AMD FirePro D300 at 19,637 (1.4% behind), and the NVIDIA Quadro K5200 at 19,602 (1.5% behind). These are tight margins, indicating the FirePro W7000 sits in a crowded performance band where small differences separate products.

The Radeon 780M, by contrast, has an average benchmark score of 17,588, placing it in the 61st percentile. Its nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon Pro 560 at 17,551 (0.2% behind), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 at 17,639 (0.3% ahead), the AMD Radeon HD 7790 at 17,666 (0.4% ahead), and the AMD Radeon Pro 460 at 17,509 (0.5% behind). The 780M's average is lower than the FirePro W7000's, which is notable given that the 780M wins both head-to-head tests. This discrepancy suggests the 780M's benchmark profile is more uneven, with its Vulkan score pulling strongly upward while other tests may lag.

The head-to-head tally is unambiguous: the Radeon 780M wins both recorded comparisons, giving it a 2-0 record against the FirePro W7000. The OpenCL win is modest, but the Vulkan win is decisive. For a database user comparing these two, the data points toward the Radeon 780M as the stronger performer in the tests that were run, even though the FirePro W7000 retains a higher aggregate score across all benchmarks in the database.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from completely different eras and design philosophies. The FirePro W7000 uses the Pitcairn chip, built on GCN 1.0 architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 2,800 million transistors into a 212 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 13.2 million per square millimeter. The Radeon 780M uses the Phoenix chip, built on RDNA 3.0 architecture, also from TSMC but on a much newer 4 nm process. It contains 25,390 million transistors in a smaller 178 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 142.6 million per square millimeter. That is an order of magnitude higher density, reflecting over a decade of process advancement.

The memory subsystems are fundamentally different. The FirePro W7000 has 4 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 153.6 GB/s of bandwidth. The Radeon 780M has no dedicated memory at all; it uses System Shared memory, with a bus width listed as System Shared and bandwidth described as System Dependent. This means the 780M's memory performance is tied to the host system's RAM, a critical limitation that the FirePro W7000 does not face.

Compute resources also differ significantly. The FirePro W7000 has 1,280 shading units, 80 texture mapping units, and 32 render output units. The Radeon 780M has fewer shading units at 768, fewer TMUs at 48, but the same number of ROPs at 32. The 780M also includes 12 ray tracing cores, which the FirePro W7000 lacks entirely. Clock behavior is another differentiator: the FirePro W7000 has no recorded base or boost clock, only a memory clock of 1200 MHz (4.8 Gbps effective), while the Radeon 780M has a base clock of 800 MHz and a boost clock of 2900 MHz.

The pixel and texture rates reflect these differences. The FirePro W7000 achieves 30.40 GPixel/s and 76.00 GTexel/s, while the Radeon 780M reaches 92.80 GPixel/s and 139.2 GTexel/s. Floating point performance tells a similar story: the FirePro W7000 delivers 2.432 TFLOPS of FP32, while the Radeon 780M delivers 8.909 TFLOPS, and also lists FP16 at 8.909 TFLOPS (1:1). The FirePro W7000 has no recorded FP16 capability.

Power and physical specifications diverge sharply. The FirePro W7000 has a TDP of 150 W, is single-slot, requires a 1x 6-pin power connector, and suggests a 450 W power supply. The Radeon 780M has a TDP of just 15 W, is an IGP (integrated graphics processor), requires no power connectors, and lists no suggested PSU. The FirePro W7000 is 242 mm long and 111 mm tall, while the Radeon 780M has no recorded dimensions since it is integrated into a motherboard.

Bus interfaces also differ: the FirePro W7000 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the Radeon 780M uses PCIe 4.0 x8. Display outputs are another contrast: the FirePro W7000 offers 4x DisplayPort 1.2, while the Radeon 780M's outputs are motherboard dependent. API support shows the generational gap: the FirePro W7000 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170, while the Radeon 780M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score in the database?

A: The AMD FirePro W7000 has an average benchmark score of 19,905, which is higher than the AMD Radeon 780M's average of 17,588. The FirePro W7000 also sits in the 65th percentile of all GPUs, compared to the 780M's 61st percentile.

Q: Did the Radeon 780M win both head-to-head tests?

A: Yes. The Radeon 780M won the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 18,602 against the FirePro W7000's 17,808 (a 4.3% margin), and won the Geekbench Vulkan test with 33,683 against 22,001 (a 34.7% margin). The head-to-head record is 2 wins for the Radeon 780M and 0 for the FirePro W7000.

Q: How do the memory systems compare?

A: The FirePro W7000 has 4 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus with 153.6 GB/s bandwidth. The Radeon 780M uses System Shared memory, with system-dependent bandwidth and no dedicated video memory. This is a fundamental architectural difference.

Q: What are the TDP requirements for each card?

A: The FirePro W7000 has a TDP of 150 W, requires a 1x 6-pin power connector, and suggests a 450 W power supply. The Radeon 780M has a TDP of just 15 W, requires no power connectors, and lists no suggested PSU because it is an integrated processor.

Q: Which GPU supports ray tracing?

A: The AMD Radeon 780M includes 12 ray tracing cores, while the AMD FirePro W7000 has no ray tracing cores listed. This is a significant feature gap driven by the architectural difference between RDNA 3.0 and GCN 1.0.

Q: What are the production statuses of these two GPUs?

A: The AMD FirePro W7000 is marked as end-of-life, with a release date of June 12, 2012, and a launch MSRP of 899 USD. The AMD Radeon 780M is marked as active, with a release date of January 30, 2024, and no launch MSRP recorded.

Specification Differences

The specification sheet reveals a long list of divergences, many of them generational. The process node differs dramatically: the FirePro W7000 uses 28 nm, the Radeon 780M uses 4 nm. Transistor counts are 2,800 million versus 25,390 million, with die sizes of 212 mm² versus 178 mm². Transistor density is 13.2M per mm² versus 142.6M per mm².

Clocks differ in structure: the FirePro W7000 has no base or boost clock recorded, only a memory clock of 1200 MHz (4.8 Gbps effective), while the Radeon 780M has a base clock of 800 MHz and a boost clock of 2900 MHz. Memory configuration is entirely different: 4 GB GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 153.6 GB/s bandwidth versus System Shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth.

Shader resources are not identical: the FirePro W7000 has 1,280 shading units and 80 TMUs, while the Radeon 780M has 768 shading units and 48 TMUs. Both have 32 ROPs. The Radeon 780M adds 12 ray tracing cores, which the FirePro W7000 lacks. Pixel rates are 30.40 GPixel/s versus 92.80 GPixel/s, and texture rates are 76.00 GTexel/s versus 139.2 GTexel/s. FP32 is 2.432 TFLOPS versus 8.909 TFLOPS, with FP16 only listed for the Radeon 780M at 8.909 TFLOPS (1:1).

Power and physical specifications are also different: TDP is 150 W versus 15 W, slot width is single-slot versus IGP, power connectors are 1x 6-pin versus None, and suggested PSU is 450 W versus null. Bus interface is PCIe 3.0 x16 versus PCIe 4.0 x8. Display outputs are 4x DisplayPort 1.2 versus motherboard dependent. API support differs: DirectX 12 (11_1) versus DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), same OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170 versus 1.4. Dimensions exist only for the FirePro W7000 (242 mm length, 111 mm height). Production status is end-of-life versus active, with release dates of June 12, 2012 versus January 30, 2024. Launch MSRP is 899 USD for the FirePro W7000, with none for the Radeon 780M.

The Verdict

The data paints a clear picture for most use cases: the AMD Radeon 780M outperforms the AMD FirePro W7000 in both recorded head-to-head benchmarks, with a particularly strong showing in Vulkan where it leads by 34.7%. It does this at a fraction of the power draw, with a TDP of 15 W versus 150 W, and it adds modern features like ray tracing cores and DirectX 12 Ultimate support. The architectural advantages of RDNA 3.0 over GCN 1.0 are evident in the raw numbers, despite the 780M being an integrated processor with shared memory.

However, the FirePro W7000 retains a higher average benchmark score across the database (19,905 versus 17,588) and a better percentile ranking (65th versus 61st). This suggests that in the broader suite of recorded tests, the FirePro W7000 may hold up better in certain workloads, likely due to its dedicated GDDR5 memory with 153.6 GB/s of bandwidth versus the 780M's system-dependent memory. The FirePro W7000 also has a higher shading unit count (1,280 versus 768) and more TMUs (80 versus 48), which could matter in scenarios that favor raw shader throughput over modern API efficiency.

For users building a new system today, the Radeon 780M is the logical choice based on benchmark wins, power efficiency, and feature support. For those working with legacy applications that rely on the FirePro W7000's specific driver profile or that cannot benefit from the 780M's newer API capabilities, the FirePro W7000 still offers a competitive aggregate score. The database does not record any test where the FirePro W7000 wins directly, so any advantage it holds would be inferred from its higher average and percentile, not from a head-to-head victory.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon 780M wins in the two benchmark categories where direct comparisons exist. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 18,602 edges out the FirePro W7000 by 4.3%, and its Geekbench Vulkan score of 33,683 crushes the FirePro W7000 by 34.7%. This makes the 780M the choice for Vulkan-based applications and modern compute workloads that leverage OpenCL. It also wins decisively in efficiency metrics, with a 15 W TDP versus 150 W, no external power connectors, and no suggested PSU requirement. The 780M adds ray tracing support, DirectX 12 Ultimate, and a much higher boost clock of 2900 MHz, all of which point to it being the superior option for contemporary gaming and compute tasks.

The AMD FirePro W7000 has no recorded head-to-head wins, but its strengths appear in the aggregate data. Its average benchmark score of 19,905 is higher than the 780M's 17,588, and its 65th percentile ranking beats the 780M's 61st. This could indicate that in the wider set of database tests, the FirePro W7000 performs relatively better in areas not covered by the two direct comparisons. Its dedicated 4 GB GDDR5 memory with 153.6 GB/s bandwidth is a concrete advantage over the 780M's system-dependent memory, which could matter in memory-bandwidth-sensitive workloads. The FirePro W7000 also has more shading units and TMUs, which may benefit certain compute tasks that do not rely on modern API features. For users constrained by legacy software or specific professional workflows tied to the FirePro line, the W7000 remains a viable option, though the data suggests the Radeon 780M is the stronger overall performer in the tests that were directly compared.