AMD FirePro W7000 vs AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits cleanly between these two generations, with the AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700 taking every recorded contest. The R9700 wins both head-to-head tests, while the FirePro W7000 does not claim a single benchmark victory in the database. This is not a close competition; it is a generational sweep.

For compute-heavy workloads, the R9700 is in another class entirely. Its Geekbench OpenCL score reaches 118202, a massive 563.8% lead over the FirePro W7000's 17808. If your workflow involves GPGPU acceleration, rendering, simulation, or any task that scales with raw compute throughput, the R9700 is the only rational choice from this pairing. The FirePro W7000's OpenCL result is simply too far behind to serve as a practical tool for modern compute tasks.

For graphics APIs, the story is similar but less extreme. The R9700 posts a Geekbench Vulkan score of 63550 versus 22001 for the W7000, a 188.9% advantage. Vulkan is the modern cross-platform graphics API, and the R9700 handles it with roughly three times the performance. If you plan to run Vulkan-based renderers, recent game engines, or GPU compute through Vulkan, the R9700 is the card that will keep up with the workload.

The FirePro W7000 does retain a niche: it is a single-slot card with a 150 W TDP and four DisplayPort 1.2 outputs. If your system is a dense chassis with limited physical space and you need multiple display outputs from one slim card, the W7000 still has a functional role. However, that role is limited to legacy display duties or light compute, not performance-sensitive work.

The database also shows the R9700 sits at the 69th percentile of all GPUs, while the W7000 is at the 65th. Both are above the median, but the R9700's average benchmark score of 23315 far exceeds the W7000's 19905. The R9700 competes closely with cards like the AMD Radeon R9 M290X and RX 6600M, which trail by only 0.2% in average score. The W7000's nearest rivals, such as the NVIDIA Tesla K40m and AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT, are within 0.1% to 1.5% of its average, confirming it remains a mid-tier performer in the database's historical rankings.

Architecture Differences

The architecture gap is the defining factor. The R9700 uses the Navi 48 chip on RDNA 4.0, built on a 4 nm process at TSMC. The FirePro W7000 uses the Pitcairn chip on GCN 1.0, built on a 28 nm process, also at TSMC. That process difference alone explains a huge portion of the performance delta: 4 nm versus 28 nm is a generational leap in transistor density and efficiency.

Transistor counts tell the story clearly. The R9700 packs 53,900 million transistors on a 357 mm² die, for a density of 151.0 million per square millimeter. The W7000 has 2,800 million transistors on a 212 mm² die, a density of just 13.2 million per square millimeter. The R9700 has over 19 times more transistors, and the density difference is over 11 times. This is not an incremental step; it is a completely different scale of integration.

The R9700 also has a major feature advantage: it includes 64 ray tracing cores. The W7000 has no ray tracing cores listed at all. The R9700 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the W7000 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_1). Vulkan support also differs: the R9700 runs Vulkan 1.4, the W7000 runs Vulkan 1.2.170. The R9700's memory is 32 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, giving 644.6 GB/s bandwidth. The W7000 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on the same 256-bit bus, but only 153.6 GB/s. That is a 4.2x difference in bandwidth and an 8x difference in capacity.

The R9700 does not support FP16 at a separate rate; it runs FP16 and FP32 at a 1:1 ratio, with both at 47.84 TFLOPS. The W7000 does not list FP16 support at all, and its FP32 is just 2.432 TFLOPS. The R9700 is roughly 19.7 times faster in raw FP32 throughput, which matches the transistor count delta and explains the massive compute benchmark lead.

The W7000 is a GCN 1.0 design with 1280 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The R9700 has 4096 shading units, 256 TMUs, and 128 ROPs. Pixel rate is 373.8 GPixel/s versus 30.40, and texture rate is 747.5 GTexel/s versus 76.00. Both cards are PCIe x16, but the R9700 uses PCIe 5.0 while the W7000 uses PCIe 3.0. Display outputs also differ: the R9700 has 1x HDMI 2.1b and 3x DisplayPort 2.1a, while the W7000 has 4x DisplayPort 1.0.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records only two direct comparisons between these cards, and the R9700 wins both.

Geekbench OpenCL: 118202 versus 17808, a delta of 563.8%. This is the largest gap in the dataset. The R9700 is nearly 6.6 times faster in compute. This score reflects the architecture's transistor density, FP32 throughput, and memory bandwidth advantage. Any workload that scales with OpenCL, from video encoding to physics simulation, will see a time-to-completion that is a fraction of the W7000's output.

Geekbench Vulkan: 63550 versus 22001, a delta of 188.9%. The R9700 is 2.9 times faster. Vulkan is the lower-overhead API that modern games and compute applications favor. The R9700's GCN 6.0 cores and DirectX 12_2 feature set give it a clear edge in this API, and the 188.9% lead means it is not a close race. The W7000's Vulkan support is present, but the hardware is old enough that it cannot compete with the newer architecture.

The R9700 also has a wider benchmark portfolio in the database, with results in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, PassMark DirectX 10/11/12/9, G2D, G3D, and GPU compute. The W7000 only has the two Geekbench results. The R9700's PassMark G3D score is 26979, and its GPU compute score is 15300. The W7000 has no equivalent data, so the comparison rests on the two Geekbench tests, and those are decisive.

FAQ

Q: Is the Radeon AI PRO R9700 faster than the FirePro W7000 in all benchmark tests?

A: Yes. In the database's only shared tests, the R9700 wins both Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan, with deltas of 563.8% and 188.9% respectively.

Q: How much more memory does the R9700 have?

A: The R9700 has 32 GB of GDDR6, while the W7000 has 4 GB of GDDR5. That is an 8x capacity difference.

Q: Does the FirePro W7000 have any ray tracing capability?

A: No. The database lists no ray tracing cores for the W7000. The R9700 has 64 ray tracing cores.

Q: Which card has a higher transistor density?

A: The R9700 has 151.5 million transistors per square millimeter, while the W7000 has 13.2 million per square millimeter, a difference of over 11 times.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each card?

A: The R9700 has an average benchmark score of 23315, and the W7000 has an average of 19905. The R9700 is the higher performer.

Q: Are both cards still in production?

A: No. The R9700 is listed as Active production, while the W7000 is End-of-life.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every measurable specification. Here is the field-by-field breakdown:

• Chip: Navi 48 (R9700) vs Pitcairn (W7000)
• Architecture: RDNA 4.0 vs GCN 1.0
• Process node: 4 nm vs 28 nm
• Transistors: 53,900 million vs 2,800 million
• Die size: 357 mm² vs 212 mm²
• Transistor density: 151.0M / mm² vs 13.2M / mm²
• Memory size: 32 GB vs 4 GB
• Memory type: GDDR6 vs GDDR5
• Memory bandwidth: 644.6 GB/s vs 153.6 GB/s
• Shading units: 4096 vs 1280
• TMUs: 256 vs 80
• ROPs: 128 vs 32
• RT cores: 64 vs none
• Pixel rate: 373.8 GPixel/s vs 30.40 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 747.5 GTexel/s vs 76.00 GTexel/s
• FP32: 47.84 TFLOPS vs 2.432 TFLOPS
• FP16: 47.84 TFLOPS (1:1) vs not listed
• TDP: 300 W vs 150 W
• Slot width: Dual-slot vs Single-slot
• Power connectors: 1x 16-pin vs 1x 6-pin
• Suggested PSU: 700 W vs 450 W
• Bus interface: PCIe 5.0 x16 vs PCIe 3.0 x16
• Display outputs: 1x HDMI 2.1b, 3x DisplayPort 2.1a vs 4x DisplayPort 1.2
• DirectX: 12 Ultimate (12_2) vs 12 (11_1)
• Vulkan: 1.4 vs 1.2.170
• Dimensions: 267 mm x 111 mm x 40 mm vs 242 mm x 111 mm, width not listed
• Production status: Active vs End-of-life
• Release date: 2025-07-22 vs 2012-06-12
• Predecessor: Radeon Pro Vega vs FirePro Terascale
• Successor: none vs Radeon Pro Polaris

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous. The AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700 is a complete, generational replacement for the FirePro W7000 in every performance category the database records. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks, has a higher average score, a higher percentile ranking, and better memory, compute, and graphics specifications. The R9700 is the card to choose for any modern workload, from AI compute to high-end graphics.

The FirePro W7000 still has one practical use case: a low-power, single-slot card with multiple display outputs. At 150 W, it is half the TDP of the R9700, it requires only a 6-pin connector, and it fits in a single slot. If you need a compact card for a dense server or a workstation with minimal power budget and only light graphics duties, the W7000 can work. But the data shows it cannot handle compute or modern graphics at a competitive level.

For anyone building or upgrading a workstation for compute, rendering, or modern gaming, the R9700 is the only serious option. Its 563.8% lead in OpenCL and 188.9% lead in Vulkan are not marginal improvements; they are order-of-magnitude leaps. The R9700's 32 GB of memory, 64 RT cores, and 47.84 TFLOPS of FP32 make it a modern tool. The W7000 is a legacy part for legacy slot.

The verdict is simple: pick the R9700 unless you have a physical constraint (single slot, 150 W) that forces the W7000. In all other scenarios, the R9700 is the correct choice from the data.