AMD FirePro W7000 vs AMD Radeon R9 M290X Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded benchmark data splits the two cards across different compute workloads, and the results are clear. The AMD Radeon R9 M290X wins the only direct head-to-head comparison available, the Geekbench OpenCL test, with a score of 22028 against the FirePro W7000’s 17808. That is a 23.7% advantage for the mobile Radeon part. The R9 M290X also has a Geekbench Metal score of 24524, which is its strongest single result and places it in the 68th percentile of all GPUs in the database. The FirePro W7000, by contrast, has no Metal score recorded; its available results include the same OpenCL test at 17808 and a Vulkan score of 22001. The FirePro’s Vulkan result is actually its best recorded figure, and it is close to the R9 M290X’s OpenCL score, but the two cards do not share a Vulkan head-to-head entry in the database.

For use-case selection, the data suggests the R9 M290X is the better choice for OpenCL compute workloads, where it holds a substantial margin. Its Metal score further indicates strong performance in Apple’s Metal API environment, which the FirePro cannot be compared on directly due to missing data. The FirePro W7000, however, shows its own strength in Vulkan with a score of 22001, which is nearly identical to the R9 M290X’s OpenCL result, indicating that the desktop workstation card is competitive in that specific API. The average benchmark scores reinforce this split: the R9 M290X averages 23276 across its tests, while the FirePro averages 19905, a difference of roughly 17%. The R9 M290X’s nearest rivals in the database include the AMD Radeon RX 6600M at 23273 (0% delta), the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 16 at 23250 (0.1% ahead), and the NVIDIA P106-100 at 23249 (0.1% ahead), meaning it sits at the top of a very tight cluster. The FirePro W7000’s nearest rivals are lower: the NVIDIA Tesla K40m at 19885 (0.1% ahead), the AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT at 19765 (0.7% behind), and the AMD FirePro D300 at 19637 (1.4% behind), placing it in the 65th percentile overall.

Architecture Differences

Both cards are built on the same fundamental architecture, GCN 1.0, and both use the 28 nm process at TSMC. The silicon details are identical: each die measures 212 mm² and contains 2,800 million transistors, yielding the same transistor density of 13.2M per mm². The R9 M290X uses the Neptune chip, while the FirePro W7000 uses the Pitcairn chip, but the compute resources match exactly. Both have 1280 shading units, 80 texture mapping units, and 32 raster operations units. Neither card has dedicated ray tracing or tensor cores, which is expected for this generation.

The memory subsystems are also identical on paper. Both cards ship with 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, and both run the memory at 1200 MHz with 4.8 Gbps effective data rate, producing 153.6 GB/s of bandwidth. The clocks for the shading units differ, though the FirePro W7000’s base and boost clocks are not recorded in the database. The R9 M290X has a base clock of 850 MHz and a boost clock of 900 MHz. Despite the missing clock data for the FirePro, the recorded pixel rate and texture rate reveal the actual difference: the FirePro achieves 30.40 GPixel/s and 76.00 GTexel/s, while the R9 M290X achieves 28.80 GPixel/s and 72.00 GTexel/s. This means the FirePro runs its cores at a higher effective frequency, giving it roughly 5.6% higher pixel output and 5.6% higher texture output. The floating point performance follows: the FirePro delivers 2.432 TFLOPS FP32, while the R9 M290X delivers 2.304 TFLOPS, a 5.6% advantage for the desktop card.

The power and form factor differences are substantial. The R9 M290X is an MXM module with a TDP of 100 W and no power connectors, designed for portable devices. The FirePro W7000 is a single-slot card with a TDP of 150 W, requiring one 6-pin power connector, and the database lists a suggested power supply of 450 W. The FirePro measures 242 mm in length and 111 mm in height, while the R9 M290X has no recorded dimensions. Display outputs also diverge: the R9 M290X’s outputs are listed as portable device dependent, whereas the FirePro provides four DisplayPort 1.2 outputs. Both cards use a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface and support the same API set: DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The R9 M290X additionally has a Metal benchmark score, and the FirePro has a Vulkan benchmark score, but the API support lists are otherwise identical.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in OpenCL compute?

A: The AMD Radeon R9 M290X is significantly faster. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, it scores 22028 compared to the FirePro W7000’s 17808, a 23.7% advantage for the R9 M290X.

Q: Does the FirePro W7000 have any benchmark where it beats the R9 M290X?

A: The database contains only one head-to-head benchmark between the two, the Geekbench OpenCL test, which the R9 M290X wins. The FirePro W7000 has a separate Vulkan score of 22001, but there is no direct Vulkan comparison with the R9 M290X in the recorded data.

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

A: The R9 M290X has an average benchmark score of 23276, while the FirePro W7000 averages 19905. The R9 M290X’s average places it in the 68th percentile of all GPUs, and the FirePro sits in the 65th percentile.

Q: Are the memory specifications identical?

A: Yes. Both cards have 4 GB of GDDR5 memory, a 256-bit bus, and bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s. The memory clock is also the same at 1200 MHz with 4.8 Gbps effective data rate.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The R9 M290X has a TDP of 100 W and uses no power connectors, being an MXM module. The FirePro W7000 has a TDP of 150 W, requires one 6-pin power connector, and the database suggests a 450 W power supply.

Q: Which card has better raw throughput on paper?

A: The FirePro W7000 has higher pixel rate, texture rate, and FP32 performance. It achieves 30.40 GPixel/s, 76.00 GTexel/s, and 2.432 TFLOPS, while the R9 M290X achieves 28.80 GPixel/s, 72.00 GTexel/s, and 2.304 TFLOPS.

Specification Differences

The two cards share many core specifications, so the differences are limited to a handful of fields. The chip names differ: the R9 M290X uses Neptune, and the FirePro W7000 uses Pitcairn. The R9 M290X has recorded base and boost clocks of 850 MHz and 900 MHz, respectively, while the FirePro’s base and boost clocks are not listed. The pixel rate differs, with the FirePro at 30.40 GPixel/s versus the R9 M290X at 28.80 GPixel/s. The texture rate also differs, with the FirePro at 76.00 GTexel/s versus 72.00 GTexel/s for the R9 M290X. FP32 performance is higher on the FirePro at 2.432 TFLOPS versus 2.304 TFLOPS. The TDP is lower on the R9 M290X at 100 W versus 150 W on the FirePro. The slot width is an MXM module for the R9 M290X and a single-slot for the FirePro. Power connectors are absent on the R9 M290X, while the FirePro requires one 6-pin connector. The FirePro has a suggested power supply of 450 W, and the R9 M290X has no suggested PSU listed. Display outputs are portable device dependent on the R9 M290X, while the FirePro has four DisplayPort 1.2 outputs. The FirePro has recorded dimensions of 242 mm in length and 111 mm in height, while the R9 M290X has none. The release dates are different: the R9 M290X launched on January 8, 2014, and the FirePro launched on June 12, 2012. The FirePro has a launch MSRP of 899 USD, which is stated once here. The predecessor and successor names also differ: the R9 M290X’s predecessor is Solar System and its successor is Polaris Mobile, while the FirePro’s predecessor is FirePro Terascale and its successor is Radeon Pro Polaris.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison in the database is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the result is decisive. The AMD Radeon R9 M290X scores 22028, while the AMD FirePro W7000 scores 17808. That is a delta of 23.7%, meaning the R9 M290X outperforms the FirePro by nearly a quarter in this workload. This is the largest margin recorded between the two cards in any shared test, and it aligns with the R9 M290X’s higher average benchmark score of 23276 versus the FirePro’s 19905.

Looking at the individual non-shared results, the R9 M290X also holds a Geekbench Metal score of 24524, which is higher than its own OpenCL score and higher than any FirePro result. That Metal score is the single best recorded figure for either card in the database. The FirePro’s best result is its Geekbench Vulkan score of 22001, which is within 0.1% of the R9 M290X’s OpenCL score, but the Vulkan test is not run on the R9 M290X, so no direct comparison is available. The FirePro’s Vulkan score is 23.5% higher than its own OpenCL score, showing that the card’s performance varies significantly by API. The R9 M290X’s OpenCL score is 10.4% lower than its Metal score, indicating a similar API sensitivity.

The nearest rival data puts these scores in context. The R9 M290X’s average of 23276 is bracketed by the AMD Radeon RX 6600M at 23273 (0% delta), the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 16 at 23250 (0.1% ahead), and the NVIDIA P106-100 at 23249 (0.1% ahead). The R9 M290X effectively ties with these cards, with deltas of less than one percent. The FirePro’s average of 19905 is close to the NVIDIA Tesla K40m at 19885 (0.1% ahead), the AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT at 19765 (0.7% behind), and the AMD FirePro D300 at 19637 (1.4% behind). The FirePro’s rivals are all within 1.5% of its average, so the card sits in a tight performance cluster, but that cluster is roughly 15% below the R9 M290X’s cluster.

The win count is one for the R9 M290X and zero for the FirePro in direct head-to-head tests. The FirePro’s theoretical advantages in pixel rate, texture rate, and FP32 throughput do not translate into a win in the OpenCL benchmark, which suggests that the higher clocks of the FirePro are offset by the R9 M290X’s other characteristics in real compute execution. The power envelope is also telling: the R9 M290X achieves its higher OpenCL score with a 100 W TDP and no power connectors, while the FirePro requires 150 W and a 6-pin connector. The data indicates that the mobile part is the more efficient compute performer in the shared test, while the desktop workstation part retains its edge only in the theoretical throughput metrics. The FirePro’s Vulkan score of 22001 is its saving grace, nearly matching the R9 M290X’s OpenCL number, but without a shared Vulkan test, the database cannot credit it with a win.