AMD FirePro W7000 vs AMD Radeon R9 M390X Comparison

The AMD Radeon R9 M390X and AMD FirePro W7000 are both end-of-life mobile and workstation GPUs built on a 28 nm TSMC process, yet they serve distinctly different purposes. The R9 M390X is a mobile graphics solution from the Gem System (R9 M300) generation, while the FirePro W7000 is a professional workstation card from the FirePro GCN (Wx000) generation. Despite the R9 M390X having a higher average benchmark score, the FirePro W7000 wins the only shared head-to-head test, creating a nuanced comparison where architecture generation and workload-specific performance diverge significantly.

The Verdict

The data indicates that the AMD FirePro W7000 is the stronger choice for Vulkan-based workloads, as it outperforms the Radeon R9 M390X by 23% in the head-to-head Geekbench Vulkan test, scoring 22001 against 16951. This is a decisive margin that suggests the older GCN 1.0 architecture, despite having fewer shading units, delivers superior real-world performance in this specific API. For users prioritizing Vulkan compute or gaming performance, the FirePro W7000 is the clear winner based on benchmark results.

However, the Radeon R9 M390X holds a slight edge in overall average benchmark score, at 20662 compared to the FirePro W7000's 19905, a difference of roughly 3.8%. This places the R9 M390X in the 66th percentile of all GPUs, while the FirePro W7000 sits at the 65th percentile, making them statistically near-identical in general performance. The R9 M390X also shows a 0.4% lead over the Intel Arc A750 and a 0.5% lead over the Intel Arc B570, while the FirePro W7000 trails the NVIDIA Tesla K40m by just 0.1% and leads the AMD FirePro D300 by 1.4%.

The decision ultimately depends on workload. The FirePro W7000's Vulkan dominance makes it the pick for API-specific tasks, while the R9 M390X's marginally higher average score and better percentile ranking suggest it is the more balanced all-around performer. Neither card is a clear overall victor; the FirePro W7000 wins the only direct comparison, but the R9 M390X edges out on aggregate metrics. Professional users needing DisplayPort outputs and a desktop form factor would favor the FirePro W7000, while those seeking a mobile solution with higher transistor density would lean toward the R9 M390X.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is substantial, representing two distinct generations of Graphics Core Next. The Radeon R9 M390X uses the Amethyst chip built on GCN 3.0, while the FirePro W7000 employs the Pitcairn chip based on the original GCN 1.0 architecture. This generational leap explains several key differences in specifications and capabilities.

The R9 M390X integrates 5,000 million transistors on a 366 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 13.7M per mm². In contrast, the FirePro W7000 has 2,800 million transistors on a much smaller 212 mm² die, with a density of 13.2M per mm². The R9 M390X's larger die and newer architecture allow it to pack 2048 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs, whereas the FirePro W7000 is limited to 1280 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 32 ROPs.

The memory subsystems differ in clock speed but share the same bus width. The R9 M390X runs its 4 GB of GDDR5 memory at 1250 MHz, achieving 5 Gbps effective and 160.0 GB/s bandwidth. The FirePro W7000's 4 GB of GDDR5 runs at 1200 MHz, reaching 4.8 Gbps effective and 153.6 GB/s bandwidth. Both use a 256-bit memory bus, but the R9 M390X's higher memory clock provides a 4.2% bandwidth advantage.

DirectX support also reflects the architectural generational gap. The R9 M390X supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the FirePro W7000 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.170, but the R9 M390X's newer architecture enables full FP16 compute at 2.961 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio to FP32, whereas the FirePro W7000 has no listed FP16 capability. The FirePro W7000 does boast a higher pixel rate at 30.40 GPixel/s compared to the R9 M390X's 23.14 GPixel/s, despite having the same ROP count.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is the Geekbench Vulkan test, and the results are emphatic. The FirePro W7000 scores 22001, while the R9 M390X manages just 16951, giving the FirePro a 23% advantage. This is a significant margin that cannot be explained by the R9 M390X's newer architecture or higher average benchmark score. The delta of -23% for the R9 M390X indicates a substantial deficit in Vulkan performance.

This result is counterintuitive given the R9 M390X's superior specifications in several areas. The R9 M390X has 60% more shading units (2048 vs 1280), 60% more TMUs (128 vs 80), and 21.7% higher FP32 throughput (2.961 TFLOPS vs 2.432 TFLOPS). Yet the FirePro W7000, with its older GCN 1.0 architecture, delivers 23% better Vulkan performance. This suggests that the FirePro's driver optimization for professional workloads or its higher pixel rate of 30.40 GPixel/s may play a more significant role in Vulkan than raw shader count.

The FirePro W7000 also demonstrates strength in its OpenCL benchmark, scoring 17808, though no direct OpenCL comparison exists for the R9 M390X. The R9 M390X's available benchmarks include Geekbench Metal at 24373 and Geekbench Vulkan at 16951, but the Metal score has no FirePro counterpart. The average benchmark scores further contextualize the rivalry: the R9 M390X averages 20662, placing it within 0.2% of the AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT (20713) and 0.4% ahead of the Intel Arc A750 (20582). The FirePro W7000 averages 19905, which is 0.1% behind the NVIDIA Tesla K40m (19885) and 0.7% behind the AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT (19765).

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every major specification category, reflecting their different market positions and architectural generations.

Chip and Architecture: The R9 M390X uses the Amethyst chip with GCN 3.0 architecture, while the FirePro W7000 uses the Pitcairn chip with GCN 1.0. The R9 M390X belongs to the Gem System (R9 M300) generation, whereas the FirePro W7000 is from the FirePro GCN (Wx000) generation.

Transistors and Die Size: The R9 M390X packs 5,000 million transistors on a 366 mm² die (13.7M / mm² density), while the FirePro W7000 has 2,800 million transistors on a 212 mm² die (13.2M / mm² density).

Memory Clock: The R9 M390X runs memory at 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective), while the FirePro W7000 runs at 1200 MHz (4.8 Gbps effective). Both have 4 GB GDDR5 with a 256-bit bus.

Memory Bandwidth: The R9 M390X achieves 160.0 GB/s, compared to the FirePro W7000's 153.6 GB/s.

Shading Units and TMUs: The R9 M390X has 2048 shading units and 128 TMUs, versus 1280 shading units and 80 TMUs on the FirePro W7000. Both have 32 ROPs.

Pixel and Texture Rates: The R9 M390X delivers 23.14 GPixel/s and 92.54 GTexel/s, while the FirePro W7000 delivers 30.40 GPixel/s and 76.00 GTexel/s.

FP32 and FP16: The R9 M390X has 2.961 TFLOPS FP32 and 2.961 TFLOPS FP16 (1:1), while the FirePro W7000 has 2.432 TFLOPS FP32 and no listed FP16.

TDP and Power: The R9 M390X draws 75 W with no power connectors and uses an MXM Module slot. The FirePro W7000 draws 150 W, requires a 1x 6-pin power connector, has a suggested PSU of 450 W, and is a Single-slot card.

Dimensions and Display Outputs: The FirePro W7000 measures 242 mm (9.5 inches) in length and 111 mm (4.4 inches) in height, with 4x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs. The R9 M390X has no listed dimensions and its display outputs are portable device dependent.

DirectX Support: The R9 M390X supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the FirePro W7000 supports DirectX 12 (11_1).

Release Date and MSRP: The R9 M390X was released on 2015-05-04, while the FirePro W7000 was released on 2012-06-12. The FirePro W7000 has a launch MSRP of 899 USD; the R9 M390X has no listed MSRP.

Predecessor and Successor: The R9 M390X's predecessor is Solar System and its successor is Polaris Mobile. The FirePro W7000's predecessor is FirePro Terascale and its successor is Radeon Pro Polaris.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R9 M390X has a higher average benchmark score of 20662, compared to the AMD FirePro W7000's 19905. This places the R9 M390X in the 66th percentile of all GPUs, while the FirePro W7000 sits at the 65th percentile.

Q: How does the FirePro W7000 perform in Vulkan compared to the R9 M390X?

A: The FirePro W7000 wins the head-to-head Geekbench Vulkan test decisively, scoring 22001 against the R9 M390X's 16951, a 23% advantage for the FirePro W7000.

Q: What are the main architectural differences between the two GPUs?

A: The R9 M390X uses the Amethyst chip based on GCN 3.0 architecture, while the FirePro W7000 uses the Pitcairn chip based on GCN 1.0. The R9 M390X has 5,000 million transistors on a 366 mm² die, whereas the FirePro W7000 has 2,800 million transistors on a 212 mm² die.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units and what is the impact?

A: The R9 M390X has 2048 shading units compared to the FirePro W7000's 1280, a 60% advantage. However, this does not translate to Vulkan performance, as the FirePro W7000 still wins the Vulkan benchmark by 23%.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between the two cards?

A: The R9 M390X achieves 160.0 GB/s bandwidth with memory clocked at 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective), while the FirePro W7000 achieves 153.6 GB/s with memory at 1200 MHz (4.8 Gbps effective). Both use 4 GB GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus.

Q: How do the power requirements compare between the two GPUs?

A: The R9 M390X has a TDP of 75 W and requires no power connectors, using an MXM Module slot. The FirePro W7000 has a TDP of 150 W, requires a 1x 6-pin power connector, and has a suggested PSU of 450 W.