AMD FirePro W7000 vs AMD Radeon RX 560X Comparison

The AMD FirePro W7000 and the AMD Radeon RX 560X represent two distinct philosophies from the same manufacturer, separated by nearly six years of architectural evolution. The data shows a professional workstation card from 2012 going head-to-head with a consumer mobile-derived part from 2018, and the results are surprisingly close in raw compute benchmarks, yet the underlying designs could not be more different.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark results are unambiguous: the FirePro W7000 wins both recorded tests, but the margins reveal a nuanced story. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the FirePro W7000 scores 17,808 against the RX 560X's 17,020, a lead of 4.6%. This is a modest advantage for the older card, suggesting that its broader 256-bit memory interface and higher pixel throughput compensate for its older GCN 1.0 architecture.

The gap widens significantly in the Geekbench Vulkan test. Here, the FirePro W7000 posts 22,001 points, while the RX 560X manages 20,231, giving the workstation card an 8.7% advantage. This is particularly interesting because the RX 560X is built on GCN 4.0, which natively supports newer API features. The data implies that the FirePro's raw shading power—1,280 shading units versus 1,024—plays a decisive role in this workload, outweighing any architectural refinements in the newer part.

Looking at the average benchmark scores, the FirePro W7000 sits at 19,905, which places it in the 65th percentile of all GPUs. The RX 560X, averaging 18,626, lands in the 62nd percentile. The FirePro's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Tesla K40m (19,885, a 0.1% delta) and the AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT (19,765, a 0.7% delta), showing that this 2012 card still trades blows with much newer hardware. The RX 560X, by contrast, sits near the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 (18,789, a -0.9% delta) and the AMD Radeon Pro 5700 XT (18,685, a -0.3% delta), indicating it is competitive with mid-range parts from a later era.

The delta percentages tell a story of diminishing returns. The FirePro W7000's 4.6% OpenCL win and 8.7% Vulkan win are consistent, but not overwhelming. In neither test does the RX 560X manage to close the gap, despite its newer architecture and higher FP32 throughput of 2.611 TFLOPS versus the FirePro's 2.432 TFLOPS. The data suggests that raw FP32 compute is not the sole determinant of these benchmark outcomes; memory bandwidth and ROP throughput are likely significant factors.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gulf between these two cards is vast. The FirePro W7000 uses the Pitcairn chip, built on GCN 1.0, fabricated on TSMC's 28 nm process. It packs 2,800 million transistors into a 212 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 13.2 million per square millimeter. The RX 560X, in contrast, employs the Polaris 21 chip on GCN 4.0, made by GlobalFoundries on a 14 nm process. It crams 3,000 million transistors into just 123 mm², achieving a density of 24.4 million per square millimeter—nearly double the FirePro's density.

The core configurations differ accordingly. The FirePro W7000 fields 1,280 shading units, 80 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The RX 560X counters with fewer of each: 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and only 16 ROPs. This halving of ROPs is a critical difference, explaining why the FirePro's pixel rate of 30.40 GPixel/s dwarfs the RX 560X's 20.40 GPixel/s. However, the RX 560X's texture rate of 81.60 GTexel/s actually exceeds the FirePro's 76.00 GTexel/s, thanks to its higher clock speeds.

Memory subsystems diverge significantly. Both cards use 4 GB of GDDR5, but the FirePro W7000 runs a 256-bit bus at 1200 MHz (4.8 Gbps effective), delivering 153.6 GB/s of bandwidth. The RX 560X uses a narrower 128-bit bus at 1750 MHz (7 Gbps effective), yielding just 112.0 GB/s. This 41.6 GB/s bandwidth deficit is a substantial handicap for the newer card, particularly in memory-intensive workloads. The FirePro also has base and boost clocks that are not specified in the data, while the RX 560X runs at 1175 MHz base and 1275 MHz boost.

The feature sets reflect their respective eras. The FirePro W7000 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The RX 560X supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The newer card also offers FP16 compute at a 1:1 ratio (2.611 TFLOPS), a feature the FirePro lacks entirely. Power requirements are starkly different: the FirePro draws 150 W TDP with a 1x 6-pin connector and a 450 W suggested PSU, while the RX 560X sips 75 W with no external power connector and a 250 W suggested PSU.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher raw compute throughput?

A: The RX 560X leads in FP32 with 2.611 TFLOPS versus the FirePro W7000's 2.432 TFLOPS. However, the FirePro wins both benchmark tests, indicating that compute throughput alone does not determine real-world performance.

Q: Why does the older FirePro W7000 win in Vulkan by a larger margin than OpenCL?

A: The FirePro's 8.7% Vulkan lead versus its 4.6% OpenCL lead suggests that its 256-bit memory bus (153.6 GB/s) and 32 ROPs provide an advantage in workloads that stress memory bandwidth and pixel output, which Vulkan tests may exercise more heavily.

Q: How do the transistor densities compare?

A: The RX 560X achieves 24.4 million transistors per mm² on a 14 nm GlobalFoundries process, while the FirePro W7000 manages 13.2 million per mm² on a 28 nm TSMC process. The newer card is significantly more efficient in transistor packing.

Q: What are the power consumption implications?

A: The FirePro W7000 has a 150 W TDP and requires a 450 W PSU, while the RX 560X has a 75 W TDP and a 250 W PSU suggestion. The RX 560X is far more power-efficient, drawing half the power of the FirePro.

Q: Which card has better API support?

A: The RX 560X supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3, while the FirePro W7000 supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170. The RX 560X also supports FP16 at 1:1 ratio, which the FirePro does not offer.

Q: How do the benchmark scores position each card against modern rivals?

A: The FirePro W7000's average score of 19,905 is 0.1% ahead of the NVIDIA Tesla K40m and 0.7% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT. The RX 560X's average of 18,626 is 0.3% behind the AMD Radeon Pro 5700 XT and 0.9% behind the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070.

Specification Differences

The specifications where the two cards differ are extensive. The process node varies from 28 nm (TSMC) to 14 nm (GlobalFoundries). Transistor counts differ: 2,800 million versus 3,000 million. Die size shrinks from 212 mm² to 123 mm². Transistor density increases from 13.2M/mm² to 24.4M/mm². Clock speeds: the FirePro has no listed base or boost, while the RX 560X has 1175 MHz base and 1275 MHz boost. Memory clock differs: 1200 MHz (4.8 Gbps) versus 1750 MHz (7 Gbps). Bus width drops from 256-bit to 128-bit. Bandwidth decreases from 153.6 GB/s to 112.0 GB/s. Shading units drop from 1,280 to 1,024. TMUs drop from 80 to 64. ROPs drop from 32 to 16. Pixel rate drops from 30.40 GPixel/s to 20.40 GPixel/s. Texture rate increases from 76.00 GTexel/s to 81.60 GTexel/s. FP32 increases from 2.432 TFLOPS to 2.611 TFLOPS. TDP drops from 150 W to 75 W. Slot width changes from single-slot to dual-slot. Power connectors go from 1x 6-pin to none. Suggested PSU drops from 450 W to 250 W. Bus interface changes from PCIe 3.0 x16 to PCIe 3.0 x8. Display outputs change from 4x DisplayPort 1.2 to 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0b, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a. DirectX support varies from 12 (11_1) to 12 (12_0). Vulkan version varies from 1.2.170 to 1.3. Dimensions differ: 242 mm length for the FirePro versus 170 mm for the RX 560X. Release dates differ: 2012-06-12 versus 2018-04-10.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear but counterintuitive picture. The FirePro W7000 wins both benchmarks outright, with a 4.6% OpenCL lead and an 8.7% Vulkan lead over the RX 560X. Its average benchmark score of 19,905 places it in the 65th percentile of all GPUs, three points higher than the RX 560X's 62nd percentile. The FirePro's 256-bit memory bus and 32 ROPs are the most likely explanations for its benchmark superiority, despite the RX 560X's higher FP32 throughput and newer architecture. However, this performance comes at a cost: the FirePro draws 150 W versus 75 W, requires an external power connector, and uses a much larger die. The RX 560X, with its 14 nm process and 24.4M/mm² density, represents a massive efficiency improvement. The FirePro was launched with an 899 USD MSRP, a figure that underscores its workstation positioning. The RX 560X, with no listed launch MSRP, was clearly aimed at a different segment entirely.

Where Each One Wins

The FirePro W7000 wins in scenarios that demand memory bandwidth and pixel throughput. Its 153.6 GB/s bandwidth and 30.40 GPixel/s pixel rate are 37% and 49% higher than the RX 560X's respective figures. This makes it better suited for compute workloads that are memory-bound or require heavy rasterization, such as certain OpenCL and Vulkan tasks. Its 4x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs also support multi-display professional setups, a feature the RX 560X cannot match with its single DVI, HDMI 2.0b, and DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The FirePro's 0.1% delta to the Tesla K40m and 1.5% delta to the Quadro K5200 place it squarely in professional workstation territory.

The RX 560X wins in efficiency and modern feature support. Its 75 W TDP means it can run without any power connector, making it ideal for compact systems with limited PSU capacity. Its 1:1 FP16 ratio and Vulkan 1.3 support provide access to newer compute and graphics APIs. Its higher texture rate of 81.60 GTexel/s gives it an edge in texture-heavy workloads. The RX 560X also has a smaller physical footprint at 170 mm in length, compared to the FirePro's 242 mm. Its 14 nm process delivers 24.4M/mm² transistor density, representing a massive efficiency leap over the FirePro's 13.2M/mm². For users prioritizing power efficiency, modern API support, and compact size, the RX 560X is the clear choice. For those needing maximum raw benchmark performance and professional display capabilities, the FirePro W7000 remains the data-driven winner.