AMD FirePro W7000 vs AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL Comparison

The AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL and the AMD FirePro W7000 represent two very different approaches to GPU design, separated by nearly six years of architectural evolution. The Vega M GL is a mobile-class integrated graphics processor built for the 14 nm process, while the FirePro W7000 is a professional workstation card on the older 28 nm node. Benchmark data shows the Vega M GL leads in both tested workloads, but the W7000 holds its own in ways that reflect its professional pedigree and longer track record in the field.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL wins decisively in raw compute performance, taking both head-to-head benchmark victories. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 19549 against the FirePro W7000’s 17808, a 9.8% advantage. In Geekbench Vulkan, the margin narrows to 3.4%, with scores of 22757 versus 22001. The Vega M GL’s wins come from its newer GCN 4.0 architecture and higher memory bandwidth, which give it an edge in modern API workloads and compute-heavy tasks.

The AMD FirePro W7000 does not win any of the head-to-head benchmarks, but its strengths lie elsewhere. It is a single-slot, PCIe 3.0 x16 card with four DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, making it a straightforward drop-in solution for professional multi-display setups. Its 150 W TDP is higher than the Vega M GL’s 65 W, but that power budget enables sustained performance in workstation environments where the card is not constrained by the thermal limits of a laptop chassis. The W7000 also has a longer history, launching in 2012, which means it has been validated in countless production environments over its lifecycle.

For users prioritizing raw compute and modern API support, the Vega M GL is the clear choice. For those needing a dedicated, single-slot workstation card with multiple display outputs, the FirePro W7000 remains a viable option despite its age.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is substantial. The Vega M GL uses the Polaris 22 chip built on GCN 4.0 architecture, manufactured on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It packs 5,000 million transistors into a 208 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 24.0M per mm². The FirePro W7000, by contrast, uses the Pitcairn chip with GCN 1.0 architecture, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It contains 2,800 million transistors on a slightly larger 212 mm² die, resulting in a density of just 13.2M per mm².

Memory subsystems differ fundamentally. The Vega M GL uses 4 GB of HBM2 with a 1024-bit bus, delivering 179.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The FirePro W7000 also has 4 GB, but it is GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, providing 153.6 GB/s. The Vega M GL’s HBM2 advantage is significant, offering nearly 17% more bandwidth, which directly benefits compute workloads and high-resolution textures.

Both GPUs have identical core counts: 1280 shading units, 80 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. However, clock speeds differ. The Vega M GL runs at a base of 931 MHz with a boost of 1011 MHz, while the FirePro W7000’s clocks are not listed in the data. The Vega M GL achieves a pixel rate of 32.35 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 80.88 GTexel/s, slightly ahead of the W7000’s 30.40 GPixel/s and 76.00 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 2.588 TFLOPS for the Vega M GL versus 2.432 TFLOPS for the W7000.

API support also diverges. The Vega M GL supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The FirePro W7000 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The newer Vulkan version and higher DirectX feature level give the Vega M GL a compatibility edge with modern applications.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench OpenCL test shows the Vega M GL at 19549, outperforming the FirePro W7000’s 17808 by 9.8%. This is a meaningful gap that reflects the Vega M GL’s higher FP32 throughput and memory bandwidth. In real-world terms, the Vega M GL would complete OpenCL workloads noticeably faster, particularly those that are memory-bound or rely on shader compute.

The Geekbench Vulkan test narrows the gap. The Vega M GL scores 22757, while the FirePro W7000 reaches 22001, a 3.4% difference. Vulkan’s lower overhead and more direct hardware access benefit both GPUs, but the Vega M GL still maintains its lead. The smaller delta suggests that the FirePro W7000’s GCN 1.0 architecture handles Vulkan’s explicit command submission model better than its older drivers and feature set might suggest.

Looking at the broader competitive landscape, the Vega M GL’s average benchmark score of 21153 places it in the 66th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon HD 8970M (21237, -0.4%), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5050 (21035, 0.6%), and the NVIDIA RTX A4000 Mobile (21379, -1.1%). The Vega M GL sits squarely in the middle of this pack, slightly behind the HD 8970M and RTX A4000 Mobile, but ahead of the RTX 5050 by 0.6%.

The FirePro W7000’s average score of 19905 places it in the 65th percentile, just one point below the Vega M GL. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Tesla K40m (19885, 0.1%), the AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT (19765, 0.7%), and the AMD FirePro D300 (19637, 1.4%). The W7000 leads all of these, with its largest margin being 1.4% over the FirePro D300.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance?

A: The AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL delivers 2.588 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, compared to the FirePro W7000’s 2.432 TFLOPS. This 6.4% advantage is reflected in the 9.8% OpenCL benchmark win.

Q: How does memory bandwidth compare between the two?

A: The Vega M GL uses HBM2 with a 1024-bit bus, achieving 179.2 GB/s. The FirePro W7000 uses GDDR5 with a 256-bit bus, achieving 153.6 GB/s. The Vega M GL offers approximately 17% more bandwidth.

Q: Are these GPUs still in production?

A: No. Both the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL and the AMD FirePro W7000 are listed as end-of-life products. The Vega M GL was released in 2018, while the FirePro W7000 launched in 2012.

Q: Which GPU has better API support for modern games?

A: The Vega M GL supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3, while the FirePro W7000 supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170. The Vega M GL has a higher DirectX feature level and a newer Vulkan version.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The Vega M GL has a 65 W TDP, making it suitable for integrated graphics in portable devices. The FirePro W7000 has a 150 W TDP and requires a 6-pin power connector, with a suggested 450 W power supply.

Q: Can the FirePro W7000 be used for multi-display setups?

A: Yes. The FirePro W7000 features four DisplayPort 1.2 outputs and is a single-slot card, making it well-suited for professional multi-monitor configurations. The Vega M GL’s display outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent," meaning they are tied to the host device.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL | AMD FirePro W7000 |

|----------------|-------------------------|-------------------|

| Architecture | GCN 4.0 | GCN 1.0 |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 28 nm |

| Foundry | GlobalFoundries | TSMC |

| Transistors | 5,000 million | 2,800 million |

| Die Size | 208 mm² | 212 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 24.0M / mm² | 13.2M / mm² |

| Memory Type | HBM2 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | 1024 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 179.2 GB/s | 153.6 GB/s |

| Base Clock | 931 MHz | Not specified |

| Boost Clock | 1011 MHz | Not specified |

| Memory Clock | 700 MHz (1400 Mbps effective) | 1200 MHz (4.8 Gbps effective) |

| Pixel Rate | 32.35 GPixel/s | 30.40 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 80.88 GTexel/s | 76.00 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Compute | 2.588 TFLOPS | 2.432 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Compute | 2.588 TFLOPS (1:1) | Not specified |

| TDP | 65 W | 150 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | Single-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | 1x 6-pin |

| Suggested PSU | None | 450 W |

| Bus Interface | IGP | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 4x DisplayPort 1.2 |

| DirectX Support | 12 (12_0) | 12 (11_1) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.3 | 1.2.170 |

| Release Date | 2018-01-31 | 2012-06-12 |

| Launch MSRP | Not specified | 899 USD |

| Length | Not specified | 242 mm (9.5 inches) |

| Height | Not specified | 111 mm (4.4 inches) |