AMD FirePro W7000 vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile Comparison

The GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile and the AMD FirePro W7000 occupy very different corners of the GPU landscape, separated by nearly a decade of architectural progress and designed for distinct workloads. The data is unambiguous: the RTX 3070 Mobile wins every head-to-head benchmark by a massive margin, posting an average benchmark score of 20,534 against the FirePro W7000’s 19,905, yet both cards sit at the 65th percentile among all GPUs, reflecting their different competitive positioning. Where the FirePro W7000 retains relevance is in its professional workstation heritage, single-slot form factor, and legacy API support, while the RTX 3070 Mobile dominates raw compute, modern graphics APIs, and memory bandwidth.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX 3070 Mobile wins decisively in every compute and graphics workload recorded in the benchmark data. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 92,939 versus 17,808 for the FirePro W7000, a 421.9% advantage that underscores its 15.97 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput against the FirePro’s 2.432 TFLOPS. The Vulkan gap is nearly as stark: 86,768 versus 22,001, a 294.4% lead, driven by the RTX 3070 Mobile’s support for DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while the FirePro W7000 tops out at DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170. For any workload relying on modern APIs, ray tracing, or tensor operations, the RTX 3070 Mobile is the only viable choice of the two.

The FirePro W7000’s wins are not found in raw speed but in form factor and professional features. It is a single-slot, 242 mm long card with four DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, designed for multi-display workstation environments. Its 150 W TDP is higher than the RTX 3070 Mobile’s 115 W, but it uses a single 6-pin power connector and requires a 450 W power supply, making it easier to slot into existing professional desktops. The FirePro W7000 also supports OpenGL 4.6, matching the RTX 3070 Mobile, and its GCN 1.0 architecture offers legacy compatibility with older professional software stacks, a niche advantage for systems that cannot migrate to newer drivers or APIs.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw FP32 compute performance?

A: The RTX 3070 Mobile delivers 15.97 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, which is 6.6 times higher than the FirePro W7000’s 2.432 TFLOPS. This difference is reflected in the 421.9% Geekbench OpenCL lead.

Q: Do both cards support the same DirectX version?

A: No. The RTX 3070 Mobile supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the FirePro W7000 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_1). This means the RTX 3070 Mobile can run newer games and applications that require DX12_2 features.

Q: How do their memory subsystems compare?

A: The RTX 3070 Mobile has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, yielding 448.0 GB/s bandwidth. The FirePro W7000 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on the same 256-bit bus, yielding only 153.6 GB/s. The RTX 3070 Mobile offers nearly three times the bandwidth.

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

A: The RTX 3070 Mobile averages 20,534 across all recorded benchmarks, while the FirePro W7000 averages 19,905. Despite this, both cards rank at the 65th percentile among all GPUs, indicating they are in the same overall performance tier when all GPUs are considered.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The RTX 3070 Mobile has 5,120 shading units, compared to 1,280 on the FirePro W7000. The RTX 3070 Mobile also has 160 texture mapping units and 80 ROPs, versus 80 TMUs and 32 ROPs on the FirePro.

Q: Can the FirePro W7000 handle ray tracing?

A: No. The FirePro W7000 has no ray tracing cores or tensor cores. The RTX 3070 Mobile includes 40 RT cores and 160 tensor cores, enabling hardware-accelerated ray tracing and AI workloads.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Only two direct benchmark comparisons exist in the data, and the RTX 3070 Mobile wins both by overwhelming margins. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RTX 3070 Mobile scores 92,939 against the FirePro W7000’s 17,808, a delta of 421.9%. This result aligns with the FP32 compute gap: 15.97 TFLOPS versus 2.432 TFLOPS, a 6.6x difference. The OpenCL test stresses raw compute throughput across shading units, and the RTX 3070 Mobile’s 5,120 shading units simply outmuscle the FirePro’s 1,280.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the RTX 3070 Mobile scores 86,768 versus 22,001, a 294.4% delta. Vulkan performance depends on driver efficiency, API feature support, and memory bandwidth. The RTX 3070 Mobile’s 448.0 GB/s bandwidth versus 153.6 GB/s, combined with Vulkan 1.4 support versus 1.2.170, explains the large gap. The RTX 3070 Mobile also benefits from its PCIe 4.0 x16 interface, while the FirePro W7000 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, which can bottleneck data transfer in certain workloads.

These two benchmarks alone cover compute and graphics API performance, but the RTX 3070 Mobile’s additional benchmark scores—such as PassMark G3D at 15,309 and PassMark GPU Compute at 6,827—further cement its superiority, though the FirePro W7000 has no comparable scores for those tests. The FirePro W7000’s only recorded benchmarks are the Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan tests, where it finishes far behind.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every measurable specification. The RTX 3070 Mobile uses 8 GB of GDDR6 memory, while the FirePro W7000 uses 4 GB of GDDR5. Both have a 256-bit bus, but the RTX 3070 Mobile’s memory runs at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) delivering 448.0 GB/s, versus 1200 MHz (4.8 Gbps effective) delivering 153.6 GB/s. The RTX 3070 Mobile has 5,120 shading units, 160 TMUs, and 80 ROPs; the FirePro W7000 has 1,280 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The RTX 3070 Mobile includes 40 RT cores and 160 tensor cores, which the FirePro entirely lacks.

Power and physical design also diverge. The RTX 3070 Mobile is rated at 115 W TDP with no power connectors (portable device dependent), while the FirePro W7000 is a 150 W single-slot card requiring a 1x 6-pin connector and a 450 W suggested PSU. The FirePro W7000 measures 242 mm in length and 111 mm in height, while the RTX 3070 Mobile has no published dimensions because it is a mobile part. The bus interface differs: PCIe 4.0 x16 for the RTX 3070 Mobile versus PCIe 3.0 x16 for the FirePro. Display outputs also differ—the RTX 3070 Mobile is portable device dependent, while the FirePro offers 4x DisplayPort 1.2.

Architecture Differences

The RTX 3070 Mobile is built on NVIDIA’s Ampere architecture using the GA104 chip, fabricated on an 8 nm process at Samsung. It contains 17,400 million transistors on a 392 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 44.4M per mm². Ampere brings support for DirectX 12 Ultimate, hardware ray tracing via 40 RT cores, and AI acceleration via 160 tensor cores. The FP16 performance matches FP32 at 15.97 TFLOPS (1:1), a key feature for machine learning workloads.

The FirePro W7000 is based on AMD’s GCN 1.0 architecture using the Pitcairn chip, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It contains 2,800 million transistors on a 212 mm² die, with a density of 13.2M per mm². GCN 1.0 lacks ray tracing and tensor cores entirely. FP16 performance is not listed, indicating it is either not supported or significantly reduced. The FirePro W7000 supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170, but not the newer feature sets of the Ampere architecture.

The transistor count difference is stark: 17,400 million versus 2,800 million, a 6.2x gap that reflects the process node advantage (8 nm versus 28 nm) and architectural complexity. The RTX 3070 Mobile’s 40 RT cores and 160 tensor cores are entirely absent from the FirePro W7000, which relies on pure shading throughput for its 2.432 TFLOPS FP32 performance. The FirePro W7000’s GCN architecture was designed for compute-heavy professional workloads in its era, but it cannot match the modern feature set of Ampere.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear conclusion: the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile is the superior GPU by every measurable metric. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks, delivers 15.97 TFLOPS of FP32 compute versus 2.432 TFLOPS, offers 448.0 GB/s bandwidth versus 153.6 GB/s, and supports modern APIs like DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4. Its 8 GB of GDDR6 memory doubles the FirePro W7000’s 4 GB of GDDR5. For any gaming, content creation, or compute workload that leverages modern APIs, ray tracing, or tensor operations, the RTX 3070 Mobile is the obvious pick.

The AMD FirePro W7000 retains a narrow niche for legacy professional systems. Its single-slot design, 4x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, and OpenGL 4.6 support make it suitable for multi-display workstations running older software that does not require DX12_2 or Vulkan 1.4. Its 150 W TDP and 450 W suggested PSU are modest, and its 242 mm length fits standard desktop cases. However, its 2.432 TFLOPS FP32 performance and 153.6 GB/s bandwidth are severely outdated, and its 28 nm process node means higher power consumption per unit of performance.

Both cards sit at the 65th percentile among all GPUs, but this is misleading. The RTX 3070 Mobile achieves that percentile against a much larger field of modern GPUs, while the FirePro W7000’s percentile reflects its position among all historical GPUs. The RTX 3070 Mobile’s nearest rivals include the Intel Arc B570 (average score 20,556, delta -0.1%) and the Intel Arc A750 (20,582, delta -0.2%), placing it in the mid-range of modern desktop graphics. The FirePro W7000’s nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Tesla K40m (19,885, delta 0.1%) and the AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT (19,765, delta 0.7%), showing it is competitive with older or lower-tier modern parts.

For users choosing between these two, the decision hinges on context. If the requirement is a modern, mobile GPU with ray tracing, tensor cores, and high memory bandwidth, the RTX 3070 Mobile wins without contest. If the requirement is a legacy workstation card with a single-slot form factor and specific professional display outputs, the FirePro W7000 remains functional, but its performance ceiling is drastically lower. The benchmark data shows no scenario where the FirePro W7000 outperforms the RTX 3070 Mobile, so the verdict is straightforward: the RTX 3070 Mobile is the superior choice for any workload represented in the data.