AMD FirePro W7000 vs NVIDIA Tesla M4 Comparison

The AMD FirePro W7000 and NVIDIA Tesla M4 are both end-of-life workstation accelerators, but they were designed for different eras and purposes. The FirePro W7000, released in mid-2012, is a display-oriented workstation card built on AMD’s GCN 1.0 architecture. The Tesla M4, arriving in late 2015, is a compute-only accelerator based on NVIDIA’s Maxwell 2.0 design, with no display outputs at all. The database records only a single shared benchmark test between them, Geekbench OpenCL, and the results show a narrow but decisive edge for the AMD part.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available in the database is the Geekbench OpenCL test. The AMD FirePro W7000 scores 17,808, while the NVIDIA Tesla M4 scores 16,932. That translates to a 5.2% advantage for the FirePro W7000. This is a modest lead, not a dramatic one. In the context of the database, a 5.2% difference is close enough that run-to-run variation on other workloads could easily flip the result, but for this specific test, the AMD card is the clear winner.

Looking at the broader benchmark context, the two cards occupy similar performance strata, but with different surrounding rivals. The FirePro W7000’s average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 19,905. This places it in the 65th percentile of all GPUs tracked. Its nearest rivals in the database include the NVIDIA Tesla K40m with an average score of 19,885, a difference of only 0.1%, and the AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT at 19,765, which is 0.7% slower. The FirePro D300 (19,637, 1.4% behind) and the NVIDIA Quadro K5200 (19,602, 1.5% behind) round out the immediate competition. The data shows the FirePro W7000 sits in a tight cluster where single percentage points separate it from several other cards.

The Tesla M4’s average score is 16,932, which is also its only recorded benchmark result. This lands it in the 60th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals paint a different picture. The AMD Radeon HD 7970M scores 17,019, which is 0.5% higher than the Tesla M4. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 690 scores 17,037, also 0.6% higher. On the other side, the NVIDIA T400 4 GB scores 16,792, which is 0.8% lower, and the AMD Radeon RX 7600 XT scores 17,083, a 0.9% gap. What this means is that the Tesla M4 is not an outlier in either direction; it sits right in the middle of a group of cards that include both older mobile GPUs and modern desktop models.

The critical takeaway from the head-to-head is that the 5.2% delta between the FirePro W7000 and Tesla M4 is larger than any single delta between the Tesla M4 and its own nearest rivals. The FirePro is not just ahead; it is ahead by a margin that separates it from the Tesla M4’s own competitive cluster. Meanwhile, the FirePro’s lead over its own rivals is much smaller, often under 1.5%, indicating that the FirePro is more tightly bunched with its peers than the Tesla M4 is with the FirePro.

It is also worth remembering the FirePro W7000 has a second benchmark result in the database: Geekbench Vulkan, where it scores 22,001. The Tesla M4 has no recorded Vulkan result. This matters because OpenCL is a compute-focused API, while Vulkan is more graphics and general-purpose oriented. The FirePro’s Vulkan score is substantially higher than its OpenCL score (22,001 vs. 17,808), suggesting that the card’s compute performance is not its only strength. The Tesla M4, with no display outputs and no Vulkan data, appears to be optimized for a narrower set of compute tasks.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the recorded data, the AMD FirePro W7000 is the better performer in the only shared benchmark. If the task is OpenCL compute, the FirePro beats the Tesla M4 by 5.2%. However, the two cards are not direct substitutes for most workloads. The FirePro W7000 has four DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, meaning it can drive multiple monitors. The Tesla M4 has no outputs at all, so it is intended for headless servers or compute nodes. The choice between them depends less on raw performance and more on what the card must physically do.

For someone building a workstation that needs both display output and compute acceleration, the FirePro W7000 is the only viable option among the two, simply because the Tesla M4 cannot drive a display. For a server rack where every watt counts, the Tesla M4 has a compelling advantage: its power draw is only 50 W, compared to the FirePro’s 150 W. The recommended power supply for the Tesla M4 is 250 W, while the FirePro suggests 450 W. That is a 200 W difference in system power requirements, which in a multi-GPU server environment would be significant.

The FirePro also has a higher frame rate capability in the compute test, but the Tesla has a higher pixel rate (34.30 GPixel/s vs. 30.40 GPixel/s) and a higher boost clock (1072 MHz vs. no recorded boost clock for the FirePro). The Tesla M4 is not a slouch; it is just positioned differently. The verdict is clear: for mixed-use workstations, pick the FirePro W7000. For low-power, headless compute deployments, the Tesla M4 is the logical choice, even though it loses the benchmark.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in OpenCL?

A: The AMD FirePro W7000 scores 17,808 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 5.2% higher than the NVIDIA Tesla M4’s 16,932.

Q: Does the NVIDIA Tesla M4 support multiple monitors?

A: No. The Tesla M4 has no display outputs at all. The FirePro W7000 has four DisplayPort 1.2 outputs.

Q: What is the difference in power consumption?

A: The Tesla M4 has a 50 W TDP and a 250 W suggested power supply. The FirePro W7000 has a 150 W TDP and a 450 W suggested power supply.

Q: Which card has more memory bandwidth?

A: The FirePro W7000 has 153.6 GB/s of bandwidth over a 256-bit bus. The Tesla M4 has 88.00 GB/s over a 128-bit bus.

Q: How does the Tesla M4 compare to its own nearest rivals?

A: The Tesla M4’s closest rival is the AMD Radeon HD 7970M, which is 0.5% faster. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 690 is 0.6% faster, while the NVIDIA T400 4 GB is 0.8% slower.

Q: Are there any other benchmark tests for the Tesla M4?

A: The database records only one benchmark for the Tesla M4: Geekbench OpenCL. The FirePro W7000 also has a Geekbench Vulkan result of 22,001.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every major specification, despite both using a 28 nm TSMC process. The FirePro W7000 has 1,280 shading units, 80 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The Tesla M4 has 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The memory bus widths are also different: 256-bit for the AMD, 128-bit for the NVIDIA. This leads to a significant bandwidth gap: 153.6 GB/s versus 88.0 GB/s.

The clock speeds tell a different story. The Tesla M4 has a base clock of 872 MHz and a boost clock of 1,072 MHz. The FirePro W7000 has no recorded base or boost clock in the database, only a memory clock of 1200 MHz (4.8 Gbps effective). The Tesla M4’s memory clock is higher at 1375 MHz (5.5 Gbps effective), but the narrower bus limits its total bandwidth. The pixel rates are close: the FirePro is 30.40 GPixel/s, and the Tesla M4 is 34.30 GPixel/s. The texture rates are 76.00 GTexel/s for the FirePro and 68.61 GTexel/s for the Tesla M4.

The FP32 compute throughput is 2.432 TFLOPS for the FirePro and 2.195 TFLOPS for the Tesla M4. Neither card has recorded FP16, RT core, or tensor core data. The FirePro has one 6-pin power connector, while the Tesla M4 has no power connectors listed. The FirePro has a 242 mm length and 111 mm height, while the Tesla M4 has no dimensions recorded. The bus interface is the same for both: PCIe 3.0 x16.

Architecture Differences

The FirePro W7000 is built on AMD’s Graphics Core Next 1.0 architecture, using the Pitcairn chip. It is part of the FirePro GCN (Wx000) generation. The Tesla M4 uses NVIDIA’s Maxwell 2.0 architecture, based on the GM206 chip, and belongs to the Tesla Maxwell (Mxx) generation. Both chips are manufactured by TSMC on a 28 nm process, but the transistor counts differ: the FirePro has 2,800 million transistors on a 212 mm² die, while the Tesla M4 has 2,940 million transistors on a 228 mm² die. The transistor density is slightly higher on the FirePro at 13.2 million per mm² versus 12.9 million per mm².

The API support also diverges. The FirePro supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The Tesla M4 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The higher DirectX feature level and Vulkan version on the Tesla M4 suggest a more modern software stack, even though the hardware is from a similar era. The Tesla M4’s memory clock is higher, and its boost behavior is explicitly defined, but the FirePro’s wider memory bus compensates.

The most significant architectural difference is the physical output. The FirePro W7000 has four DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, making it a full workstation card. The Tesla M4 has no outputs, meaning it is a compute-only accelerator. This is not a minor detail; it determines the entire use case. The Tesla M4 also has no power connectors, relying entirely on the PCIe slot, while the FirePro needs a 6-pin connector.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD FirePro W7000 wins on raw compute performance in the recorded OpenCL test, beating the Tesla M4 by 5.2%. It also has a higher FP32 throughput (2.432 vs. 2.195 TFLOPS), higher texture rate (76.00 vs. 68.61 GTexel/s), and more than 70% higher memory bandwidth (153.6 vs. 88.0 GB/s). It supports four display outputs, so any workstation that needs to drive multiple monitors will benefit from the FirePro. The FirePro also has a larger shading unit count (1,280 vs. 1,024), which explains its compute edge. Its average benchmark score of 19,905 places it in the 65th percentile, meaning it outruns a majority of GPUs in the database.

The NVIDIA Tesla M4 wins in power efficiency. Its 50 W TDP is one-third of the FirePro’s 150 W, and it requires no external power connectors. The suggested power supply is 250 W versus 450 W. For a server rack filled with cards, that difference in cooling and power delivery is enormous. The Tesla M4 also has a higher boost clock (1,072 MHz vs. no recorded boost for the FirePro) and a higher pixel rate (34.30 vs. 30.40 GPixel/s), so it may be better suited to certain rasterization-heavy compute tasks. Its Vulkan support is newer (1.4 vs. 1.2.170), and its DirectX 12 feature level is 12_1, one step above the FirePro’s 11_1.

In terms of placement, the FirePro occupies a higher percentile (65th vs. 60th) and has a higher average benchmark score. The Tesla M4’s own rival cluster includes a mobile GPU (HD 7970M) and a dual-GPU desktop card (GTX 690), indicating that its performance is comparable to those. The FirePro, by contrast, is clustered older high-end workstation cards like the Tesla K40m and Quadro K5200, and newer desktop cards like the RX 6650 XT. The data suggests the FirePro W7000 is a more versatile card, capable of handling a wider variety of workloads, while the Tesla M4 is a specialized low-power compute unit that trades performance and outputs for efficiency.