AMD FirePro W7100 vs AMD FirePro W8000 Comparison

AMD FirePro W8000 and AMD FirePro W7100 are both professional workstation cards from AMD’s GCN era, but they represent different generations and design philosophies. The database shows a clear performance hierarchy, yet the W7100 counters with significant architectural and efficiency advantages. This analysis compares their recorded benchmark scores, technical architectures, and specifications to determine which card fits specific workstation tasks.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data includes two benchmark suites: Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. Across both tests, the AMD FirePro W8000 emerges victorious, winning 2 out of 2 comparisons with a combined delta of 24.5 percentage points.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the W8000 scores 24,440 points, narrowly edging out the W7100’s 24,182 points. The margin is just 1.1%, which is well within the noise of typical benchmark variance. This near-tie suggests that raw compute throughput for general-purpose GPU workloads is virtually identical between the two cards. The W8000’s 3.226 TFLOPS FP32 rating and the W7100’s 3.297 TFLOPS FP32 rating align with this observation, with the W7100 theoretically holding a slight 2.2% advantage in raw FP32 performance that the OpenCL test does not fully reflect.

The Geekbench Vulkan result tells a different story. Here, the W8000 scores 33,981 points, a massive 23.4% higher than the W7100’s 27,529 points. This is a substantial gap that cannot be explained by peak compute alone. Vulkan is a low-level graphics API that stresses driver efficiency and hardware scheduling. The W8000’s GCN 1.0 architecture, despite being older, appears to execute Vulkan workloads with significantly greater effectiveness. This delta indicates that for modern graphics-heavy applications, the W8000 is the clear choice.

Looking at the average benchmark score, the W8000 posts 29,211 points, placing it in the 75th percentile of all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH (29,197 points, 0% delta), Intel Arc A370M (29,175 points, 0.1% delta), AMD Radeon RX 470 (28,996 points, 0.7% delta), and AMD Radeon RX 6800M (28,874 points, 1.2% delta). The W7100’s average score is 25,856 points, sitting in the 71st percentile. Its nearest rivals are the AMD FirePro D700 (25,842 points, 0.1% delta), AMD Radeon R9 M395X (25,891 points, -0.1% delta), NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Mobile (25,740 points, 0.5% delta), and AMD Radeon Pro W5700 (25,726 points, 0.5% delta). The W8000 holds a 13.0% average score advantage over the W7100, a figure that largely stems from the Vulkan discrepancy.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD FirePro W8000, with an average score of 29,211 points, compared to the W7100’s 25,856 points. This represents a 13.0% lead for the W8000.

Q: How do the two cards compare in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The W8000 scores 24,440 points, while the W7100 scores 24,182 points. The W8000 wins by 1.1%, a margin that indicates near-parity in OpenCL compute workloads.

Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two cards?

A: The largest gap is in Geekbench Vulkan, where the W8000 scores 33,981 points versus the W7100’s 27,529 points, giving the W8000 a 23.4% advantage.

Q: Does the W7100 have any performance advantage over the W8000?

A: In the recorded benchmarks, the W7100 does not win any test. However, its FP32 rating of 3.297 TFLOPS is slightly higher than the W8000’s 3.226 TFLOPS, though this does not translate to a benchmark win.

Q: How do their percentile rankings compare?

A: The W8000 is in the 75th percentile of all GPUs, while the W7100 is in the 71st percentile. This confirms the W8000’s higher overall standing in the database.

Q: What do the nearest rival deltas indicate?

A: The W8000’s nearest rival, the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH, is only 0% away in average score, showing the W8000 sits at the top of a tight cluster. The W7100’s nearest rival, the AMD Radeon R9 M395X, is -0.1% away, meaning that card scores slightly higher.

Architecture Differences

The two cards are built on different GCN generations, which fundamentally shapes their behavior. The W8000 uses the Tahiti chip, based on GCN 1.0 architecture. The W7100 uses the Tonga chip, based on GCN 3.0 architecture. Both are manufactured on TSMC’s 28 nm process, but the transistor counts differ: the W8000 has 4,313 million transistors on a 352 mm² die, while the W7100 packs 5,000 million transistors on a 366 mm² die. This gives the W7100 a higher transistor density of 13.7M per mm², compared to the W8000’s 12.3M per mm².

The architectural generation gap explains the Vulkan performance disparity. GCN 3.0 includes refinements to the command processor and memory controller, but the database suggests GCN 1.0’s simpler design is better optimized for Vulkan’s explicit multi-threading model. The W7100’s newer architecture does bring support for DirectX 12 (12_0), while the W8000 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_1). Both cards support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.170.

Another notable difference is FP16 support. The W7100 lists FP16 performance at 3.297 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio with FP32), while the W8000 has no recorded FP16 capability. This makes the W7100 potentially more suitable for workloads that leverage half-precision arithmetic, such as certain machine learning inference tasks or image processing pipelines.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets reveal several distinct differences beyond the architecture. Memory capacity is a major differentiator: the W8000 comes with 4 GB of GDDR5, while the W7100 doubles that to 8 GB. Both use a 256-bit memory bus, but the W8000’s memory runs at 1375 MHz (5.5 Gbps effective), yielding 176.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The W7100’s memory runs at 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective), producing 160.0 GB/s. Despite the larger capacity, the W7100 sacrifices 9.1% of bandwidth compared to the W8000.

Power consumption is another clear split. The W8000 has a TDP of 225 W, requires a dual-slot cooler, and needs two 6-pin power connectors with a suggested 550 W PSU. The W7100 is far more efficient, with a TDP of 150 W, a single-slot design, one 6-pin connector, and a suggested 450 W PSU. This 33.3% reduction in TDP makes the W7100 significantly easier to integrate into dense workstation builds.

Physical dimensions also differ. The W8000 measures 279 mm (11 inches) in length, while the W7100 is shorter at 241 mm (9.5 inches). Both share the same 111 mm (4.4 inches) height. Display outputs are similar, with both offering 4x DisplayPort 1.2, but the W8000 adds a 1x SDI output, which is absent on the W7100. Both cards use PCIe 3.0 x16 and share the same 1792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 32 ROPs.

Pixel and texture rates are nearly identical: the W8000 posts 28.80 GPixel/s and 100.8 GTexel/s, while the W7100 posts 29.44 GPixel/s and 103.0 GTexel/s, giving the W7100 a 2.2% edge in both metrics. Release dates also differ, with the W8000 launching on 2012-06-13 and the W7100 on 2014-08-11.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split based on workload priorities. For pure benchmark performance, the AMD FirePro W8000 is the superior card. It wins both recorded tests, with a particularly dominant 23.4% lead in Vulkan. Its average score of 29,211 points places it in the 75th percentile, 4 percentile points higher than the W7100. If the primary concern is maximum graphics throughput, especially in modern API environments, the W8000 is the definitive pick.

However, the W7100 offers compelling counterpoints. Its 8 GB of VRAM is double the W8000’s 4 GB, which is crucial for large datasets, high-resolution textures, or multi-app workflows. Its 150 W TDP and single-slot design make it far easier to cool and power, especially in chassis with limited space or power delivery. The W7100 also supports FP16 at full rate, a feature the W8000 lacks entirely.

The architectural differences suggest the W7100 is a more modern, refined product, but the benchmark data shows the W8000’s older GCN 1.0 design executes Vulkan far better. The W8000 also holds a higher percentile ranking, indicating better overall performance relative to the entire GPU landscape.

Where Each One Wins

AMD FirePro W8000 wins in: Geekbench OpenCL (24,440 vs 24,182, a 1.1% lead), Geekbench Vulkan (33,981 vs 27,529, a 23.4% lead), average benchmark score (29,211 vs 25,856, a 13.0% lead), memory bandwidth (176.0 GB/s vs 160.0 GB/s), percentile ranking (75th vs 71st), and the presence of an SDI display output.

AMD FirePro W7100 wins in: memory capacity (8 GB vs 4 GB), power efficiency (150 W TDP vs 225 W TDP), physical footprint (single-slot vs dual-slot, shorter length), FP16 compute support (3.297 TFLOPS vs none), pixel rate (29.44 GPixel/s vs 28.80 GPixel/s), texture rate (103.0 GTexel/s vs 100.8 GTexel/s), and transistor density (13.7M vs 12.3M per mm²).

The choice hinges on whether the user prioritizes raw benchmark victories or practical workstation attributes. The W8000 is the performance champion in the database, while the W7100 is the efficiency and capacity specialist.