AMD FirePro W7100 vs AMD Radeon 860M Comparison

The AMD Radeon 860M and the AMD FirePro W7100 represent two distinct eras of graphics hardware, and the benchmark data reflects a split decision. The Radeon 860M, a modern integrated processor from the Krackan Point chip, wins the Vulkan test decisively, while the FirePro W7100, a dedicated professional workstation card based on the older Tonga chip, takes the OpenCL test. Their average benchmark scores are close, with the 860M at 26401 and the W7100 at 25856, placing them at the 72nd and 71st percentiles of all GPUs, respectively. The data indicates a near-tie in overall compute capability, but with significant differences in architecture, power, and API support that define their respective strengths.

Where Each One Wins

The Radeon 860M is the clear winner in the Vulkan API, scoring 30043 against the FirePro W7100’s 27529. This is a 9.1% advantage, and it signals that the newer RDNA 3.5 architecture has substantially better support for modern, low-level graphics APIs. Vulkan is heavily used in contemporary game engines and compute workloads, so the 860M’s edge here makes it the more future-proof choice for software that leverages this API. Its high boost clock of 3000 MHz and support for DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) further reinforce its suitability for current-generation gaming and graphics applications.

Conversely, the FirePro W7100 wins the Geekbench OpenCL test, scoring 24182 versus the 860M’s 22759, a 5.9% margin. OpenCL is a common API for professional compute tasks, and this result shows that the older card still holds its own in this specific domain. The W7100’s victory is likely attributable to its dedicated memory subsystem, featuring 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 160.0 GB/s of bandwidth, which is a massive advantage over the 860M’s system-shared memory. For workloads that are memory-bandwidth bound, the W7100’s dedicated VRAM provides a tangible performance benefit. The W7100 also has more raw shading units (1792 versus 512) and a higher texture rate (103.0 GTexel/s versus 96.00 GTexel/s), which contributes to its lead in this benchmark.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is vast. The Radeon 860M is built on TSMC’s 4 nm process node and uses the RDNA 3.5 architecture, part of the Navi III IGP generation for Strix Point Mobile. In contrast, the FirePro W7100 is a 28 nm chip using the much older GCN 3.0 architecture from the FirePro GCN generation. This generational leap is reflected in the transistor density: the W7100’s 366 mm² die houses 5,000 million transistors for a density of 13.7M per mm², while the 860M’s die size and transistor count are listed as unknown, but its 4 nm process implies a far higher density.

The memory configurations are fundamentally different. The 860M uses system-shared memory, with its bandwidth described as "System Dependent," meaning performance varies with the host system’s RAM. The W7100 has a fixed 8 GB of GDDR5 with a 256-bit bus and a dedicated 160.0 GB/s of bandwidth. This is a critical distinction: the W7100 offers predictable, high-bandwidth memory performance, while the 860M’s performance is contingent on the rest of the system. The 860M does have modern features like 8 RT cores for ray tracing, which the W7100 completely lacks, and it supports Vulkan 1.4, whereas the W7100 is limited to Vulkan 1.2.170. The 860M also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the W7100 is limited to DirectX 12 (12_0). Power consumption is another major divider, with the 860M rated at a 15 W TDP as an IGP, while the W7100 is a 150 W single-slot card requiring a 6-pin power connector and a 450 W suggested PSU.

The Verdict

The data suggests a clear split based on use case. The AMD Radeon 860M is the better choice for modern, API-forward workloads. Its 9.1% lead in Vulkan, support for DirectX 12 Ultimate, and inclusion of ray tracing cores make it the more capable option for gaming and contemporary graphics applications. Its low 15 W TDP and IGP form factor also make it suitable for portable devices, where power efficiency is paramount. The benchmark scores show it is competitive with dedicated discrete GPUs, matching the NVIDIA GeForce MX550 with a deltaPct of -0.1% and the RTX 5060 with a deltaPct of 0.3%.

The AMD FirePro W7100, despite being end-of-life since its 2014 release, still wins in the OpenCL compute test by 5.9%. This, combined with its dedicated 8 GB of GDDR5 memory and 160.0 GB/s bandwidth, makes it a more reliable choice for professional compute tasks that are memory-intensive and rely on OpenCL. Its 3.297 TFLOPS of FP32 performance is also slightly higher than the 860M’s 3.072 TFLOPS. However, its lack of modern API support and ray tracing, along with its 150 W power draw, make it a less attractive option for new system builds. For a user prioritizing modern gaming and API support, the 860M is the data-backed pick. For legacy OpenCL compute workloads requiring dedicated VRAM, the W7100 still has a defined role.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon 860M has a higher average benchmark score of 26401, compared to the AMD FirePro W7100's 25856. This places the 860M at the 72nd percentile and the W7100 at the 71st percentile of all GPUs.

Q: How does the Radeon 860M perform in Vulkan compared to the FirePro W7100?

A: In the Geekbench Vulkan test, the Radeon 860M scores 30043, which is 9.1% higher than the FirePro W7100's score of 27529. This is the 860M's biggest win in the head-to-head comparison.

Q: In which benchmark does the FirePro W7100 outperform the Radeon 860M?

A: The FirePro W7100 wins the Geekbench OpenCL test, scoring 24182 compared to the Radeon 860M's 22759. This represents a 5.9% advantage for the W7100.

Q: What are the key differences in memory configuration?

A: The Radeon 860M uses system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth, while the FirePro W7100 has a dedicated 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus with 160.0 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU supports ray tracing?

A: The AMD Radeon 860M includes 8 RT cores for ray tracing support, while the AMD FirePro W7100 has no RT cores listed in its specifications.

Q: What are the power consumption figures for each GPU?

A: The Radeon 860M has a TDP of 15 W and uses no power connectors, while the FirePro W7100 has a TDP of 150 W and requires a single 6-pin power connector with a suggested PSU of 450 W.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark results show a single win for each GPU, making the overall comparison a tie. The first test, Geekbench OpenCL, is won by the AMD FirePro W7100. It scores 24182 points against the Radeon 860M’s 22759 points, a delta of -5.9% from the 860M’s perspective. This is a significant margin in a compute API that is still widely used in professional and scientific applications. The W7100’s dedicated 160.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth and higher shading unit count of 1792 likely contribute to this performance advantage, allowing it to feed its compute units more effectively than the 860M, which relies on system memory.

The second test, Geekbench Vulkan, is decisively won by the AMD Radeon 860M. It posts a score of 30043, which is 9.1% higher than the FirePro W7100’s 27529. This is a substantial victory and highlights the architectural superiority of RDNA 3.5 for modern, low-overhead APIs. The 860M’s support for Vulkan 1.4, compared to the W7100’s Vulkan 1.2.170, and its higher boost clock of 3000 MHz are key factors in this result. This win is particularly notable because it shows the integrated GPU is not just competitive, but clearly superior in a workload that is increasingly important for gaming and high-performance computing. The average scores for these two GPUs are very close, with the 860M at 26401 and the W7100 at 25856, but the distribution of performance across the two APIs is starkly different. The W7100 is the stronger OpenCL compute card, while the 860M is the stronger Vulkan graphics card.