AMD FirePro W7100 vs AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains only two directly comparable benchmark tests between these two cards, and the AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700 wins both by substantial margins. In Geekbench OpenCL, the R9700 scores 118,202 against the FirePro W7100's 24,182. That is a 79.5% advantage for the newer card, a gap so wide it effectively places the two in different performance tiers. The R9700's OpenCL result is roughly 4.9 times higher, which speaks to the massive architectural advancement rather than a minor generational bump.

The Vulkan test tells a similar story, though with a narrower margin. The R9700 records 63,550 while the W7100 manages 27,529, a 56.7% difference. Vulkan is a lower-level API that can expose raw hardware capabilities more directly, and even here the R9700 nearly doubles the older card's output. The delta between the two APIs is interesting: the R9700's OpenCL score is far stronger relative to its Vulkan score than the W7100's, suggesting that compute-oriented workloads are where the newer architecture pulls ahead most decisively.

Looking at the broader database context, the FirePro W7100 holds a percentile rank of 71 among all GPUs with an average benchmark score of 25,856. Its nearest rivals include the AMD FirePro D700 at 25,842 (0.1% ahead), the AMD Radeon R9 M395X at 25,891 (0.1% behind), and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Mobile at 25,740 (0.5% behind). The W7100 sits in a tight cluster where a single percentage point separates several cards, indicating that its performance is competitive with a specific mid-range bracket of GPUs from both AMD and NVIDIA, despite its age.

The Radeon AI PRO R9700, paradoxically, shows a lower percentile rank of 69 despite its far higher raw scores. Its average benchmark score is 23,315, dragged down by the inclusion of Passmark tests where it records unusually low figures: 155 in DirectX 10, 272 in DirectX 11, 83 in DirectX 12, and 363 in DirectX 9. The Passmark G3D score of 26,979 and GPU compute score of 15,300 are more respectable, but the DirectX results are anomalously low for a card with this hardware specification. Its nearest rivals, AMD Radeon R9 M290X at 23,276 (0.2% ahead), AMD Radeon RX 6600M at 23,273 (0.2% ahead), AMD Radeon Pro Vega 16 at 23,250 (0.3% ahead), and NVIDIA P106-100 at 23,249 (0.3% ahead), all cluster within a fraction of a percent, yet none of them carry the R9700's underlying hardware capabilities. The data suggests the R9700's benchmark profile is inconsistent, with some tests reflecting its true potential and others not.

The head-to-head results are unambiguous in isolation, but the percentile discrepancy introduces a question: does the R9700's lower percentile reflect a driver maturity issue, benchmark selection bias, or something about how the database weights different workloads? The W7100, despite being an older card, benefits from a more consistent benchmark profile across the tests it appears in.

Architecture Differences

The two cards are separated by roughly eleven years of GPU design philosophy. The FirePro W7100 uses the Tonga chip built on GCN 3.0 architecture, fabricated on TSMC's 28 nm process with 5,000 million transistors on a 366 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 13.7 million per square millimeter. The Radeon AI PRO R9700 uses the Navi 48 chip on RDNA 4.0 architecture, also fabricated by TSMC but on a 4 nm process, packing 53,900 million transistors into a 357 mm² die for a density of 151.0 million per square millimeter. The die sizes are nearly identical, 366 mm² versus 357 mm², which makes the comparison stark: the newer process packs nearly eleven times more transistors into roughly the same physical area.

The compute resources differ enormously. The W7100 has 1,792 shading units, 112 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The R9700 has 4,096 shading units, 256 TMUs, and 128 ROPs. That is 2.3 times more shaders, 2.3 times more TMUs, and 4 times more ROPs. The R9700 also introduces 64 ray tracing cores, a feature class entirely absent from the W7100, which has none. Neither card lists tensor cores.

Memory configurations reflect the generational leap. The W7100 ships with 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, running at 1,250 MHz (5 Gbps effective) for 160.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The R9700 offers 32 GB of GDDR6 on the same 256-bit bus width, but at 2,518 MHz (20.1 Gbps effective) for 644.6 GB/s. The bus width is identical, so the 4 times bandwidth advantage comes entirely from the faster memory technology. Capacity quadruples from 8 GB to 32 GB.

Clock behavior differs as well. The W7100's base and boost clocks are not recorded in the database, only its memory clock. The R9700 has explicit figures: 1,660 MHz base, 2,350 MHz game clock, and 2,920 MHz boost. The R9700's boost clock is high enough that combined with its wider execution resources, it produces 47.84 TFLOPS of FP32 and FP16 (1:1 ratio). The W7100 produces 3.297 TFLOPS in both FP32 and FP16 (also 1:1), a 14.5 times difference in raw floating-point throughput.

Pixel and texture rates follow the same pattern. The W7100 achieves 29.44 GPixel/s and 103.0 GTexel/s. The R9700 reaches 373.8 GPixel/s and 747.5 GTexel/s. The ROP advantage of 4 times directly explains the pixel rate gap, while the TMU and clock advantages drive the texture rate difference.

API support shows the newer card's modernity. The W7100 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The R9700 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The DirectX feature level jump from 12_0 to 12_2 is significant, bringing hardware ray tracing and other modern features. The Vulkan version also advances from 1.2.170 to 1.4.

Power and physical characteristics diverge sharply. The W7100 draws 150 W TDP with a single 6-pin connector and a 450 W suggested PSU. It is a single-slot card, 241 mm long (9.5 inches) and 111 mm tall (4.4 inches). The R9700 draws 300 W TDP with a single 16-pin connector and a 700 W suggested PSU. It is dual-slot, 267 mm long (10.5 inches), 111 mm tall (4.4 inches), and 40 mm wide (1.6 inches). The extra height and thickness accommodate the higher power delivery and cooling requirements.

Bus interface also advances from PCIe 3.0 x16 on the W7100 to PCIe 5.0 x16 on the R9700. Display outputs move from 4x DisplayPort 1.2 to 1x HDMI 2.1b and 3x DisplayPort 2.1a, reflecting newer display standards.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear hierarchy: the Radeon AI PRO R9700 is the far more powerful card by raw compute metrics and direct benchmark comparisons. Its 47.84 TFLOPS FP32, 644.6 GB/s memory bandwidth, 32 GB capacity, and 64 ray tracing cores place it in a different performance class than the FirePro W7100. In the two shared benchmarks, it wins both with deltas of 79.5% and 56.7%.

However, the database's percentile ranks complicate the picture. The W7100 sits at the 71st percentile with an average score of 25,856, while the R9700 sits at the 69th percentile with an average of 23,315. The R9700's inconsistent benchmark profile, particularly its very low Passmark DirectX scores, pulls its average down. A user relying solely on average scores might conclude the W7100 is the better card, which would be misleading given the head-to-head results.

The W7100 is end-of-life, released in August 2014, with its production status marked as such. Its successor is listed as Radeon Pro Polaris. The R9700 is active, released in July 2025, with a launch MSRP of 1,299 USD. Its predecessor is Radeon Pro Vega. The W7100's predecessor is FirePro Terascale.

For users choosing between these two today, the data strongly favors the R9700 for any workload that can use its compute resources, ray tracing cores, or large memory pool. The W7100's only arguments are its lower power draw, single-slot footprint, and the fact that its benchmark profile is more consistent. But consistency at a lower performance level is not a substitute for raw capability.

FAQ

Q: Which card wins in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700 wins with a score of 118,202 against the FirePro W7100's 24,182, a 79.5% advantage.

Q: How much faster is the R9700 in Vulkan?

A: The R9700 scores 63,550 versus 27,529 for the W7100, a 56.7% difference.

Q: Do both cards support the same DirectX version?

A: No. The W7100 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the R9700 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2).

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The W7100 has 8 GB of GDDR5, while the R9700 has 32 GB of GDDR6. Both use a 256-bit bus.

Q: Does the W7100 have ray tracing cores?

A: No. The W7100 has no ray tracing cores. The R9700 has 64.

Q: What is the TDP of each card?

A: The W7100 has a 150 W TDP with a 450 W suggested PSU. The R9700 has a 300 W TDP with a 700 W suggested PSU.

Where Each One Wins

The Radeon AI PRO R9700 wins in every compute-heavy category the data captures. Its FP32 throughput of 47.84 TFLOPS versus 3.297 TFLOPS makes it the obvious choice for general-purpose GPU compute, machine learning inference, or any workload that saturates floating-point units. The 32 GB memory capacity versus 8 GB allows loading larger datasets, models, or textures without spilling to system memory. The 644.6 GB/s bandwidth versus 160.0 GB/s reduces memory-bound bottlenecks. The 64 ray tracing cores open up hardware-accelerated ray tracing workloads that the W7100 cannot accelerate at all. The newer API support, including DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4, ensures compatibility with modern software stacks.

The FirePro W7100's wins are narrower but real. It draws half the power at 150 W versus 300 W, which matters in dense multi-GPU systems or constrained chassis. It occupies a single slot versus dual slots, allowing more cards per server or workstation. It uses a standard 6-pin power connector rather than a 16-pin connector, simplifying power cabling in older systems. Its 450 W suggested PSU versus 700 W means it can drop into existing machines without a power supply upgrade. It is also shorter at 241 mm versus 267 mm, though both cards share the same 111 mm height, so clearance issues are minimal. For legacy software that only supports older DirectX feature levels or Vulkan 1.2, the W7100's API set covers those bases adequately.

The benchmark data shows the W7100's average score of 25,856 is actually higher than the R9700's 23,315, but this is an artifact of test selection. The R9700's Passmark DirectX scores are anomalously low, and the database's averaging methodology does not weight the head-to-head tests more heavily. Users should rely on the direct comparisons, where the R9700 wins decisively, rather than the aggregate averages.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every recorded specification. The process node moves from 28 nm to 4 nm. Transistor count rises from 5,000 million to 53,900 million. Die size is similar at 366 mm² versus 357 mm², but transistor density jumps from 13.7 million per square millimeter to 151.0 million. Clock speeds are not recorded for the W7100, while the R9700 lists 1,660 MHz base, 2,350 MHz game, and 2,920 MHz boost. Memory clock advances from 1,250 MHz (5 Gbps effective) to 2,518 MHz (20.1 Gbps effective).

Memory capacity goes from 8 GB GDDR5 to 32 GB GDDR6. Bus width stays at 256 bit for both, but bandwidth rises from 160.0 GB/s to 644.6 GB/s. Shading units increase from 1,792 to 4,096. TMUs increase from 112 to 256. ROPs increase from 32 to 128. Ray tracing cores go from none to 64. Pixel rate rises from 29.44 GPixel/s to 373.8 GPixel/s. Texture rate rises from 103.0 GTexel/s to 747.5 GTexel/s. FP32 and FP16 both rise from 3.297 TFLOPS to 47.84 TFLOPS, with both cards maintaining a 1:1 FP16 to FP32 ratio.

TDP rises from 150 W to 300 W. Slot width expands from single-slot to dual-slot. Power connectors change from 1x 6-pin to 1x 16-pin. Suggested PSU rises from 450 W to 700 W. Bus interface advances from PCIe 3.0 x16 to PCIe 5.0 x16. Display outputs change from 4x DisplayPort 1.2 to 1x HDMI 2.1b and 3x DisplayPort 2.1a. DirectX support moves from 12 (12_0) to 12 Ultimate (12_2). OpenGL stays at 4.6 for both. Vulkan advances from 1.2.170 to 1.4.

Physical dimensions differ: the W7100 is 241 mm long and 111 mm tall with no recorded width, while the R9700 is 267 mm long, 111 mm tall, and 40 mm wide. Production status diverges from end-of-life to active. Release dates are August 2014 and July 2025. The W7100 lists successor as Radeon Pro Polaris, while the R9700 has no successor recorded. The R9700 has a launch MSRP of 1,299 USD; the W7100 has none recorded in the database.