AMD FirePro W7100 vs AMD Radeon R9 M290X Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a single direct comparison between these two GPUs, and it is decisive in favor of the AMD FirePro W7100. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the FirePro W7100 scored 24,182 points against the Radeon R9 M290X’s 22,028 points. That is a 9.8% lead for the workstation card, a margin that separates the two clearly in compute workloads.

Looking at the broader database averages, the FirePro W7100 holds an average benchmark score of 25,856 across all recorded tests, while the Radeon R9 M290X averages 23,276. The delta between those averages is roughly 11.1%, which aligns with the head-to-head OpenCL result. The FirePro W7100 also sits at the 71st percentile of all GPUs in the database, whereas the Radeon R9 M290X sits at the 68th percentile. That three-point gap in percentile ranking reflects a consistent, if not overwhelming, advantage for the FirePro part.

The FirePro W7100’s nearest rivals in the database include the AMD FirePro D700, which averages 25,842 (0.1% behind), the AMD Radeon R9 M395X at 25,891 (0.1% ahead), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Mobile at 25,740 (0.5% behind), and the AMD Radeon Pro W5700 at 25,726 (0.5% behind). This places the FirePro W7100 in a tight cluster of mid-to-high range performers, where a few tenths of a percent separate entries. Its 25,856 average is effectively neck-and-neck with the D700 and R9 M395X, and slightly ahead of the RTX 3080 Ti Mobile and Pro W5700.

The Radeon R9 M290X, by contrast, sits near the AMD Radeon RX 6600M, which averages 23,273 (a 0% delta), the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 16 at 23,250 (0.1% behind), the NVIDIA P106-100 at 23,249 (0.1% behind), and the AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700 at 23,315 (0.2% ahead). The M290X’s position here shows it is grouped with older or lower-tier mobile and entry-level desktop parts, not with the FirePro’s neighborhood.

In the single benchmark where both cards were tested under identical conditions, the FirePro W7100’s 9.8% advantage is the headline. The Radeon R9 M290X has no wins in the head-to-head data; the FirePro W7100 takes the sole victory. That said, the M290X does post a strong Geekbench Metal score of 24,524, which is higher than its OpenCL score and suggests that in Apple-centric or Metal-optimized workloads, it may perform closer to the FirePro’s level. The FirePro W7100 has no recorded Metal score, so direct comparison in that API is not possible from the data.

The Verdict

From the benchmark data alone, the AMD FirePro W7100 is the faster GPU. It wins the only direct head-to-head test, holds a higher average score across the database, and ranks in a higher percentile of all GPUs. If your work is OpenCL-heavy, the FirePro W7100 is the clear choice: its 9.8% lead over the Radeon R9 M290X in that specific test is the kind of margin that shows up in render times and compute tasks.

The Radeon R9 M290X is not without merit, but its data profile suggests a different role. Its Metal score of 24,524 is notable, and if your software stack favors Metal, the M290X may be the more practical pick despite losing the OpenCL comparison. The M290X also draws less power, with a 100 W TDP versus the FirePro’s 150 W, and it comes as an MXM module, which makes it suitable for laptops or compact systems where the FirePro’s single-slot, 241 mm length would not fit.

For a desktop workstation, the FirePro W7100’s 8 GB of memory and 160.0 GB/s of bandwidth give it a clear capacity advantage over the M290X’s 4 GB and 153.6 GB/s. That extra memory is decisive for large datasets, high-resolution textures, or multi-display setups. The FirePro also offers four DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, while the M290X’s display outputs are listed as portable device dependent, meaning it relies on the host laptop’s panel and ports.

The verdict is straightforward: if you need compute performance and memory capacity in a fixed workstation, choose the FirePro W7100. If you need a low-power, mobile-form-factor GPU with strong Metal compatibility, the Radeon R9 M290X is the one to consider. The data does not support calling the M290X a general-purpose winner, but it does support it as a specialized option.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD FirePro W7100 wins in raw compute throughput as measured by OpenCL. Its 3.297 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 103.0 GTexel/s texture rate dwarf the M290X’s 2.304 TFLOPS and 72.00 GTexel/s. The FirePro’s 1792 shading units and 112 texture mapping units give it a 40% and 40% advantage in those counts respectively, which translates directly to parallel workload performance. Its 29.44 GPixel/s pixel rate is also slightly ahead of the M290X’s 28.80 GPixel/s, so even rasterization tasks see a small edge.

The FirePro W7100 wins in memory capacity and bandwidth. At 8 GB versus 4 GB, it doubles the available VRAM, and its 160.0 GB/s bandwidth is 4.2% higher than the M290X’s 153.6 GB/s. This matters for workloads that spill past 4 GB, such as large 3D scenes, machine learning inference, or multi-app GPU compute. The FirePro also uses faster memory, rated at 5 Gbps effective versus 4.8 Gbps on the M290X.

The Radeon R9 M290X wins in efficiency and form factor. Its 100 W TDP is one-third lower than the FirePro’s 150 W, making it a better fit for thermally constrained systems. The MXM module form factor means it can be swapped into laptops or all-in-one machines, whereas the FirePro’s single-slot, 241 mm length requires a full desktop chassis. The M290X also has no power connectors, relying on the MXM slot for power, while the FirePro needs a 6-pin connector and a 450 W suggested PSU.

In API support, the M290X’s Metal score of 24,524 gives it a concrete win in that specific API, even though the FirePro has no recorded Metal result. The FirePro counters with Vulkan support at version 1.2.170 and DirectX 12 (12_0), while the M290X also supports Vulkan 1.2.170 but only DirectX 12 (11_1). That DirectX feature-level difference means the FirePro is better suited for modern DirectX 12 titles or applications that require feature level 12_0.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL compute?

A: The AMD FirePro W7100 scores 24,182 in Geekbench OpenCL, a 9.8% lead over the Radeon R9 M290X’s 22,028.

Q: Does the Radeon R9 M290X have any benchmark advantage?

A: Yes, in Geekbench Metal the M290X scores 24,524, which is higher than its own OpenCL score. The FirePro W7100 has no recorded Metal score, so no direct comparison exists in that API.

Q: How much more memory does the FirePro W7100 have?

A: The FirePro W7100 has 8 GB of GDDR5, double the Radeon R9 M290X’s 4 GB. Its memory bandwidth is also higher at 160.0 GB/s versus 153.6 GB/s.

Q: Which card is better for a laptop?

A: The Radeon R9 M290X is an MXM module with a 100 W TDP and no power connectors, making it suitable for portable systems. The FirePro W7100 is a single-slot desktop card requiring a 6-pin connector and a 450 W PSU.

Q: What is the DirectX feature level difference?

A: The FirePro W7100 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the Radeon R9 M290X supports DirectX 12 (11_1). The FirePro is therefore better for applications requiring feature level 12_0.

Q: How do their percentile rankings compare?

A: The FirePro W7100 sits at the 71st percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the Radeon R9 M290X sits at the 68th percentile.

Architecture Differences

The AMD FirePro W7100 is built on the Tonga chip using GCN 3.0 architecture, while the Radeon R9 M290X uses the Neptune chip with GCN 1.0 architecture. This is a generational leap: GCN 3.0 brings architectural improvements in compute efficiency and feature support over the first-generation GCN design.

Both GPUs are fabricated on TSMC’s 28 nm process, but the FirePro’s Tonga die is substantially larger at 366 mm² and packs 5,000 million transistors, versus the Neptune’s 212 mm² and 2,800 million transistors. Transistor density is similar, at 13.7M per mm² for Tonga and 13.2M per mm² for Neptune, which indicates the size difference comes from more functional units rather than a denser process.

The FirePro W7100 carries 1792 shading units, 112 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The Radeon R9 M290X has 1280 shading units, 80 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The FirePro therefore has 40% more shading units and 40% more texture units, while ROP count is identical. Compute throughput reflects this: the FirePro delivers 3.297 TFLOPS of FP32, while the M290X delivers 2.304 TFLOPS. The FirePro also lists FP16 performance at 3.297 TFLOPS (1:1 with FP32), while the M290X has no recorded FP16 figure.

Memory architecture differs in capacity and speed, but both use a 256-bit GDDR5 bus. The FirePro’s memory runs at 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective) for 160.0 GB/s, while the M290X runs at 1200 MHz (4.8 Gbps effective) for 153.6 GB/s. The FirePro’s 8 GB capacity versus the M290X’s 4 GB is the largest practical difference.

API support shows the FirePro ahead on DirectX: it supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the M290X only reaches DirectX 12 (11_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.170. The FirePro also lists four DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, whereas the M290X’s outputs are portable device dependent, meaning they are tied to the host laptop.

The FirePro W7100’s production status is end-of-life, with a release date of 2014-08-11. The M290X is also end-of-life, released earlier on 2014-01-08. Their predecessors and successors differ: the FirePro descends from FirePro Terascale and leads to Radeon Pro Polaris, while the M290X descends from Solar System and leads to Polaris Mobile. These lineage notes indicate the FirePro was a workstation-focused product, while the M290X was a mobile consumer part.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every measurable specification outside the architecture. The FirePro W7100 has a TDP of 150 W and is single-slot, while the M290X has a 100 W TDP and uses an MXM module form factor. The FirePro requires one 6-pin power connector and a 450 W suggested PSU; the M290X has no power connectors and no suggested PSU listed.

Physical dimensions only exist for the FirePro: 241 mm in length (9.5 inches) and 111 mm in height (4.4 inches). The M290X’s dimensions are not recorded, which is consistent with its MXM modular design. The FirePro’s display outputs are four DisplayPort 1.2 connectors, while the M290X relies on the portable device’s built-in outputs.

Memory is a major difference: 8 GB versus 4 GB, both GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus. The FirePro’s memory clock is 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective), while the M290X runs at 1200 MHz (4.8 Gbps effective). Bandwidth follows at 160.0 GB/s versus 153.6 GB/s.

Compute resources differ as noted: 1792 versus 1280 shading units, 112 versus 80 TMUs, and 32 ROPs each. Pixel rate is 29.44 GPixel/s for the FirePro and 28.80 GPixel/s for the M290X. Texture rate is 103.0 GTexel/s versus 72.00 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 3.297 TFLOPS versus 2.304 TFLOPS, and only the FirePro lists FP16 at 3.297 TFLOPS.

The FirePro’s base and boost clocks are not recorded, while the M290X has a base clock of 850 MHz and a boost clock of 900 MHz. Memory speed is the only clock field both share, and they differ there as described. Both use PCIe 3.0 x16 as the bus interface.

Release dates differ by about seven months, with the M290X launching first on 2014-01-08 and the FirePro following on 2014-08-11. Both are end-of-life. Neither card has a launch MSRP recorded in the database.

The benchmark profiles also differ: the FirePro has scores for Geekbench OpenCL (24,182) and Geekbench Vulkan (27,529), while the M290X has scores for Geekbench Metal (24,524) and Geekbench OpenCL (22,028). The FirePro’s Vulkan score is its highest recorded, suggesting strong Vulkan performance, though no direct Vulkan comparison exists between the two cards.