AMD FirePro W7100 vs AMD Radeon R9 M295X Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a near-even split between these two GCN 3.0 parts. The AMD FirePro W7100 takes the OpenCL workload, while the AMD Radeon R9 M295X answers in Vulkan. The margins are modest in both directions, which suggests the two cards are closer than their different market positions might imply.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the FirePro W7100 scores 24,182 against the R9 M295X's 22,858. That is a 5.5% advantage for the workstation card. OpenCL is a compute-oriented API, and the FirePro's higher FP32 throughput (3.297 TFLOPS versus 2.961 TFLOPS) aligns with that result. The FirePro also has a higher texture rate (103.0 GTexel/s versus 92.54 GTexel/s) and a higher pixel rate (29.44 GPixel/s versus 23.14 GPixel/s), which help explain its compute-side lead.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the situation reverses. The R9 M295X scores 29,091 versus the FirePro's 27,529, a 5.7% advantage. Vulkan is a lower-level graphics API that can expose raw shading resources more directly. The R9 M295X carries 2,048 shading units against the FirePro's 1,792, a 256-unit gap that likely drives its Vulkan win. The R9 M295X also has 128 TMUs versus 112 on the FirePro, reinforcing its graphics-oriented design.

Looking at the broader database context, both cards sit in similar performance tiers. The R9 M295X has an average benchmark score of 28,580 and sits at the 74th percentile of all GPUs. The FirePro W7100 averages 25,856 and lands at the 71st percentile. The R9 M295X's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 at 28,421 (0.6% behind), the AMD Radeon RX 570 at 28,766 (0.6% ahead), the AMD Radeon RX 6800M at 28,874 (1% ahead), and the AMD Radeon RX 470 at 28,996 (1.4% ahead). The FirePro W7100's nearest rivals are the AMD FirePro D700 at 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).

The R9 M295X's average score is 10.5% higher than the FirePro's. That gap is larger than either head-to-head delta, which indicates the R9 M295X's Vulkan strength contributes more to its aggregate standing than the FirePro's OpenCL advantage does to its own average. The database also lists only two shared benchmark tests, so the aggregate picture leans on the Vulkan result more heavily.

The Verdict

The data points to a straightforward split by workload type. For OpenCL compute tasks, the AMD FirePro W7100 is the stronger choice, with a 5.5% measured lead. For Vulkan graphics workloads, the AMD Radeon R9 M295X wins by 5.7%. If the user's software stack is Vulkan-centric, the R9 M295X offers the higher peak score (29,091) and a higher average benchmark score overall (28,580 versus 25,856). If the workflow is OpenCL-heavy, the FirePro W7100's 24,182 score and its higher FP32 rate (3.297 TFLOPS) make it the more appropriate pick.

The FirePro W7100 also brings 8 GB of GDDR5 memory versus 4 GB on the R9 M295X. For memory-intensive workloads that fit within the OpenCL domain, that capacity advantage is meaningful. The R9 M295X has no capacity advantage, but it does have more shading units (2,048 versus 1,792) and more TMUs (128 versus 112), which align with its Vulkan win.

There is no overall winner from the aggregate data. The R9 M295X holds a higher percentile rank (74th versus 71st) and a higher average score, but the FirePro W7100 wins the only compute-oriented test in the shared set. Users should select based on the API their applications use, not on the card's market segment.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built on GCN 3.0 architecture and use the same 28 nm process at TSMC. Both have 5,000 million transistors on a 366 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 13.7M per mm². The silicon is not identical, however. The R9 M295X uses the Amethyst chip, while the FirePro W7100 uses Tonga. Both belong to the same architecture generation, but the chip-level differences manifest in resource counts.

The R9 M295X has 2,048 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The FirePro W7100 has 1,792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The R9 M295X therefore has 14.3% more shading units and 14.3% more TMUs. The ROP count is identical at 32, which explains why both cards have a 256-bit memory bus and the same 160.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Neither card has dedicated ray tracing cores or tensor cores. Both support DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The FP16 throughput matches the FP32 throughput on both cards at a 1:1 ratio, which is typical of this GCN generation. The R9 M295X delivers 2.961 TFLOPS FP32 and the FirePro delivers 3.297 TFLOPS, so the FirePro has a 11.3% raw compute advantage despite having fewer shading units. That is because the FirePro's clock behavior, while not listed as a base or boost figure, produces higher pixel and texture rates (29.44 GPixel/s and 103.0 GTexel/s versus 23.14 GPixel/s and 92.54 GTexel/s).

The R9 M295X belongs to the Gem System generation (R9 M200 family), while the FirePro W7100 belongs to the FirePro GCN generation (Wx100 family). The R9 M295X's predecessor is listed as Solar System and its successor as Polaris Mobile. The FirePro W7100's predecessor is FirePro Terascale and its successor is Radeon Pro Polaris.

Specification Differences

The two cards share several core specifications. Memory type is GDDR5 on both, the bus width is 256 bit on both, and memory bandwidth is 160.0 GB/s on both. Memory clock is 1250 MHz with 5 Gbps effective on both. ROP count is 32 on both.

The differences are as follows. Memory capacity differs: 4 GB on the R9 M295X versus 8 GB on the FirePro W7100. Shading units differ: 2,048 versus 1,792. TMUs differ: 128 versus 112. Pixel rate differs: 23.14 GPixel/s versus 29.44 GPixel/s. Texture rate differs: 92.54 GTexel/s versus 103.0 GTexel/s. FP32 and FP16 both differ: 2.961 TFLOPS versus 3.297 TFLOPS. TDP differs: 250 W on the R9 M295X versus 150 W on the FirePro W7100. Slot width differs: MXM Module versus Single-slot. Power connectors differ: None on the R9 M295X versus 1x 6-pin on the FirePro. The suggested PSU is listed only for the FirePro at 450 W. Bus interface differs: MXM-B (3.0) on the R9 M295X versus PCIe 3.0 x16 on the FirePro. Display outputs differ: Portable Device Dependent on the R9 M295X versus 4x DisplayPort 1.2 on the FirePro. Dimensions differ: the FirePro is listed at 241 mm length and 111 mm height, while the R9 M295X has no listed dimensions. Release dates differ: the R9 M295X released later (2014-11-22) than the FirePro (2014-08-11).

The API support is identical: DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170.

FAQ

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The AMD Radeon R9 M295X has 2,048 shading units, while the AMD FirePro W7100 has 1,792.

Q: Which card has higher FP32 compute?

A: The AMD FirePro W7100 has 3.297 TFLOPS FP32, compared to 2.961 TFLOPS on the R9 M295X.

Q: How much memory does each card have?

A: The R9 M295X has 4 GB of GDDR5, while the FirePro W7100 has 8 GB of GDDR5. Both have a 256-bit bus and 160.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card wins in Vulkan benchmarks?

A: The R9 M295X scores 29,091 in Geekbench Vulkan, a 5.7% advantage over the FirePro W7100's 27,529.

Q: Which card wins in OpenCL benchmarks?

A: The FirePro W7100 scores 24,182 in Geekbench OpenCL, a 5.5% advantage over the R9 M295X's 22,858.

Q: What is the power draw difference?

A: The R9 M295X is rated at 250 W TDP, while the FirePro W7100 is rated at 150 W TDP. The FirePro requires a 450 W suggested PSU and a single 6-pin power connector, while the R9 M295X uses an MXM module with no power connectors listed.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon R9 M295X wins in Vulkan workloads. Its 29,091 Geekbench Vulkan score is 5.7% ahead of the FirePro. Its larger shading unit count (2,048 versus 1,792) and TMU count (128 versus 112) support graphics-heavy tasks that rely on parallel shading throughput. The R9 M295X also holds a higher average benchmark score (28,580 versus 25,856) and a higher percentile rank (74th versus 71st). Its nearest rivals in the database are all within 1.4%, which places it in a tightly contested performance cluster.

The AMD FirePro W7100 wins in OpenCL compute. Its 24,182 Geekbench OpenCL score is 5.5% ahead of the R9 M295X. Its FP32 throughput of 3.297 TFLOPS and texture rate of 103.0 GTexel/s are both higher than the R9 M295X's figures. The FirePro also has double the memory capacity (8 GB versus 4 GB), which matters for datasets that exceed 4 GB. Its lower TDP (150 W versus 250 W) and standard PCIe 3.0 x16 interface with 4x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs make it more suitable for a desktop workstation chassis, while the R9 M295X's MXM form factor targets portable devices.

For users with mixed workloads, the aggregate data slightly favors the R9 M295X due to the higher average score, but the per-test deltas are close enough that the FirePro's OpenCL lead should not be ignored. Applications that use OpenCL acceleration will see better results on the FirePro, while Vulkan-based renderers will see better results on the R9 M295X. Memory-bound compute tasks clearly favor the FirePro. the R9 M295X has no memory capacity advantage, but its higher shading resources give it the edge in Vulkan specifically.

The R9 M295X is the pick for Vulkan. The FirePro W7100 is the pick for OpenCL. Those are the only two benchmark categories in the shared set, and each card owns one win.