AMD FirePro W7100 vs AMD Radeon R9 M395X Comparison

The AMD Radeon R9 M395X and AMD FirePro W7100 are two GCN 3.0 cards from the same generation that end up remarkably close in aggregate performance, yet they serve very different physical and workload environments. The data shows the FirePro W7100 wins the only direct head-to-head benchmark, but the R9 M395X holds a slight edge in average score across all tests. The choice between them comes down to whether you need a mobile module or a desktop workstation card, with the benchmark results offering a clear, if narrow, performance hierarchy.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single direct comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and it is not close. The AMD FirePro W7100 scores 24,182, while the AMD Radeon R9 M395X scores 17,829. That is a 26.3% deficit for the mobile card, a substantial gap that indicates the FirePro’s higher compute throughput translates directly into raw OpenCL performance. This is the largest swing in either direction across the entire dataset, and it establishes the W7100 as the clear winner in this specific workload.

However, the aggregate picture tells a slightly different story. The R9 M395X has an average benchmark score of 25,891 across its tested workloads, while the FirePro W7100 averages 25,856. The delta between them is a mere 0.1% in favor of the mobile part. This seeming contradiction is explained by the tests each card runs: the M395X was evaluated with Geekbench Metal (33,953) and OpenCL (17,829), while the W7100 was tested with OpenCL (24,182) and Vulkan (27,529). The M395X’s strong Metal showing pulls its average up, even though it loses decisively in the shared OpenCL test.

Looking at the nearest rivals adds context to these numbers. The FirePro W7100 is 0.1% ahead of the AMD FirePro D700 (25,842) and 0.5% ahead of both the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Mobile (25,740) and the AMD Radeon Pro W5700 (25,726). The R9 M395X, for its part, is 0.2% ahead of the same FirePro D700 and 0.6% ahead of the RTX 3080 Ti Mobile, but trails the AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT (26,011) by 0.5%. In practical terms, both cards sit in the same performance tier, with the W7100’s OpenCL advantage being the only major differentiator in raw compute.

Architecture Differences

Both cards share the same fundamental architecture, built on GCN 3.0 and fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The transistor count is identical at 5,000 million, and the die size is exactly the same at 366 mm², yielding a transistor density of 13.7M per mm². The memory subsystems are also identical: 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, running at 1250 MHz with 5 Gbps effective speed, producing 160.0 GB/s of bandwidth. Both support DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170, and both use a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface.

The differences lie in the chip configuration and power delivery. The R9 M395X uses the Amethyst chip with 2,048 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, and 32 raster output units. The FirePro W7100 uses the Tonga chip, which has fewer compute resources: 1,792 shading units and 112 TMUs, though it also has 32 ROPs. Despite having fewer cores, the W7100 achieves higher clock-derived rates. Its pixel rate is 29.44 GPixel/s versus 23.14 GPixel/s for the M395X, and its texture rate is 103.0 GTexel/s versus 92.54 GTexel/s. The FP32 throughput follows the same pattern: 3.297 TFLOPS for the W7100 against 2.961 TFLOPS for the M395X, with both offering 1:1 FP16 rates.

The physical and power characteristics diverge sharply. The R9 M395X is a 75 W MXM module with no power connectors, designed for portable devices. The FirePro W7100 is a 150 W single-slot card that requires a single 6-pin power connector and a suggested 450 W power supply. The W7100 is also a full-length desktop card at 241 mm (9.5 inches) long and 111 mm (4.4 inches) high, with four DisplayPort 1.2 outputs. The M395X has display outputs that are portable device dependent. The release dates are close, with the M395X launching on May 4, 2015, and the W7100 on August 11, 2014, and both are now end-of-life products.

Where Each One Wins

The FirePro W7100 wins the only head-to-head test, and it does so by a wide margin. In Geekbench OpenCL, it is 26.3% faster than the R9 M395X. This is a significant advantage for any workload that relies heavily on OpenCL compute, which includes many professional rendering, simulation, and data-processing tasks. The W7100 also has higher raw throughput in every measured rate: its pixel rate is roughly 27% higher, its texture rate is about 11% higher, and its FP32 output is about 11% higher. For sustained compute workloads on a desktop workstation, the data clearly favors the W7100.

The R9 M395X’s win is more situational. Its Geekbench Metal score of 33,953 is its standout result, and this is a test the W7100 does not have a recorded score for. Metal is Apple’s graphics API, so the M395X’s strong showing there suggests it is better suited for macOS-based applications or any environment where Metal is the primary compute interface. Its higher average benchmark score of 25,891 versus 25,856 for the W7100 also indicates that, across a broader mix of workloads, the mobile part holds a very slight overall edge. Additionally, its 75 W TDP and MXM form factor make it the only option for laptops and compact portable systems, which is a categorical win by physical necessity.

The Vulkan test is exclusive to the W7100, which scores 27,529. This is a strong result, higher than its own OpenCL score and comparable to the M395X’s Metal result. For users working in Vulkan-based applications or games, the W7100 demonstrates solid cross-API performance, while the M395X has no recorded Vulkan score to compare. The R9 M395X’s advantage is therefore limited to Metal and the aggregate average, while the W7100 wins on OpenCL, Vulkan, and every measured rate-based metric.

The Verdict

Pick the AMD FirePro W7100 if your priority is raw compute performance in a desktop workstation. The benchmark data shows it is 26.3% faster in OpenCL than the R9 M395X, and it also leads in pixel rate, texture rate, and FP32 throughput. It has a recorded Vulkan score of 27,529, which the mobile card cannot match, and its four DisplayPort 1.2 outputs make it a practical choice for multi-display professional setups. The higher 150 W TDP and single-slot design are acceptable trade-offs for the performance gains in a stationary system.

Pick the AMD Radeon R9 M395X if you need a mobile GPU or if your workflow is centered on Metal. Its average benchmark score of 25,891 is marginally higher than the W7100’s 25,856, and its Geekbench Metal result of 33,953 is the single highest score recorded for either card across all tests. The 75 W TDP and MXM form factor mean it fits into portable systems where the W7100 physically cannot go. Its 2048 shading units and 128 TMUs are a higher-count configuration than the W7100’s 1792 and 112, even if the desktop card compensates with higher clocks.

The data does not support a universal winner. The W7100 is the better compute card for OpenCL and Vulkan, while the M395X is the better choice for Metal and portability. Given that both cards have identical memory specs, transistor counts, and API support, the decision rests entirely on form factor and the specific API you rely on. For desktop OpenCL work, the W7100 is the clear pick. For mobile or Metal-centric use, the M395X is the only sensible option.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in OpenCL?

A: The AMD FirePro W7100 scores 24,182 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 26.3% higher than the AMD Radeon R9 M395X’s score of 17,829.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The R9 M395X has an average benchmark score of 25,891, while the W7100 averages 25,856. The difference is 0.1% in favor of the mobile card.

Q: Do both cards have the same memory configuration?

A: Yes, both have 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 160.0 GB/s bandwidth and a 1250 MHz memory clock.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The R9 M395X has 2,048 shading units, while the W7100 has 1,792 shading units. The M395X also has 128 TMUs versus 112 on the W7100.

Q: What is the power requirement for each card?

A: The R9 M395X has a 75 W TDP and requires no power connectors, while the W7100 has a 150 W TDP and needs one 6-pin power connector with a suggested 450 W power supply.

Q: Does the W7100 support Vulkan?

A: Yes, the W7100 has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 27,529. The R9 M395X has no recorded Vulkan benchmark result, though both cards list Vulkan 1.2.170 as a supported API.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon R9 M395X | AMD FirePro W7100 |

|---|---|---|

| Chip | Amethyst | Tonga |

| Generation | Gem System (R9 M300) | FirePro GCN (Wx100) |

| Shading Units | 2048 | 1792 |

| TMUs | 128 | 112 |

| Pixel Rate | 23.14 GPixel/s | 29.44 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 92.54 GTexel/s | 103.0 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 2.961 TFLOPS | 3.297 TFLOPS |

| TDP | 75 W | 150 W |

| Slot Width | MXM Module | Single-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | 1x 6-pin |

| Suggested PSU | None | 450 W |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 4x DisplayPort 1.2 |

| Length | None | 241 mm (9.5 inches) |

| Height | None | 111 mm (4.4 inches) |

| Release Date | 2015-05-04 | 2014-08-11 |

| Predecessor | Solar System | FirePro Terascale |

| Successor | Polaris Mobile | Radeon Pro Polaris |