GPU Comparison

The data shows two AMD GPUs from different eras and market segments. The AMD FirePro W7100 is a workstation-oriented card built on the 28 nm Tonga chip with GCN 3.0 architecture, while the AMD Radeon RX 590 is a consumer gaming card on the 12 nm Polaris 30 chip with GCN 4.0 architecture. Their benchmark scores and specifications place them in similar performance percentiles, but the comparison reveals distinct strengths that matter depending on the workload.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two cards do not share any identical benchmark tests in the data, so a direct comparison relies on their average benchmark scores. The FirePro W7100 achieves an average benchmark score of 25856, while the Radeon RX 590 scores 24744. This puts the W7100 ahead by approximately 4.5%, a modest but measurable lead in overall compute performance.

Looking at the individual tests available, the FirePro W7100 delivers 24182 points in Geekbench OpenCL and 27529 points in Geekbench Vulkan. The Radeon RX 590, by contrast, scores 48407 in Geekbench Metal and 1081 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12. The Metal result for the RX 590 is a standout figure, it is nearly double the W7100’s OpenCL score, though these are different APIs on different operating systems, so the numbers are not directly comparable.

The percentile rankings are nearly identical. The W7100 sits in the 71st percentile of all GPUs, while the RX 590 sits in the 70th percentile. This means both cards outperform roughly seven out of ten GPUs in the database, placing them in the same broad performance tier despite their different architectures and release dates.

The nearest rivals for the FirePro W7100 include the AMD FirePro D700 with an average score of 25842 (a 0.1% difference) and the AMD Radeon R9 M395X at 25891 (-0.1%). The W7100 also edges out the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Mobile (25740, +0.5%) and the AMD Radeon Pro W5700 (25726, +0.5%). These tiny margins indicate that the W7100 is essentially performance-equivalent to its closest competitors, with no clear winner among them.

For the Radeon RX 590, the nearest rival is the NVIDIA RTX A5000 Mobile at 24763 (-0.1%). The RX 590 comes out ahead of the Intel Arc A350M (24647, +0.4%), the AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT (24442, +1.2%), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630 (24277, +1.9%). The RX 590’s lead over these rivals ranges from 0.4% to 1.9%, which is a narrow but consistent advantage across the board.

Where Each One Wins

The FirePro W7100 wins in raw compute throughput as measured by the average benchmark score. Its 25856 average is 1112 points higher than the RX 590’s 24744. This advantage comes primarily from its workstation-oriented design, which prioritizes sustained compute performance over gaming-specific optimizations. The W7100’s Vulkan score of 27529 suggests strong compatibility with modern graphics APIs, and its OpenCL score of 24182 reflects solid general-purpose compute capability.

The Radeon RX 590 wins in raw shading horsepower. It has 2304 shading units compared to the W7100’s 1792, and its pixel rate of 49.44 GPixel/s is substantially higher than the W7100’s 29.44 GPixel/s. The texture rate also favors the RX 590 significantly, 222.5 GTexel/s versus 103.0 GTexel/s. These figures indicate that the RX 590 can fill pixels and apply textures much faster than the W7100, which matters for high-resolution gaming and graphics-intensive workloads.

The RX 590 also wins on memory bandwidth. Its 256.0 GB/s bandwidth is 60% higher than the W7100’s 160.0 GB/s, driven by a memory clock of 2000 MHz (8 Gbps effective) versus 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective). Both cards have 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, but the RX 590’s faster memory clock gives it a clear advantage in bandwidth-sensitive tasks.

The FirePro W7100 wins on display outputs for multi-monitor setups. It offers 4x DisplayPort 1.2, while the RX 590 provides 1x HDMI 2.0b and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a. The W7100’s four DisplayPort outputs are all identical, which simplifies multi-display configuration in professional environments. The RX 590’s DisplayPort 1.4a is a newer standard, but the W7100’s uniform output configuration is a practical advantage for workstation use.

Architecture Differences

The FirePro W7100 uses the Tonga chip with GCN 3.0 architecture, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It contains 5,000 million transistors on a 366 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 13.7 million transistors per square millimeter. The RX 590 uses the Polaris 30 chip with GCN 4.0 architecture, built on a 12 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It packs 5,700 million transistors into a 232 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 24.6 million per square millimeter, nearly double the W7100’s density.

The process node difference is the most significant architectural distinction. The 12 nm node allows the RX 590 to fit more transistors in a smaller area, which explains its higher shading unit count (2304 versus 1792) and texture units (144 versus 112). Both cards have 32 ROPs, so pixel output capability is identical at the ROP level, though the RX 590’s higher clock speeds push its pixel rate higher.

Both GPUs support DirectX 12 (12_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The Vulkan support differs: the W7100 supports Vulkan 1.2.170, while the RX 590 supports Vulkan 1.3. The RX 590’s newer Vulkan version provides better compatibility with recent games and applications that use the latest Vulkan features.

The FirePro W7100 belongs to the FirePro GCN (Wx100) generation, with its predecessor being FirePro Terascale and successor being Radeon Pro Polaris. The RX 590 belongs to the Polaris (RX 500) generation, with its predecessor being Arctic Islands and successor being Vega. These generational differences reflect the divergent product lines, one aimed at professional workstations, the other at consumer gaming.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in several key specifications. The process node is 28 nm for the W7100 versus 12 nm for the RX 590. Transistor count is 5,000 million versus 5,700 million, and die size is 366 mm² versus 232 mm². Transistor density is 13.7M / mm² versus 24.6M / mm².

Clock speeds differ substantially. The W7100 has no listed base or boost clock, while the RX 590 has a base clock of 1469 MHz and a boost clock of 1545 MHz. Memory clock is 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective) for the W7100 versus 2000 MHz (8 Gbps effective) for the RX 590. Memory bandwidth is 160.0 GB/s versus 256.0 GB/s.

Shading units are 1792 versus 2304, and texture units are 112 versus 144. Both have 32 ROPs. Pixel rate is 29.44 GPixel/s versus 49.44 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 103.0 GTexel/s versus 222.5 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 3.297 TFLOPS versus 7.119 TFLOPS, with both offering 1:1 FP16.

Power consumption is 150 W for the W7100 versus 175 W for the RX 590. The W7100 is single-slot with a 1x 6-pin power connector, while the RX 590 is dual-slot with a 1x 8-pin connector. Both suggest a 450 W power supply. The W7100 has 4x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, while the RX 590 has 1x HDMI 2.0b and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a.

Dimensions are identical in length at 241 mm (9.5 inches). The W7100 has a listed height of 111 mm (4.4 inches), while the RX 590’s height is not specified. Both are end-of-life products, with the W7100 released on 2014-08-11 and the RX 590 on 2018-11-14. The RX 590 has a launch MSRP of 279 USD.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher raw compute performance?

A: The FirePro W7100 has a higher average benchmark score of 25856 compared to the Radeon RX 590’s 24744. However, the RX 590 has significantly higher FP32 compute at 7.119 TFLOPS versus 3.297 TFLOPS for the W7100.

Q: How do their memory bandwidths compare?

A: The Radeon RX 590 has substantially higher memory bandwidth at 256.0 GB/s, driven by a 2000 MHz memory clock (8 Gbps effective). The FirePro W7100 has 160.0 GB/s bandwidth from a 1250 MHz memory clock (5 Gbps effective).

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The FirePro W7100 has a TDP of 150 W and requires a single 6-pin power connector. The Radeon RX 590 has a TDP of 175 W and requires a single 8-pin connector. Both suggest a 450 W power supply.

Q: Which card supports more display outputs?

A: The FirePro W7100 has four DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, all of the same type. The Radeon RX 590 has one HDMI 2.0b and three DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, offering a mix of connection types.

Q: How do their pixel and texture rates compare?

A: The Radeon RX 590 has a pixel rate of 49.44 GPixel/s and texture rate of 222.5 GTexel/s. The FirePro W7100 has a pixel rate of 29.44 GPixel/s and texture rate of 103.0 GTexel/s. The RX 590 leads in both metrics.

Q: What is the process node difference?

A: The FirePro W7100 is built on a 28 nm process at TSMC, while the Radeon RX 590 is built on a 12 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The 12 nm process allows the RX 590 to pack 5,700 million transistors into a 232 mm² die, versus 5,000 million transistors on a 366 mm² die for the W7100.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear split between professional compute and consumer graphics. The FirePro W7100 is the better choice for users who prioritize consistent compute performance across OpenCL and Vulkan workloads, as evidenced by its higher average benchmark score of 25856 and its 71st percentile ranking. Its single-slot design, lower 150 W TDP, and uniform 4x DisplayPort outputs make it well-suited for multi-display workstation environments where space and power efficiency matter.

The Radeon RX 590 is the better choice for graphics-intensive applications that benefit from high pixel and texture throughput. Its pixel rate of 49.44 GPixel/s and texture rate of 222.5 GTexel/s are dramatically higher than the W7100’s figures, and its 256.0 GB/s memory bandwidth gives it a clear edge in bandwidth-hungry scenarios. The RX 590’s support for Vulkan 1.3 and DisplayPort 1.4a also makes it more modern in terms of API and connectivity standards.

Users who need maximum compute throughput for professional applications should look toward the FirePro W7100, whose average benchmark score of 25856 places it above the Radeon RX 590’s 24744. Users who prioritize gaming performance or graphics rendering speed should choose the Radeon RX 590, whose 7.119 TFLOPS FP32 compute and 2304 shading units provide more than double the raw shading capability of the W7100. The choice ultimately comes down to whether the workload favors sustained compute (W7100) or high-speed graphics processing (RX 590).