AMD FirePro W7100 vs AMD Radeon RX 6700 Comparison

AMD Radeon RX 6700 vs AMD FirePro W7100

The AMD Radeon RX 6700 and the AMD FirePro W7100 occupy different ends of the GPU timeline, with the RX 6700 representing a modern RDNA 2.0 architecture and the W7100 being a legacy GCN 3.0 workstation part. Benchmark data from the database shows a clear performance gulf between them, with the RX 6700 winning both recorded head-to-head tests by a massive margin. However, the two cards serve different purposes, and the W7100 retains relevance in specific legacy workstation roles. The data shows that the RX 6700 is the superior compute and graphics performer by every measurable metric, while the W7100 offers a different set of features, including a single-slot form factor and four DisplayPort outputs.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon RX 6700 is the clear winner in raw performance, taking both head-to-head benchmark victories in the database. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RX 6700 scores 97,841 compared to the W7100’s 24,182, a delta of 304.6%. In Geekbench Vulkan, the RX 6700 scores 83,974 versus the W7100’s 27,529, a delta of 205%. These are not marginal wins; the RX 6700 more than triples the W7100’s OpenCL score and more than doubles its Vulkan score. The RX 6700 also holds a higher average benchmark score of 30,433 versus the W7100’s 25,856, and sits at the 75th percentile among all GPUs compared to the W7100’s 71st percentile.

The RX 6700’s wins are spread across its modern feature set. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), which includes ray tracing cores (36 RT cores), while the W7100 only supports DirectX 12 (12_0) with no ray tracing capability. The RX 6700 also has a higher pixel rate of 156.8 GPixel/s and texture rate of 352.8 GTexel/s, dwarfing the W7100’s 29.44 GPixel/s and 103.0 GTexel/s. For gaming, content creation, or any compute-heavy workload, the RX 6700 is the obvious choice based on the recorded data.

The FirePro W7100’s strengths are not in benchmark scores but in its physical and connectivity attributes. It is a single-slot card, measuring 241 mm in length and 111 mm in height, whereas the RX 6700 is a dual-slot card at 267 mm long and 110 mm high. The W7100 also offers four DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, which is one more than the RX 6700’s three DisplayPort 1.4a outputs plus one HDMI 2.1. For multi-display professional setups that require dense card spacing, the W7100’s single-slot design and extra DisplayPort could be a deciding factor, despite its lower performance. The W7100 also has a lower TDP of 150 W versus the RX 6700’s 175 W, and uses a single 6-pin power connector instead of an 8-pin.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is generational. The RX 6700 uses the Navi 22 chip built on RDNA 2.0 architecture, manufactured on a 7 nm process at TSMC. It packs 17,200 million transistors on a 335 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 51.3M per mm². The W7100 uses the Tonga chip with GCN 3.0 architecture, built on a 28 nm process, also at TSMC. It contains 5,000 million transistors on a 366 mm² die, with a density of just 13.7M per mm². The RX 6700’s newer process allows for over three times the transistor density in a slightly smaller die.

The RX 6700 features 2,304 shading units, 144 texture mapping units, and 64 raster operation units. It also includes 36 dedicated ray tracing cores, a feature entirely absent from the W7100. The W7100 has 1,792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The RX 6700’s compute capabilities are reflected in its FP32 throughput of 11.29 TFLOPS and FP16 of 22.58 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio). The W7100 manages 3.297 TFLOPS in both FP32 and FP16, as it operates at a 1:1 ratio. This means the RX 6700 delivers roughly 3.4 times the FP32 performance, consistent with the OpenCL benchmark delta.

Memory configurations also differ significantly. The RX 6700 uses 10 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 160-bit bus, delivering 320.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The W7100 uses 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 160.0 GB/s. Despite the wider bus on the W7100, the RX 6700’s faster memory type and higher effective speed of 16 Gbps versus 5 Gbps gives it double the bandwidth. The RX 6700 also supports PCIe 4.0 x16, while the W7100 is limited to PCIe 3.0 x16.

API support further separates them. The RX 6700 lists DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The W7100 lists DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The RX 6700’s newer DirectX and Vulkan versions enable features like mesh shaders and variable rate shading, which the W7100 cannot access. The W7100’s display outputs are all DisplayPort 1.2, while the RX 6700 offers HDMI 2.1 and DisplayPort 1.4a, supporting higher resolutions and refresh rates.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains two direct head-to-head benchmark comparisons between these cards, and the RX 6700 wins both decisively. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RX 6700 scores 97,841 against the W7100’s 24,182. This is a 304.6% delta, meaning the RX 6700 is over four times faster in this compute test. OpenCL is a general-purpose compute API, so this result reflects the RX 6700’s superior FP32 throughput and memory bandwidth. The W7100’s 3.297 TFLOPS and 160 GB/s bandwidth simply cannot compete with the RX 6700’s 11.29 TFLOPS and 320 GB/s.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the RX 6700 scores 83,974 versus the W7100’s 27,529, a 205% delta. Vulkan is a low-level graphics and compute API, and the RX 6700’s RDNA 2.0 architecture with its dedicated ray tracing cores and modern scheduling provides a substantial advantage. The W7100’s GCN 3.0 architecture, while competent for its era, lacks the hardware features needed to match the newer card in Vulkan workloads. The RX 6700’s score is also higher in absolute terms than its own Vulkan score in OpenCL, indicating strong driver optimization for this API.

Looking at broader benchmark data, the RX 6700 has a much richer score profile. It records scores in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 (2,014), Geekbench Metal (122,223), Passmark DirectX 10 (115), DirectX 11 (166), DirectX 12 (71), DirectX 9 (250), G2D (936), G3D (18,931), and GPU Compute (8,240). The W7100 only has two recorded benchmarks: Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. This disparity in available data points suggests the RX 6700 is more widely tested and supported in modern benchmark suites, reinforcing its position as a contemporary GPU. The RX 6700’s average benchmark score of 30,433 places it within 1.6% of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Ti (29,945) and 1.1% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 6800 (30,095). The W7100’s average of 25,856 is nearly identical to the AMD FirePro D700 (25,842), differing by only 0.1%.

The Verdict

The AMD Radeon RX 6700 is the superior GPU in every performance metric recorded in the database. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks by enormous margins, offers significantly higher compute throughput, more memory bandwidth, and supports modern APIs including ray tracing. For any user prioritizing performance, whether for gaming, rendering, or general compute, the RX 6700 is the only rational choice. Its 75th percentile ranking among all GPUs, compared to the W7100’s 71st, confirms its higher standing in the broader GPU landscape.

The AMD FirePro W7100 retains a niche appeal based on its physical design. It is a single-slot card with four DisplayPort outputs, which is advantageous for multi-GPU workstation builds where space is constrained. Its lower TDP of 150 W and single 6-pin power requirement make it easier to integrate into power-sensitive systems. However, the data shows no performance scenario where the W7100 wins. Its 8 GB of GDDR5 memory and 160 GB/s bandwidth are half the RX 6700’s bandwidth, and its FP32 performance is less than a third.

The RX 6700’s nearest rivals in the database include the NVIDIA CMP 70HX (average score 30,476, delta -0.1%) and the NVIDIA Tesla M60 (30,490, delta -0.2%), both of which are within a fraction of a percent of its score. The W7100’s nearest rivals include the AMD FirePro D700 (25,842, delta 0.1%) and the AMD Radeon R9 M395X (25,891, delta -0.1%). This places the two cards in entirely different performance tiers. Users should pick the RX 6700 for any modern workload that demands performance, and the W7100 only if the single-slot form factor and legacy DisplayPort 1.2 connectivity are absolute requirements. The RX 6700 is also end-of-life, as is the W7100, but the RX 6700’s newer release date of June 2021 versus August 2014 means it benefits from more recent driver support and feature development.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher raw compute performance?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6700 delivers 11.29 TFLOPS FP32 and 22.58 TFLOPS FP16, while the AMD FirePro W7100 delivers 3.297 TFLOPS in both FP32 and FP16. The RX 6700 is over three times faster in FP32.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between the two?

A: The RX 6700 has 320.0 GB/s bandwidth from 10 GB of GDDR6 on a 160-bit bus. The W7100 has 160.0 GB/s from 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, exactly half the bandwidth.

Q: Does the FirePro W7100 support ray tracing?

A: No. The W7100 has no ray tracing cores, while the RX 6700 includes 36 dedicated RT cores. The RX 6700 also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), whereas the W7100 is limited to DirectX 12 (12_0).

Q: How do their benchmark scores compare in Geekbench Vulkan?

A: The RX 6700 scores 83,974, which is 205% higher than the W7100’s 27,529 in the same test.

Q: Which card supports more display outputs?

A: The FirePro W7100 has four DisplayPort 1.2 outputs. The RX 6700 has one HDMI 2.1 and three DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, totaling four as well, but with one fewer DisplayPort.

Q: What are the physical size differences?

A: The RX 6700 is a dual-slot card measuring 267 mm long, 110 mm high, and 40 mm wide. The W7100 is a single-slot card measuring 241 mm long and 111 mm high, making it shorter and thinner.