AMD FirePro W7100 vs AMD Radeon RX 6800 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows only two overlapping benchmark tests between the AMD Radeon RX 6800 and the AMD FirePro W7100, and both belong to the RX 6800. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RX 6800 scores 24,508 against the FirePro W7100's 24,182, a narrow victory of 1.3%. This is a surprisingly close margin given the architectural gap between the two, and it suggests that OpenCL workloads may be more dependent on driver optimization and compute scheduling than raw hardware throughput.

The second and far more decisive test is Geekbench Vulkan, where the RX 6800 posts 115,107 versus the FirePro W7100's 27,529. That is a delta of 318.1% in favor of the RX 6800, meaning the newer card delivers more than four times the Vulkan performance. This is not a marginal improvement; it reflects a fundamental difference in how each GPU handles modern graphics APIs. The FirePro W7100 was released before Vulkan matured, and its GCN 3.0 architecture was not designed with async compute and explicit multi-adapter features in mind. The RX 6800, built on RDNA 2.0, treats Vulkan as a first-class citizen, which shows in the benchmark data.

Across the two shared tests, the RX 6800 wins 2 out of 2, with zero wins for the FirePro W7100. The average benchmark score for the RX 6800 is 30,095, placing it in the 75th percentile of all GPUs in the database. The FirePro W7100 averages 25,856, which lands it in the 71st percentile. While both are above the median, the RX 6800's lead in the aggregate is roughly 16.4% (30,095 versus 25,856), though that comparison includes a wider set of tests for the RX 6800 (11 benchmarks) versus only two for the FirePro W7100. The nearest rivals for the RX 6800 are the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Ti (average score 29,945, delta 0.5%), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Mobile (29,928, delta 0.6%), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Ti (29,783, delta 1%), and the AMD Radeon RX 6700 (30,433, delta -1.1%). For the FirePro W7100, its nearest rivals include the AMD FirePro D700 (25,842, delta 0.1%), the AMD Radeon R9 M395X (25,891, delta -0.1%), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Mobile (25,740, delta 0.5%), and the AMD Radeon Pro W5700 (25,726, delta 0.5%). These figures show that the RX 6800 competes with modern mid-to-high-end cards, while the FirePro W7100 sits among older workstation and mobile parts.

Architecture Differences

The RX 6800 uses the Navi 21 chip on RDNA 2.0 architecture, fabricated on a 7 nm process at TSMC. It integrates 26,800 million transistors on a die size of 520 mm², yielding a transistor density of 51.5 million per mm². The FirePro W7100, by contrast, uses the Tonga chip on GCN 3.0 architecture, built on a 28 nm process, also at TSMC, but with only 5,000 million transistors on a 366 mm² die, giving a density of 13.7 million per mm². The process node difference alone explains much of the performance gap: 7 nm versus 28 nm is a generational leap in scaling, and the RX 6800 packs over five times the transistor count into a die that is only about 42% larger in area.

Memory configurations diverge sharply. The RX 6800 has 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 512.0 GB/s of bandwidth with memory clocked at 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective). The FirePro W7100 has 8 GB of GDDR5 on the same 256-bit bus, but bandwidth drops to 160.0 GB/s with memory at 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective). That is a 3.2x difference in memory bandwidth, which directly impacts texture-heavy workloads and large frame buffers. The RX 6800 also features 3840 shading units, 240 TMUs, and 96 ROPs, compared to the FirePro W7100's 1792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The RX 6800 further adds 60 ray tracing cores, a feature entirely absent from the FirePro W7100, which has no RT cores listed.

Compute throughput tells a similar story. The RX 6800 reaches 16.17 TFLOPS FP32 and 32.33 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1 ratio), while the FirePro W7100 manages 3.297 TFLOPS FP32 and 3.297 TFLOPS FP16 (1:1 ratio). The FP16 ratio difference is notable: the RX 6800 doubles FP16 throughput via packed math, whereas the FirePro W7100 runs FP16 at the same rate as FP32. Pixel rate is 202.1 GPixel/s for the RX 6800 versus 29.44 GPixel/s for the FirePro W7100, and texture rate is 505.2 GTexel/s versus 103.0 GTexel/s. These are not incremental differences; they are multiples of 4 to 6 times in favor of the RX 6800.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear conclusion: the AMD Radeon RX 6800 is the superior GPU in every measurable dimension within this comparison. It wins both shared benchmarks, has a higher average score, a higher percentile rank, and a more modern feature set. The FirePro W7100, released in 2014, is a workstation card from the GCN era, and its 8 GB of GDDR5 and 3.297 TFLOPS FP32 are simply not competitive with a 2020 RDNA 2 card. For any task involving Vulkan, the RX 6800 is over four times faster, which eliminates the FirePro W7100 from consideration for modern gaming or compute workloads.

However, the FirePro W7100 is not without its place. Its 150 W TDP, single-slot design, and single 6-pin power connector make it a low-power, compact option that can fit into space-constrained workstation chassis. The RX 6800, at 250 W TDP, dual-slot width, and dual 8-pin connectors, requires more power and physical space. If a user prioritizes minimum power draw and slot occupancy over raw performance, the FirePro W7100 has a niche. But the benchmark data shows that even in OpenCL, where the FirePro W7100 performs closest, the RX 6800 still leads by 1.3%. There is no workload in the recorded data where the FirePro W7100 wins.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two cards, based only on the recorded data:

• Process node: 7 nm (RX 6800) versus 28 nm (FirePro W7100)
• Transistors: 26,800 million versus 5,000 million
• Die size: 520 mm² versus 366 mm²
• Transistor density: 51.5M / mm² versus 13.7M / mm²
• Memory size: 16 GB versus 8 GB
• Memory type: GDDR6 versus GDDR5
• Memory clock: 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) versus 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective)
• Memory bandwidth: 512.0 GB/s versus 160.0 GB/s
• Shading units: 3840 versus 1792
• TMUs: 240 versus 112
• ROPs: 96 versus 32
• Ray tracing cores: 60 versus none (null)
• Pixel rate: 202.1 GPixel/s versus 29.44 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 505.2 GTexel/s versus 103.0 GTexel/s
• FP32: 16.17 TFLOPS versus 3.297 TFLOPS
• FP16: 32.33 TFLOPS (2:1) versus 3.297 TFLOPS (1:1)
• TDP: 250 W versus 150 W
• Slot width: Dual-slot versus Single-slot
• Power connectors: 2x 8-pin versus 1x 6-pin
• Suggested PSU: 600 W versus 450 W
• Bus interface: PCIe 4.0 x16 versus PCIe 3.0 x16
• Display outputs: 1x HDMI 2.1, 2x DisplayPort 1.4a, 1x USB Type-C versus 4x DisplayPort 1.2
• DirectX support: 12 Ultimate (12_2) versus 12 (12_0)
• Vulkan support: 1.4 versus 1.2.170
• Release date: 2020-10-27 versus 2014-08-11
• Launch MSRP: 579 USD (RX 6800 only; no launch MSRP recorded for FirePro W7100)
• Dimensions: length 267 mm versus 241 mm, height 120 mm versus 111 mm, width 40 mm versus null

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6800 has 512.0 GB/s, while the AMD FirePro W7100 has 160.0 GB/s. That is a 3.2x advantage for the RX 6800.

Q: Does the FirePro W7100 support ray tracing?

A: No. The FirePro W7100 has no ray tracing cores recorded, whereas the RX 6800 includes 60 RT cores.

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference?

A: The RX 6800 averages 30,095 across 11 benchmark entries, while the FirePro W7100 averages 25,856 across 2 entries. The RX 6800 also holds a higher percentile rank at 75 versus 71.

Q: In the shared Geekbench Vulkan test, how much faster is the RX 6800?

A: The RX 6800 scores 115,107 versus 27,529 for the FirePro W7100, a delta of 318.1% in favor of the RX 6800.

Q: Which card has a lower power draw?

A: The FirePro W7100 has a TDP of 150 W with a single 6-pin connector and a suggested PSU of 450 W. The RX 6800 has a TDP of 250 W with dual 8-pin connectors and a suggested PSU of 600 W.

Q: Are both cards end-of-life?

A: Yes. The production status for both the RX 6800 and the FirePro W7100 is listed as end-of-life in the database.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 6800 wins in all performance categories. For gaming, modern API support, and any compute workload that benefits from FP16 or ray tracing, the RX 6800 is the clear choice. Its 16 GB of GDDR6 and 512.0 GB/s bandwidth handle large textures and high resolutions, and its Vulkan score of 115,107 dwarfs the FirePro W7100's 27,529. The RX 6800 also leads in OpenCL, though by a smaller margin (1.3%), so even legacy compute tasks favor the newer card.

The FirePro W7100 wins only in physical and power efficiency. Its single-slot design and 150 W TDP make it easier to install in dense workstations, and its 4x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs support multi-monitor setups without needing additional adapters. For users who absolutely require a single-slot card with modest power requirements, the FirePro W7100 remains functional, but the benchmark data offers no performance reason to choose it over the RX 6800. The RX 6800 also has a higher transistor density (51.5M / mm² versus 13.7M / mm²), which correlates with its superior compute metrics. In summary, the RX 6800 is the winner wherever performance matters, while the FirePro W7100 is only relevant for niche, space-constrained deployments where power and slot width are the primary constraints.