AMD FirePro W7100 vs AMD Radeon RX 6800M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive victory for the AMD Radeon RX 6800M in every shared benchmark. The database contains two direct comparisons between these cards: Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. In OpenCL, the RX 6800M scores 87,621 against the FirePro W7100's 24,182. That is a 262.3% advantage, meaning the newer card delivers more than 3.6 times the compute performance in this workload. The Vulkan result is similarly lopsided: 94,766 versus 27,529, a 244.2% gap. These are not marginal wins; they represent generational leaps in raw throughput.

Looking at the broader benchmark suite, the RX 6800M has a much larger set of recorded results. Its average benchmark score sits at 28,874, while the FirePro W7100 averages 25,856. That difference of roughly 3,000 points places the RX 6800M in the 74th percentile of all GPUs, whereas the FirePro W7100 lands in the 71st percentile. The RX 6800M's nearest rivals in the database include the AMD Radeon RX 570 (average score 28,766, delta 0.4%) and the AMD Radeon RX 470 (average score 28,996, delta -0.4%). It also sits within 1% of the Intel Arc A370M (29,175) and the AMD Radeon R9 M295X (28,580). The FirePro W7100, by contrast, is bracketed by 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%). Despite both cards occupying similar percentile rankings, the RX 6800M's absolute scores are far higher in the tests where both were measured.

In the individual benchmarks available for the RX 6800M, it shows strength across the board. Its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score is 2,238. Geekbench Metal reaches 113,721, and Geekbench Vulkan is 94,766. Passmark scores include 13,261 in G3D, 5,032 in GPU Compute, and 538 in G2D. The older FirePro W7100 only has two recorded benchmarks in the database, both of which are significantly lower than the RX 6800M's equivalents. This sparse data set limits direct comparison, but the two shared tests paint an unambiguous picture.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is substantial and explains the performance disparity. The AMD Radeon RX 6800M uses the Navi 22 chip built on RDNA 2.0 architecture, fabricated on a 7 nm process at TSMC. It packs 17,200 million transistors into a 335 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 51.3 million per square millimeter. The AMD FirePro 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 13.7 million per square millimeter. The newer process node allows the RX 6800M to fit more than three times the transistors into a slightly smaller die.

Memory configurations differ markedly. The RX 6800M comes with 12 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, delivering 384.0 GB/s of bandwidth. Its memory clock runs at 2000 MHz, which translates to 16 Gbps effective. The FirePro W7100 has 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a wider 256-bit bus, but its bandwidth is only 160.0 GB/s, less than half. Its memory clock is 1250 MHz, or 5 Gbps effective. The narrower bus on the RX 6800M is more than compensated by the faster memory technology.

Compute resources follow the same trend. The RX 6800M has 2,560 shading units, 160 texture mapping units, and 64 raster operation pipelines. It also includes 40 ray tracing cores, a feature entirely absent from the FirePro W7100. The older card has 1,792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. Pixel rate on the RX 6800M is 153.0 GPixel/s versus 29.44 GPixel/s on the FirePro. Texture rate is 382.4 GTexel/s versus 103.0 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 12.24 TFLOPS versus 3.297 TFLOPS. Notably, the RX 6800M's FP16 performance doubles to 24.47 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, while the FirePro W7100's FP16 output is identical to its FP32 at 3.297 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio.

API support also differs. The RX 6800M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The FirePro W7100 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The newer DirectX feature level means better support for modern rendering techniques. Power consumption is comparable, with the RX 6800M rated at 145 W and the FirePro W7100 at 150 W, but the physical designs diverge. The RX 6800M is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with no power connectors and a portable-device-dependent display output. The FirePro W7100 is a single-slot card measuring 241 mm by 111 mm, requiring a single 6-pin power connector and a 450 W power supply. The RX 6800M connects via PCIe 4.0 x16, while the FirePro W7100 uses PCIe 3.0 x16.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon RX 6800M wins in every measurable category where both cards have data. In compute-heavy workloads like OpenCL and Vulkan, it dominates with margins exceeding 240%. For gaming and modern graphics workloads, the RX 6800M's RDNA 2.0 architecture with ray tracing cores and DirectX 12 Ultimate support makes it the clear choice. Its higher pixel rate, texture rate, and FP32 throughput translate directly to better frame rates in rasterized and ray-traced scenes. The 12 GB of GDDR6 memory with 384.0 GB/s bandwidth provides ample headroom for high-resolution textures and complex scenes.

The AMD FirePro W7100's advantages are narrower but real in specific contexts. Its 256-bit memory bus is wider, which historically helps in certain bandwidth-sensitive professional workloads, but the actual bandwidth is still far lower. The card's single-slot form factor and 241 mm length make it fit in workstation chassis where space is constrained. Its 4x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs support multi-monitor professional setups directly, whereas the RX 6800M's display outputs are portable-device-dependent, meaning they vary by laptop implementation. The FirePro W7100 also has a lower transistor count and simpler architecture, which can be advantageous for legacy software compatibility with GCN-era optimizations. Its FP16 performance at 1:1 ratio, while lower in absolute terms, may be preferable for applications that require consistent precision across data types.

In the database's percentile rankings, the two cards are close: 74th percentile for the RX 6800M versus 71st for the FirePro W7100. However, this similarity is misleading given the average scores differ by over 3,000 points. The percentile metric likely reflects the fact that the FirePro W7100's nearest rivals include very different cards like the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Mobile, which suggests the database's comparison pool for this older workstation card is limited.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in OpenCL compute workloads?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6800M scores 87,621 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 262.3% higher than the AMD FirePro W7100's 24,182. This is the largest margin recorded in the head-to-head data.

Q: Does the FirePro W7100 have any ray tracing capability?

A: No. The FirePro W7100 has no ray tracing cores listed in the database. The RX 6800M includes 40 ray tracing cores, which is a significant architectural advantage for modern rendering workloads.

Q: How do the memory bandwidth figures compare?

A: The RX 6800M provides 384.0 GB/s of bandwidth from 12 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus. The FirePro W7100 provides 160.0 GB/s from 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus. The newer card has over twice the bandwidth despite a narrower bus.

Q: Are these cards' power requirements similar?

A: Yes, the TDP figures are close: 145 W for the RX 6800M and 150 W for the FirePro W7100. However, the FirePro W7100 requires a 6-pin power connector and a 450 W power supply, while the RX 6800M is an IGP with no power connectors.

Q: Which card supports newer DirectX features?

A: The RX 6800M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the FirePro W7100 supports DirectX 12 (12_0). The RX 6800M's newer feature level enables advanced rendering techniques not available on the older card.

Q: What is the transistor density difference between these two chips?

A: The RX 6800M's Navi 22 chip has a density of 51.3 million transistors per square millimeter on 7 nm. The FirePro W7100's Tonga chip has 13.7 million per square millimeter on 28 nm. This is a 3.7 times density advantage for the newer process.

The Verdict

The data leaves no room for ambiguity: the AMD Radeon RX 6800M is the superior GPU in every head-to-head measurement available. Its 262.3% OpenCL lead and 244.2% Vulkan lead over the FirePro W7100 are decisive. The RX 6800M also has a higher average benchmark score (28,874 versus 25,856), higher percentile ranking (74th versus 71st), more memory (12 GB versus 8 GB), faster memory (384.0 GB/s versus 160.0 GB/s), more shading units (2,560 versus 1,792), and modern architectural features like ray tracing cores and DirectX 12 Ultimate support.

The FirePro W7100 retains niche relevance for specific legacy workstation environments. Its single-slot design, 4x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, and GCN 3.0 architecture may appeal to systems requiring those specific attributes. Its 150 W TDP is comparable to the RX 6800M, but the older card needs an external power connector and a 450 W power supply. For any workload that leverages modern APIs, higher compute throughput, or ray tracing, the RX 6800M is the only rational choice based on the recorded data. The 7 nm process, 17,200 million transistors, and 2,560 shading units provide a compute foundation that the 28 nm, 5,000 million transistor FirePro W7100 simply cannot match.

For a builder choosing between these two today, the RX 6800M wins on performance, efficiency per transistor, and future-proofing. The FirePro W7100 only makes sense if the specific physical form factor or display output configuration is a hard requirement and the workload is limited to older GCN-optimized software.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon RX 6800M | AMD FirePro W7100 |

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

| Architecture | RDNA 2.0 | GCN 3.0 |

| Process Node | 7 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 17,200 million | 5,000 million |

| Die Size | 335 mm² | 366 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 51.3M / mm² | 13.7M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 2116 MHz | Not specified |

| Boost Clock | 2390 MHz | Not specified |

| Memory Clock | 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) | 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 12 GB | 8 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus | 192 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 384.0 GB/s | 160.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 2560 | 1792 |

| TMUs | 160 | 112 |

| ROPs | 64 | 32 |

| Ray Tracing Cores | 40 | None |

| Pixel Rate | 153.0 GPixel/s | 29.44 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 382.4 GTexel/s | 103.0 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 12.24 TFLOPS | 3.297 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 24.47 TFLOPS (2:1) | 3.297 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 145 W | 150 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | Single-slot |

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

| Suggested PSU | Not specified | 450 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

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

| DirectX Support | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (12_0) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.4 | 1.2.170 |

| Dimensions | Not specified | 241 mm x 111 mm |

| Release Date | 2021-05-30 | 2014-08-11 |

| Predecessor | Polaris Mobile | FirePro Terascale |

| Successor | Not specified | Radeon Pro Polaris |