AMD FirePro W7100 vs NVIDIA CMP 70HX Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded benchmark data shows a clear overall winner: the NVIDIA CMP 70HX takes both of the two tested workloads. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the NVIDIA card scores 25,135 against the AMD FirePro W7100's 24,182, a modest 3.9% advantage. This is a narrow margin, suggesting that in compute tasks that rely heavily on raw shader throughput, the two cards are closer than their architectural differences might imply. The CMP 70HX's shading unit count of 3,840 versus the W7100's 1,792 does not translate into a proportional lead here, which raises questions about driver maturity, memory bandwidth bottlenecks, or the specific nature of the OpenCL workload.

The Vulkan result tells a very different story. The NVIDIA CMP 70HX scores 35,817, while the AMD FirePro W7100 manages only 27,529. That is a 30.1% gap, a substantial victory for the Ampere-based card. Vulkan is a low-overhead API that tends to reward modern architectures with better scheduling and resource management. The data suggests that the CMP 70HX's newer design, with its 8 nm process and 30 RT cores, provides a significant advantage in this scenario. The W7100, built on GCN 3.0 and a 28 nm process, appears to struggle with the more demanding Vulkan workload, likely due to its older front-end and lack of dedicated ray tracing hardware.

Looking at the average benchmark score across both tests, the CMP 70HX lands at 30,476, placing it in the 75th percentile of all GPUs in the database. The W7100 averages 25,856, which puts it in the 71st percentile. While the percentile difference is only four points, the absolute score gap is 4,620 points, or roughly 17.9% overall. The CMP 70HX's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Tesla M60 with an average score of 30,490 and a delta of 0%, meaning the two are statistically tied, and the AMD Radeon RX 6700 at 30,433, just 0.1% behind. The W7100, by contrast, sits near the AMD FirePro D700 (25,842, 0.1% ahead) and the AMD Radeon R9 M395X (25,891, 0.1% behind), indicating that it is firmly planted in a different performance tier.

The biggest single win for the CMP 70HX is the Vulkan test, where its 30.1% lead dwarfs the OpenCL margin. The biggest win for the W7100 does not exist in this dataset; it loses both tests. However, the OpenCL result shows that the older card is not entirely outclassed, and the small delta there suggests that certain compute workloads may not fully exploit the CMP 70HX's hardware advantages. The data implies that the CMP 70HX is the stronger card overall, but the W7100 remains competitive in at least one API environment.

Architecture Differences

The two cards represent fundamentally different eras of GPU design. The NVIDIA CMP 70HX is built on the GA104 chip using the Ampere architecture, manufactured by Samsung on an 8 nm process. It packs 17,400 million transistors into a 392 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 44.4 million per square millimeter. The AMD FirePro W7100 uses the Tonga chip with GCN 3.0 architecture, fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process. It contains 5,000 million transistors on a 366 mm² die, with a density of just 13.7 million per square millimeter. The density difference is stark: the CMP 70HX crams more than three times as many transistors into a similar physical area, which explains much of its performance advantage.

Memory subsystems also diverge sharply. Both cards have 8 GB of VRAM and a 256-bit bus width, but the CMP 70HX uses GDDR6X at 19 Gbps effective, delivering 608.3 GB/s of bandwidth. The W7100 uses GDDR5 at 5 Gbps effective, yielding only 160.0 GB/s. That is a 3.8x bandwidth advantage for the NVIDIA card, a figure that likely contributes heavily to its Vulkan win, where texture streaming and memory access patterns can dominate performance. The CMP 70HX's memory clock is listed at 1188 MHz with the effective rate, while the W7100's memory runs at 1250 MHz, but the GDDR6X technology on the newer card more than compensates for the lower base clock.

Compute resources tell a similar story. The CMP 70HX has 3,840 shading units, 120 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. It also includes 30 RT cores and 120 tensor cores, features entirely absent from the W7100, which has 1,792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The pixel rate for the CMP 70HX is 89.28 GPixel/s versus 29.44 GPixel/s for the W7100, a 3x difference. Texture rate is 167.4 GTexel/s versus 103.0 GTexel/s, a 1.6x gap. FP32 performance is 10.71 TFLOPS versus 3.297 TFLOPS, a 3.25x advantage. FP16 is identical to FP32 on both cards at a 1:1 ratio, meaning neither has a dedicated half-precision boost.

Power and physical design differ as well. The W7100 has a listed TDP of 150 W, a single-slot cooler, and a 6-pin power connector, with a suggested PSU of 450 W. The CMP 70HX has no TDP listed but requires a dual-slot cooler, a 12-pin connector, and a 200 W suggested PSU. The bus interface also differs: the CMP 70HX uses PCIe 1.0 x4, a curious choice that may bottleneck data transfer, while the W7100 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, a far more capable interface. The CMP 70HX has no display outputs, as it is designed for mining, while the W7100 offers 4x DisplayPort 1.2. API support favors the NVIDIA card with DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, versus the W7100's DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170.

The Verdict

The data points decisively to the NVIDIA CMP 70HX as the superior performer. Its average benchmark score of 30,476 versus 25,856 means it is roughly 17.9% faster across the two tested workloads. In Vulkan, it is 30.1% ahead, a massive margin that reflects its modern Ampere architecture, higher bandwidth, and dedicated ray tracing hardware. The CMP 70HX also sits in the 75th percentile of all GPUs, while the W7100 is at the 71st percentile, reinforcing that the NVIDIA card belongs to a higher performance class.

However, the OpenCL result tempers the narrative slightly. A 3.9% lead is not negligible, but it is small enough to suggest that the W7100 can hold its own in certain compute tasks. The W7100's advantage in PCIe interface (3.0 x16 versus 1.0 x4) may help it in scenarios where data transfer from the host is the bottleneck, and its lower TDP of 150 W with a single-slot design makes it easier to integrate into dense workstations. The CMP 70HX's lack of display outputs is a functional limitation: it cannot drive a monitor, making it unsuitable for any interactive use case. The W7100, with 4x DisplayPort 1.2, is a legitimate workstation card.

For a user prioritizing raw compute performance and modern API support, the CMP 70HX is the clear choice. For someone who needs display output, lower power draw, and a simpler power connector, the W7100 remains viable despite its older architecture. The data does not hide the fact that the CMP 70HX is the faster card, but the W7100's feature set may make it more practical in specific environments.

FAQ

Q: Which card wins in Vulkan performance?

A: The NVIDIA CMP 70HX wins by a 30.1% margin, scoring 35,817 versus the AMD FirePro W7100's 27,529.

Q: How much memory bandwidth does each card offer?

A: The CMP 70HX delivers 608.3 GB/s with GDDR6X memory, while the W7100 provides 160.0 GB/s with GDDR5.

Q: Does the AMD FirePro W7100 support display outputs?

A: Yes, it has 4x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs. The NVIDIA CMP 70HX has no display outputs at all.

Q: What is the transistor count on each GPU?

A: The CMP 70HX has 17,400 million transistors on an 8 nm Samsung process. The W7100 has 5,000 million transistors on a 28 nm TSMC process.

Q: Are there any benchmark tests where the W7100 wins?

A: No, the recorded data shows the CMP 70HX winning both the OpenCL and Vulkan tests. The W7100's closest result is the OpenCL test, where it trails by only 3.9%.

Q: What API versions do the two cards support?

A: The CMP 70HX supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The W7100 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA CMP 70HX wins in every benchmark recorded in the database. Its Vulkan advantage of 30.1% is the headline result, and its overall average score of 30,476 versus 25,856 confirms a broad performance lead. The card also dominates in theoretical compute metrics: 10.71 TFLOPS FP32 versus 3.297 TFLOPS, 608.3 GB/s bandwidth versus 160.0 GB/s, and a pixel rate of 89.28 GPixel/s versus 29.44 GPixel/s. For any workload that stresses shader throughput, memory bandwidth, or modern API features, the CMP 70HX is the choice.

The AMD FirePro W7100 does not win a single benchmark, but it has structural advantages that may matter in specific deployments. Its PCIe 3.0 x16 interface is far more capable than the CMP 70HX's PCIe 1.0 x4, which could make it faster in scenarios where data transfers from the host CPU dominate, such as certain professional visualization or compute tasks with large input datasets. Its 150 W TDP and single-slot design mean it fits into systems with less power headroom and physical space. The 4x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs make it a functional display card, unlike the CMP 70HX, which is useless for any interactive workflow. The W7100 also has a lower transistor density at 13.7M / mm², which may correlate with easier cooling in constrained environments.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every major specification. The CMP 70HX uses the GA104 chip on an 8 nm Samsung process, while the W7100 uses Tonga on a 28 nm TSMC process. Transistor count is 17,400 million versus 5,000 million, and die size is 392 mm² versus 366 mm². Transistor density is 44.4M / mm² versus 13.7M / mm². The CMP 70HX has a base clock of 1365 MHz and boost of 1395 MHz; the W7100 has no base or boost clock listed. Memory type is GDDR6X versus GDDR5, with 608.3 GB/s versus 160.0 GB/s bandwidth. Shading units are 3,840 versus 1,792, TMUs are 120 versus 112, and ROPs are 64 versus 32. The CMP 70HX includes 30 RT cores and 120 tensor cores; the W7100 has none.

Pixel rate is 89.28 GPixel/s versus 29.44 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 167.4 GTexel/s versus 103.0 GTexel/s. FP32 is 10.71 TFLOPS versus 3.297 TFLOPS. The CMP 70HX has no TDP listed, while the W7100 lists 150 W. Slot width is dual-slot versus single-slot. Power connectors are 1x 12-pin versus 1x 6-pin. Suggested PSU is 200 W versus 450 W. Bus interface is PCIe 1.0 x4 versus PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs are none versus 4x DisplayPort 1.2. DirectX support is 12 Ultimate (12_2) versus 12 (12_0). Vulkan support is 1.4 versus 1.2.170. Dimensions are 267 mm by 112 mm versus 241 mm by 111 mm. The W7100 has a release date of 2014-08-11 and a predecessor of FirePro Terascale, while the CMP 70HX has no release date or predecessor listed.