AMD FirePro W7100 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti Comparison

The data places the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti and AMD FirePro W7100 in adjacent performance percentiles, yet their benchmark results show a decisive gap. The GTX 980 Ti averages 28,020 points across all tests, placing it in the 73rd percentile of all GPUs, while the FirePro W7100 averages 25,856 points, good for the 71st percentile. In direct head-to-head comparisons, the GTX 980 Ti wins both available tests, with a 79.9% lead in Geekbench OpenCL and a 73.4% lead in Geekbench Vulkan. These are not close calls; the NVIDIA part is categorically faster in compute workloads.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti leads with an average benchmark score of 28,020, compared to the AMD FirePro W7100's 25,856. This places the GTX 980 Ti in the 73rd percentile of all GPUs, two points ahead of the W7100's 71st percentile.

Q: How much faster is the GTX 980 Ti in OpenCL compute?

A: In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the GTX 980 Ti scores 43,513 against the FirePro W7100's 24,182. That is a delta of 79.9%, meaning the NVIDIA card delivers nearly 80% more performance in this workload.

Q: Is the FirePro W7100 competitive in Vulkan?

A: No. The GTX 980 Ti scores 47,724 in Geekbench Vulkan versus 27,529 for the W7100, a 73.4% advantage. The FirePro trails by a wide margin despite both cards supporting Vulkan APIs.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The GTX 980 Ti ships with 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, delivering 336.6 GB/s of bandwidth. The FirePro W7100 offers 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, providing 160.0 GB/s. The NVIDIA card has over twice the memory bandwidth.

Q: Which card has a larger die and more transistors?

A: The GTX 980 Ti uses the GM200 chip with 8,000 million transistors on a 601 mm² die. The FirePro W7100 uses the Tonga chip with 5,000 million transistors on a 366 mm² die. Both are built on TSMC's 28 nm process.

Q: Do both cards support the same DirectX version?

A: Both support DirectX 12, but at different feature levels. The GTX 980 Ti supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the FirePro W7100 supports DirectX 12 (12_0). The NVIDIA card also supports Vulkan 1.4 versus 1.2.170 for the AMD card.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split is fundamental. NVIDIA's GM200 chip implements the Maxwell 2.0 architecture, while AMD's Tonga chip uses GCN 3.0. Both are fabricated on the same 28 nm process at TSMC, but the die sizes diverge sharply: the GM200 measures 601 mm² with 8,000 million transistors, whereas Tonga is 366 mm² with 5,000 million transistors. Transistor density is nearly identical — 13.3M per mm² for NVIDIA and 13.7M per mm² for AMD — so the performance gap stems from scale, not density.

The GTX 980 Ti packs 2,816 shading units, 176 texture mapping units, and 96 raster output units. The FirePro W7100 counters with 1,792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and only 32 ROPs. That ROP deficit is enormous: the GTX 980 Ti achieves a pixel rate of 103.3 GPixel/s versus 29.44 GPixel/s for the W7100, a 3.5x difference. Texture rate also favors NVIDIA, at 189.4 GTexel/s versus 103.0 GTexel/s.

Compute throughput tells the same story. The GTX 980 Ti delivers 6.060 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the W7100 manages 3.297 TFLOPS. Interestingly, the FirePro matches its FP32 with 3.297 TFLOPS of FP16 (1:1 ratio), but the GTX 980 Ti does not list FP16 capabilities. The FirePro's memory system runs at 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective), while the GTX 980 Ti's memory clocks at 1753 MHz (7 Gbps effective), contributing to the bandwidth gap.

Physical design also differs. The GTX 980 Ti is a dual-slot card requiring both a 6-pin and an 8-pin power connector, with a 250 W TDP and a suggested 600 W power supply. The FirePro W7100 is a single-slot card using just one 6-pin connector, with a 150 W TDP and a 450 W suggested PSU. The GTX 980 Ti is longer at 267 mm versus 241 mm, but both share the same 111 mm height.

Display outputs diverge as well. The GTX 980 Ti offers 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 3x DisplayPort 1.2. The FirePro W7100 provides 4x DisplayPort 1.2, which is a cleaner multi-monitor setup for professional use. The W7100 also has a wider memory pool at 8 GB, though its 256-bit bus limits effective use of that capacity.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are unambiguous: the GTX 980 Ti wins both available tests. In Geekbench OpenCL, the NVIDIA card scores 43,513 against 24,182 for the FirePro, a 79.9% advantage. That is nearly double the compute throughput. The Vulkan test is similarly lopsided, with the GTX 980 Ti scoring 47,724 versus 27,529, a 73.4% lead.

These deltas are far larger than what the percentile rankings suggest. The GTX 980 Ti's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon Pro W5500X (average score 27,973, delta 0.2%) and AMD FirePro S7150 (average score 28,117, delta -0.3%). The FirePro W7100's nearest rival is the AMD FirePro D700 (average score 25,842, delta 0.1%) and the AMD Radeon R9 M395X (average score 25,891, delta -0.1%). The two cards sit in different performance neighborhoods despite being only two percentile points apart.

The GTX 980 Ti's wins are not marginal. A 79.9% OpenCL delta means the NVIDIA card completes compute tasks in roughly half the time. The 73.4% Vulkan delta is equally decisive. The FirePro W7100's 8 GB memory capacity does not translate into benchmark wins; the GTX 980 Ti's 336.6 GB/s bandwidth dominates the W7100's 160.0 GB/s, which likely drives the large performance gap in memory-sensitive workloads.

Interestingly, the GTX 980 Ti's average benchmark score of 28,020 stands 8.4% above the FirePro's 25,856. That aggregate difference is smaller than the head-to-head deltas, suggesting the FirePro holds up better in some synthetic tests not covered in the direct comparison. However, in the two tests where both cards ran the same workload, the NVIDIA part wins decisively.

The Verdict

The data is clear: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti is the superior performer. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks with deltas of 79.9% and 73.4%, holds a 2,164-point advantage in average benchmark score, and delivers more than double the pixel rate and nearly double the FP32 throughput. The GTX 980 Ti is also in the 73rd percentile versus the FirePro's 71st, confirming its higher standing in the overall GPU hierarchy.

The AMD FirePro W7100 does have redeeming qualities. It offers 8 GB of memory versus 6 GB, a single-slot design versus dual-slot, and a lower 150 W TDP versus 250 W. It also provides four DisplayPort outputs, which is useful for multi-display professional setups. The W7100 requires only a 450 W power supply and a single 6-pin connector, making it easier to integrate into existing workstations.

For users prioritizing raw compute performance, the GTX 980 Ti is the obvious choice. Its 6.060 TFLOPS FP32 and 103.3 GPixel/s pixel rate leave the W7100 far behind. The GTX 980 Ti also supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, newer API versions than the W7100's DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.2.170.

For users prioritizing power efficiency and form factor, the FirePro W7100 makes sense. It draws 100 W less, fits in a single slot, and still delivers 3.297 TFLOPS, which is respectable for a 150 W card. The 8 GB memory pool could help in memory-bound professional applications, even if the 160.0 GB/s bandwidth limits its potential.

The GTX 980 Ti launched at 649 USD MSRP, while the FirePro W7100 has no listed launch MSRP. The performance gap justifies the NVIDIA card's premium positioning, but the W7100's lower power draw and smaller footprint may appeal to constrained environments. Benchmark results indicate the GTX 980 Ti is the faster card, period. The FirePro W7100 is the more efficient, space-conscious alternative.

Specification Differences

• Shading Units: 2,816 (GTX 980 Ti) vs 1,792 (W7100)
• TMUs: 176 vs 112
• ROPs: 96 vs 32
• Pixel Rate: 103.3 GPixel/s vs 29.44 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 189.4 GTexel/s vs 103.0 GTexel/s
• FP32: 6.060 TFLOPS vs 3.297 TFLOPS
• FP16: Not listed vs 3.297 TFLOPS (1:1)
• Memory Size: 6 GB vs 8 GB
• Memory Bus Width: 384 bit vs 256 bit
• Memory Bandwidth: 336.6 GB/s vs 160.0 GB/s
• Memory Clock: 1753 MHz (7 Gbps effective) vs 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective)
• Base Clock: 1000 MHz vs not listed
• Boost Clock: 1076 MHz vs not listed
• TDP: 250 W vs 150 W
• Slot Width: Dual-slot vs Single-slot
• Power Connectors: 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin vs 1x 6-pin
• Suggested PSU: 600 W vs 450 W
• Display Outputs: 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.2 vs 4x DisplayPort 1.2
• DirectX: 12 (12_1) vs 12 (12_0)
• Vulkan: 1.4 vs 1.2.170
• Transistors: 8,000 million vs 5,000 million
• Die Size: 601 mm² vs 366 mm²
• Transistor Density: 13.3M / mm² vs 13.7M / mm²
• Length: 267 mm vs 241 mm
• Release Date: 2015-06-01 vs 2014-08-11