AMD FirePro W7100 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN Z Comparison

The AMD FirePro W7100 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN Z split their two benchmark wins almost perfectly, but the nature of those wins reveals a clear use-case divergence. The TITAN Z dominates in raw compute throughput via OpenCL, while the FirePro W7100 delivers a decisive victory in the Vulkan API. This is not a story of one card being universally faster; it is a story of two aging architectures excelling in different software environments. The data shows a 25.1% win for the FirePro in Vulkan, a margin too large to ignore, while the TITAN Z’s 5% OpenCL advantage is more modest. For professionals locked into OpenCL workloads, the TITAN Z is the statistical pick; for those leveraging Vulkan, the FirePro W7100 is the clear leader.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN Z wins the compute-heavy, legacy-API battle. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, it scores 25,465 against the AMD FirePro W7100’s 24,182, a 5% delta. This aligns with its hardware design: a dual-GPU monster with 2,880 shading units, 240 texture mapping units, and 48 ROPs, all driven by a 384-bit memory bus providing 336.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The TITAN Z’s raw numbers are simply larger across the board — 5.046 TFLOPS FP32 versus 3.297 TFLOPS, 210.2 GTexel/s versus 103.0 GTexel/s, and 52.56 GPixel/s versus 29.44 GPixel/s. If your workload is built on OpenCL and demands maximum throughput, the data points squarely to the TITAN Z.

The AMD FirePro W7100 wins the modern-API contest decisively. In Geekbench Vulkan, it scores 27,529 against the TITAN Z’s 22,006, a massive 25.1% advantage. This is a generational architectural triumph. The FirePro’s GCN 3.0 architecture, built on the Tonga chip, supports DirectX 12 (12_0) fully, while the TITAN Z’s Kepler architecture only reaches DirectX 12 (11_1). The Vulkan support also differs slightly, with the FirePro at 1.2.170 and the TITAN Z at 1.2.175, but the FirePro’s execution in the benchmark is overwhelmingly superior. For any modern graphics API workload, the FirePro W7100 is the only rational choice between these two.

The split is clean: legacy compute favors NVIDIA, modern API efficiency favors AMD. The TITAN Z’s average benchmark score of 23,736 against the FirePro’s 25,856 shows that the AMD card is more consistent across both tests, while the TITAN Z’s OpenCL win is its only saving grace. The FirePro also holds a higher percentile rank among all GPUs at 71 versus the TITAN Z’s 69, indicating that despite the TITAN Z’s compute muscle, the FirePro is the better-rounded performer in this head-to-head.

Architecture Differences

The two cards are built on the same 28 nm process node from TSMC, but they diverge sharply in every other architectural aspect. The FirePro W7100 uses the Tonga chip with GCN 3.0 architecture, packing 5,000 million transistors on a 366 mm² die. The TITAN Z uses the GK110B chip with Kepler architecture, containing 7,080 million transistors on a much larger 561 mm² die. This gives the TITAN Z a raw transistor count advantage, but the FirePro has a higher transistor density at 13.7M / mm² versus the TITAN Z’s 12.6M / mm², indicating a more efficient packing of logic.

Memory configurations are starkly different. The FirePro offers 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 160.0 GB/s bandwidth. The TITAN Z offers only 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, but with more than double the bandwidth at 336.0 GB/s. This makes the TITAN Z superior for memory-intensive compute tasks, while the FirePro’s larger capacity is better suited for holding larger datasets or frame buffers, especially in professional visualization contexts. The TITAN Z also has a higher memory clock at 1750 MHz (7 Gbps effective) versus the FirePro’s 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective).

Clock speeds tell a similar story. The TITAN Z has a base clock of 705 MHz and a boost clock of 876 MHz, while the FirePro’s base and boost clocks are not listed in the data. The TITAN Z’s higher clocks, combined with its 2,880 shading units, 240 TMUs, and 48 ROPs, give it a massive throughput advantage. The FirePro counters with 1,792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, which are lower numbers but still respectable for its era. The TITAN Z’s dual-GPU design is evident in its triple-slot width and 375 W TDP, while the FirePro is a single-slot card at 150 W, making it far more power-efficient and physically manageable.

Feature support also differs. The FirePro supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the TITAN Z only reaches DirectX 12 (11_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6, but the Vulkan versions differ slightly: 1.2.170 for AMD and 1.2.175 for NVIDIA. The FirePro has four DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, while the TITAN Z offers 2x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x DisplayPort 1.2. The TITAN Z’s power requirements are demanding: a 750 W suggested PSU and 2x 8-pin connectors, versus the FirePro’s 450 W suggested PSU and single 6-pin connector.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench OpenCL test is the TITAN Z’s territory. It scores 25,465 against the FirePro’s 24,182, a 5% delta in NVIDIA’s favor. This result is consistent with the TITAN Z’s hardware specifications: 5.046 TFLOPS FP32, 210.2 GTexel/s, and 52.56 GPixel/s are all roughly 1.5 to 2 times higher than the FirePro’s corresponding figures. The TITAN Z’s 384-bit memory bus and 336.0 GB/s bandwidth also provide a substantial advantage for data-heavy compute kernels. In this test, the TITAN Z’s raw power simply overwhelms the FirePro’s more modest specs.

The Geekbench Vulkan test flips the script entirely. The FirePro scores 27,529, a 25.1% victory over the TITAN Z’s 22,006. This is a shocking reversal given the TITAN Z’s hardware superiority. The explanation lies in architecture maturity. The FirePro’s GCN 3.0 architecture was designed with modern APIs in mind, supporting DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.2.170. The TITAN Z’s Kepler architecture, with its DirectX 12 (11_1) support, struggles to efficiently execute Vulkan workloads. The data indicates that the FirePro is more than just competitive in Vulkan — it is categorically dominant, with a margin that dwarfs the TITAN Z’s OpenCL lead.

The average benchmark scores reinforce this narrative. The FirePro’s average is 25,856, while the TITAN Z’s is 23,736. This gives the FirePro a 2,120-point advantage overall, despite losing the OpenCL test. The FirePro’s nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon Pro W5700 (25,726, delta 0.5%) and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Mobile (25,740, delta 0.5%), showing it sits comfortably in a mid-range performance tier. The TITAN Z’s nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 9070 (23,877, delta -0.6%) and the AMD Radeon RX 6800S (24,063, delta -1.4%), placing it slightly lower in the hierarchy.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD FirePro W7100 leads with an average benchmark score of 25,856, compared to the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN Z’s 23,736. This is a difference of 2,120 points, driven largely by the FirePro’s 25.1% win in Vulkan.

Q: How do the two cards compare in memory size and bandwidth?

A: The FirePro W7100 offers 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus with 160.0 GB/s bandwidth. The TITAN Z has 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus with 336.0 GB/s bandwidth. The TITAN Z has more than double the bandwidth, but the FirePro has 2 GB more capacity.

Q: Which card is more power-efficient?

A: The FirePro W7100 has a 150 W TDP and requires a single 6-pin power connector with a 450 W suggested PSU. The TITAN Z has a 375 W TDP, requires 2x 8-pin connectors, and a 750 W suggested PSU. The FirePro is significantly more power-efficient.

Q: What are the key differences in API support?

A: The FirePro W7100 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the TITAN Z supports DirectX 12 (11_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6, but the FirePro has Vulkan 1.2.170 and the TITAN Z has Vulkan 1.2.175.

Q: Which card has a higher FP32 performance?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN Z has a higher FP32 performance at 5.046 TFLOPS, compared to the AMD FirePro W7100’s 3.297 TFLOPS. The TITAN Z is about 53% faster in this metric.

Q: What is the physical size difference between the two cards?

A: The FirePro W7100 is a single-slot card at 241 mm in length and 111 mm in height. The TITAN Z is a triple-slot card at 267 mm in length, 111 mm in height, and 62 mm in width. The TITAN Z is longer and much thicker.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear directive: choose the AMD FirePro W7100 for modern API workloads, and choose the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN Z for legacy OpenCL compute. The FirePro’s 25.1% Vulkan win is the single most significant performance gap in this comparison, and its higher average benchmark score (25,856 vs 23,736) makes it the better all-around card. Its 8 GB memory capacity, single-slot design, and 150 W TDP also make it more practical for professional systems where space and power are at a premium.

The TITAN Z’s 5% OpenCL win is real but narrow. Its advantages in memory bandwidth (336.0 GB/s vs 160.0 GB/s) and FP32 throughput (5.046 TFLOPS vs 3.297 TFLOPS) are substantial, but they only translate into a modest benchmark lead in one test. Its 375 W TDP, triple-slot footprint, and 6 GB memory capacity (which is less than the FirePro’s 8 GB) are drawbacks that limit its appeal. The TITAN Z also has a launch MSRP of 2,999 USD, though pricing is not a factor in this analysis.

For users whose software stack relies on Vulkan — which is increasingly common in modern rendering and compute — the FirePro W7100 is the unequivocal winner. Its architecture is simply better suited to the API. For those stuck on OpenCL-only pipelines, the TITAN Z will squeeze out more performance, but the margin is not overwhelming. The FirePro’s higher percentile rank (71 vs 69) and superior average score suggest it is the more reliable choice across a broader range of tasks. The verdict: the FirePro W7100 is the better card for most users, while the TITAN Z is a niche pick for OpenCL enthusiasts.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD FirePro W7100 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN Z |

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

| Chip | Tonga | GK110B |

| Architecture | GCN 3.0 | Kepler |

| Transistors | 5,000 million | 7,080 million |

| Die Size | 366 mm² | 561 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 13.7M / mm² | 12.6M / mm² |

| Base Clock | Not listed | 705 MHz |

| Boost Clock | Not listed | 876 MHz |

| Memory Size | 8 GB | 6 GB |

| Memory Bus | 256 bit | 384 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 160.0 GB/s | 336.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1792 | 2880 |

| TMUs | 112 | 240 |

| ROPs | 32 | 48 |

| Pixel Rate | 29.44 GPixel/s | 52.56 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 103.0 GTexel/s | 210.2 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 3.297 TFLOPS | 5.046 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 3.297 TFLOPS (1:1) | Not listed |

| TDP | 150 W | 375 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | Triple-slot |

| Power Connectors | 1x 6-pin | 2x 8-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 450 W | 750 W |

| Display Outputs | 4x DisplayPort 1.2 | 2x DVI1x HDMI 1.4a1x DisplayPort 1.2 |

| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 (11_1) |

| Vulkan | 1.2.170 | 1.2.175 |

| Length | 241 mm | 267 mm |

| Width | Not listed | 62 mm |