AMD FirePro W7100 vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Comparison

FAQ

Q: How do the two cards compare in raw compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 delivers 10.07 TFLOPS FP32 and 20.14 TFLOPS FP16, while the AMD FirePro W7100 delivers 3.297 TFLOPS FP32 and 3.297 TFLOPS FP16 (1:1). The RTX 2080 holds a substantial lead in both metrics, with roughly 3x the FP32 throughput.

Q: Which card has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The RTX 2080 uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, achieving 448.0 GB/s. The FirePro W7100 also has 8 GB, but it uses GDDR5 on the same 256-bit bus, reaching 160.0 GB/s. The RTX 2080 offers 2.8x the bandwidth.

Q: What do the benchmark scores actually show?

A: In Geekbench OpenCL, the RTX 2080 scores 91,313 versus the FirePro W7100's 24,182, a 73.5% deficit for the AMD card. In Geekbench Vulkan, the RTX 2080 scores 107,797 versus 27,529, a 74.5% deficit. The RTX 2080 wins both recorded head-to-head tests.

Q: Are these cards from the same generation?

A: No. The FirePro W7100 was released on 2014-08-11, using the GCN 3.0 architecture on a 28 nm process. The RTX 2080 was released on 2018-09-19, using the Turing architecture on a 12 nm process. This is a four-year gap in release timing.

Q: Which card has better API support?

A: The RTX 2080 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), Vulkan 1.4, and OpenGL 4.6. The FirePro W7100 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), Vulkan 1.2.170, and OpenGL 4.6. The RTX 2080 has more modern API feature levels.

Q: How do their physical requirements differ?

A: The FirePro W7100 is a single-slot card, 241 mm long, with a 150 W TDP and one 6-pin power connector. The RTX 2080 is a dual-slot card, 267 mm long, with a 215 W TDP and requires one 6-pin plus one 8-pin connector. The suggested PSU is 450 W for the AMD card and 550 W for the NVIDIA card.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 dominates the AMD FirePro W7100 in every recorded benchmark. If you need maximum compute performance for general-purpose workloads or modern gaming, the RTX 2080 is the only rational choice from these two. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 91,313 is 3.8x higher than the FirePro's 24,182, and its Vulkan score of 107,797 is 3.9x higher than 27,529. The RTX 2080 also holds a percentile rank of 68 versus the FirePro's 71, which indicates both cards sit near the same overall tier in the database, but the RTX 2080 achieves that position with far more headroom in compute-heavy tasks.

The FirePro W7100 should only be considered if you have a legacy workstation environment that specifically requires GCN 3.0 features, or if your software expects AMD's FirePro driver stack. Its 8 GB of GDDR5 memory and 160.0 GB/s bandwidth may still handle older professional workloads, but the data shows it is outclassed by the RTX 2080 in both OpenCL and Vulkan. The RTX 2080 also brings ray tracing cores (46) and tensor cores (368), which the FirePro completely lacks. For any new purchase, the RTX 2080 is the clear winner. For an existing FirePro deployment, the upgrade path to the RTX 2080 would yield massive compute gains.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head comparison consists of two tests, and the NVIDIA card wins both decisively. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RTX 2080 scores 91,313 against the FirePro W7100's 24,182. That is a delta of 73.5% in favor of NVIDIA. In Geekbench Vulkan, the RTX 2080 scores 107,797 against 27,529, a delta of 74.5%. These are not close contests. The gap is consistent across both APIs, suggesting the RTX 2080's architectural advantages translate broadly rather than being workload-specific.

Looking at the nearest rivals for context, the FirePro W7100's average benchmark score of 25,856 places it near the AMD FirePro D700 (25,842, 0.1% difference) and the AMD Radeon R9 M395X (25,891, 0.1% difference). The RTX 2080's average of 22,895 is lower than its individual OpenCL and Vulkan scores, because the average includes additional tests like Passmark DirectX 9 (223), DirectX 10 (136), DirectX 11 (158), DirectX 12 (72), G2D (907), G3D (18,720), and GPU compute (7,872). The RTX 2080's nearest rivals include the Intel Arc B580 (23,021, 0.5% behind) and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 (23,172, 1.2% ahead). This shows the RTX 2080 maintains competitive positioning even against newer hardware.

The RTX 2080's 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1,752 further demonstrates its modern API efficiency. The FirePro W7100 has no comparable DX12 benchmark in the database, but given its 73.5% to 74.5% deficits in OpenCL and Vulkan, it is reasonable to expect similar gaps in DX12 workloads.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ on nearly every measurable specification. The process node is 12 nm for the RTX 2080 versus 28 nm for the FirePro W7100. The RTX 2080 uses 13,600 million transistors on a 545 mm² die, while the FirePro uses 5,000 million on 366 mm². Transistor density is 25.0M per mm² for NVIDIA versus 13.7M per mm² for AMD.

Clock speeds: the RTX 2080 has a base clock of 1515 MHz and a boost clock of 1710 MHz. The FirePro W7100 has no recorded base or boost clock. Memory clocks differ as well: 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) for the RTX 2080 versus 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective) for the FirePro.

Compute units: the RTX 2080 has 2,944 shading units, 184 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The FirePro has 1,792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. Pixel rate is 109.4 GPixel/s for NVIDIA versus 29.44 GPixel/s for AMD. Texture rate is 314.6 GTexel/s versus 103.0 GTexel/s.

Memory: both have 8 GB, but the type differs (GDDR6 versus GDDR5), and bandwidth is 448.0 GB/s versus 160.0 GB/s. The RTX 2080 also includes 46 ray tracing cores and 368 tensor cores, which the FirePro lacks entirely.

Physical design: the RTX 2080 is dual-slot, 267 mm long, 116 mm high, and 35 mm wide. The FirePro is single-slot, 241 mm long, and 111 mm high. Power: the RTX 2080 has a 215 W TDP and needs 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin, while the FirePro has a 150 W TDP and needs only 1x 6-pin. Suggested PSU is 550 W versus 450 W.

Display outputs: the RTX 2080 offers 1x HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a, and 1x USB Type-C. The FirePro offers 4x DisplayPort 1.2.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap is fundamental. The FirePro W7100 uses AMD's GCN 3.0 architecture on the Tonga chip. GCN 3.0 was designed for the FirePro Wx100 generation, with a 28 nm TSMC process. It supports DirectX 12 (12_0), Vulkan 1.2.170, and OpenGL 4.6. Its FP16 performance is identical to FP32 at 3.297 TFLOPS, meaning no dedicated half-precision acceleration.

The RTX 2080 uses NVIDIA's Turing architecture on the TU104 chip. Turing introduces dedicated ray tracing cores and tensor cores, which are absent from GCN 3.0. The RTX 2080's FP16 performance is 20.14 TFLOPS, exactly twice its FP32 rate of 10.07 TFLOPS, indicating a 2:1 ratio with dedicated hardware for half-precision workloads. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), Vulkan 1.4, and OpenGL 4.6.

The transistor count difference is stark: 13,600 million versus 5,000 million. This reflects not just the process node advantage (12 nm versus 28 nm) but also the architectural complexity of Turing's mixed compute, ray tracing, and tensor pipelines. The RTX 2080's die size of 545 mm² is larger than the FirePro's 366 mm², but the density improvement (25.0M versus 13.7M per mm²) shows the 12 nm process packs far more logic into the same area.

Memory architecture also diverges. The FirePro uses GDDR5 at 5 Gbps effective, yielding 160.0 GB/s. The RTX 2080 uses GDDR6 at 14 Gbps effective, yielding 448.0 GB/s. Both use a 256-bit bus, but the newer memory standard delivers 2.8x the bandwidth. The RTX 2080's display outputs include modern standards like HDMI 2.0 and DisplayPort 1.4a, plus USB Type-C, while the FirePro is limited to DisplayPort 1.2.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX 2080 wins in every scenario that the recorded data covers. In Geekbench OpenCL, it is 73.5% ahead. In Geekbench Vulkan, it is 74.5% ahead. If you need compute performance for rendering, simulation, machine learning, or any GPU-accelerated workload, the RTX 2080 is the superior choice. Its 368 tensor cores provide dedicated hardware for AI inference and training, and its 46 ray tracing cores handle real-time ray tracing workloads that the FirePro cannot accelerate at all.

The RTX 2080 also wins on bandwidth-sensitive tasks. Its 448.0 GB/s memory bandwidth versus 160.0 GB/s means large data sets, high-resolution textures, and memory-heavy compute kernels will see substantial speedups. The 2.8x bandwidth advantage is a direct consequence of GDDR6 versus GDDR5, and it compounds the compute advantage in real-world workloads.

The FirePro W7100 wins only in scenarios where its specific legacy characteristics matter. It has a lower TDP of 150 W versus 215 W, which makes it easier to cool in a single-slot form factor. It uses a single 6-pin power connector versus the RTX 2080's 6-pin plus 8-pin. The FirePro is shorter at 241 mm versus 267 mm, which may fit in tighter chassis. Its 4x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs could be useful in multi-display professional setups that predate DisplayPort 1.4 adoption.

The FirePro's 0.1% delta to the FirePro D700 and 0.1% delta to the Radeon R9 M395X show it sits in a specific performance tier. Its percentile rank of 71 versus the RTX 2080's 68 is interesting, but that rank is based on the average benchmark score of 25,856, which is higher than the RTX 2080's average of 22,895. This discrepancy arises because the RTX 2080's average includes older DirectX 9, 10, and 11 Passmark tests that drag its average down, while its compute-heavy OpenCL and Vulkan scores are far higher. In practice, modern workloads using Vulkan, OpenCL, or DX12 will strongly favor the RTX 2080.

If you are building a new system today, the RTX 2080 is the obvious pick. If you are maintaining an existing FirePro workstation and your software stack is locked to GCN-era drivers, the W7100 remains functional, but the database shows no performance scenario where it beats the RTX 2080. The RTX 2080 wins 2 out of 2 head-to-head benchmarks, and the margins are so large that no qualitative argument can overturn the quantitative result.