AMD FirePro W7100 vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 SUPER Comparison

The AMD FirePro W7100 and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 SUPER represent entirely different eras of GPU design, and the benchmark data reflects that chasm clearly. In the two shared tests, the NVIDIA card delivers a decisive victory, but the FirePro’s numbers still tell a story of its own niche strengths. The data shows a generation gap defined by raw compute throughput, memory bandwidth, and feature support, with the RTX 2080 SUPER emerging as the dominant performer in every measurable category where both cards were tested.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most glaring disparity appears in the Geekbench OpenCL test. The RTX 2080 SUPER scores 99,226, while the FirePro W7100 manages 24,182. That translates to a delta of -75.6% for the AMD card, meaning the NVIDIA GPU is roughly four times faster in this compute-heavy workload. This is not a marginal victory; it is a generational obliteration. The RTX 2080 SUPER’s 11.15 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput versus the FirePro’s 3.297 TFLOPS explains much of this gap, but the architecture differences amplify it further.

The Vulkan results follow a similar pattern, though the absolute numbers are slightly higher for both cards. The RTX 2080 SUPER posts 111,284, while the FirePro W7100 reaches 27,529, a delta of -75.3%. This near-identical percentage drop across both APIs suggests the performance gap is consistent regardless of the workload type, pointing to fundamental hardware advantages rather than driver optimization quirks. The NVIDIA card’s 48 RT cores and 384 tensor cores provide dedicated silicon for modern workloads, though these do not directly accelerate Vulkan compute in the same way they would in ray-traced scenes.

What makes these results particularly stark is the context of the FirePro’s own rivals. The FirePro W7100’s average benchmark score of 25,856 places it just 0.1% ahead of the AMD FirePro D700 (25,842) and 0.5% ahead of the Radeon Pro W5700 (25,726). It is effectively tied with the Radeon R9 M395X (25,891, delta -0.1%). In contrast, the RTX 2080 SUPER’s average score of 24,170 sits within 0.4% of the Radeon RX 6800S (24,063) and trails the Radeon RX 6600 XT by 1.1% (24,442). The NVIDIA card’s percentile rank of 69 versus the FirePro’s 71 is counterintuitive given the head-to-head results, but this reflects the broader distribution of all GPUs in the database, where the FirePro’s professional lineage and driver maturity may boost its standing among older workstation cards.

Looking at the raw specifications that drive these scores, the RTX 2080 SUPER’s memory bandwidth of 495.9 GB/s dwarfs the FirePro’s 160.0 GB/s, a 3.1x advantage that directly impacts compute-heavy tasks like OpenCL. The pixel rate tells a similar story: 116.2 GPixel/s versus 29.44 GPixel/s, a 3.9x gap. Texture rate follows at 348.5 GTexel/s versus 103.0 GTexel/s, a 3.4x difference. These numbers are not abstract—they translate into the benchmark deltas observed, as texture and pixel throughput are the building blocks of most GPU workloads.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins in the Geekbench OpenCL test, and by how much?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 SUPER wins decisively with a score of 99,226 versus the AMD FirePro W7100’s 24,182. This represents a delta of -75.6% for the AMD card, meaning the NVIDIA GPU is approximately 4.1 times faster in this workload.

Q: Is the Vulkan performance gap similar to OpenCL?

A: Yes, the pattern is nearly identical. The RTX 2080 SUPER scores 111,284 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the FirePro W7100 scores 27,529, a delta of -75.3%. The consistency across APIs suggests a fundamental hardware advantage, not a software-specific quirk.

Q: How does the FirePro W7100 compare to its closest rivals?

A: The FirePro’s average benchmark score is 25,856. It sits 0.1% above the AMD FirePro D700 (25,842) and 0.5% above the AMD Radeon Pro W5700 (25,726). It is effectively tied with the AMD Radeon R9 M395X, which scores 25,891 (delta -0.1%).

Q: What does the RTX 2080 SUPER’s percentile rank indicate?

A: The RTX 2080 SUPER is at the 69th percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the FirePro W7100 sits at the 71st percentile. Despite losing the head-to-head benchmarks, the FirePro’s percentile is slightly higher, reflecting its standing among a broader field of older and newer cards.

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

A: No. In the two shared head-to-head benchmarks (Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan), the RTX 2080 SUPER wins both. The FirePro has zero wins in this comparison.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference, and does it matter?

A: The RTX 2080 SUPER offers 495.9 GB/s of bandwidth versus the FirePro’s 160.0 GB/s. This 3.1x advantage is a major factor in the compute benchmark results, as memory-bound workloads scale directly with available bandwidth.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 SUPER is the superior performer for anyone prioritizing raw compute power in OpenCL and Vulkan workloads. It wins both shared benchmarks by margins exceeding 75%, and its architectural advantages—RT cores, tensor cores, and over three times the FP32 throughput—make it the obvious choice for modern applications that leverage these features. The RTX 2080 SUPER’s 8 GB of GDDR6 memory, while matching the FirePro’s capacity, operates at 495.9 GB/s, enabling data-intensive tasks that would bottleneck the older card.

However, the FirePro W7100 is not without its own case. Its 71st percentile rank versus the RTX 2080 SUPER’s 69th suggests that within the full database of GPUs, the AMD card holds its own against a wider range of contemporaries. Its 150 W TDP is significantly lower than the RTX 2080 SUPER’s 250 W, and its single-slot design with a single 6-pin connector makes it far easier to integrate into dense workstation builds. The FirePro’s four DisplayPort 1.2 outputs contrast with the NVIDIA card’s mix of HDMI 2.0, DisplayPort 1.4a, and USB Type-C, offering different connectivity preferences.

For a professional user with legacy software that favors GCN architecture, the FirePro W7100 could still be serviceable. But the benchmark results indicate that any compute-heavy task will see a massive speedup with the RTX 2080 SUPER. The choice is straightforward: the NVIDIA card wins on performance, while the AMD card wins on power efficiency and form factor. If the workload demands raw speed, the RTX 2080 SUPER is the only rational pick. If physical footprint and power draw are paramount, the FirePro W7100 offers a viable, if significantly slower, alternative.

Specification Differences

The two cards diverge on nearly every meaningful specification. The RTX 2080 SUPER uses a 12 nm process node versus the FirePro’s 28 nm, leading to a transistor count of 13,600 million versus 5,000 million. The die size is 545 mm² versus 366 mm², and transistor density is 25.0M/mm² versus 13.7M/mm². Clock speeds show the NVIDIA card’s advantage: a base clock of 1650 MHz and boost of 1815 MHz, while the FirePro lists no base or boost clock, only a memory clock of 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective) versus the RTX 2080 SUPER’s 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective).

Memory configuration is an area of both similarity and difference. Both cards have 8 GB of memory on a 256-bit bus, but the RTX 2080 SUPER uses GDDR6 while the FirePro uses GDDR5. This yields bandwidth of 495.9 GB/s versus 160.0 GB/s. The shader core counts are starkly different: 3072 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 64 ROPs on the NVIDIA card versus 1792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 32 ROPs on the AMD card. The RTX 2080 SUPER also includes 48 RT cores and 384 tensor cores, features entirely absent from the FirePro.

Pixel rate is 116.2 GPixel/s versus 29.44 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 348.5 GTexel/s versus 103.0 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 11.15 TFLOPS versus 3.297 TFLOPS, and FP16 is 22.30 TFLOPS (2:1) versus 3.297 TFLOPS (1:1). Power consumption differs significantly: 250 W versus 150 W. The RTX 2080 SUPER is dual-slot with 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin connectors and requires a 600 W PSU, while the FirePro is single-slot with 1x 6-pin and a 450 W PSU suggestion. Physical dimensions favor the AMD card: 241 mm length and 111 mm height versus 267 mm length, 116 mm height, and 35 mm width.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap is generational. The FirePro W7100 uses the Tonga chip on GCN 3.0, a design from 2014 that represents AMD’s third-generation Graphics Core Next. The RTX 2080 SUPER uses the TU104 chip on Turing, NVIDIA’s architecture from 2018 that introduced dedicated RT and tensor cores. The FirePro’s GCN architecture treats FP16 and FP32 identically at 3.297 TFLOPS, while Turing’s FP16 throughput of 22.30 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio) doubles the FP32 rate, enabling faster half-precision workloads.

The process node difference—28 nm versus 12 nm—is a primary driver of the performance gap. The smaller node allows the RTX 2080 SUPER to pack 13,600 million transistors into a 545 mm² die, while the FirePro manages 5,000 million in 366 mm². This results in a transistor density of 25.0M/mm² versus 13.7M/mm², meaning the NVIDIA card packs nearly twice the density, enabling more complex logic and higher clock speeds within a similar power envelope.

Feature support diverges dramatically. The FirePro supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the RTX 2080 SUPER supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), which includes hardware ray tracing and mesh shaders. Vulkan support is also newer on the NVIDIA card (1.4 versus 1.2.170). The RT cores and tensor cores are entirely absent from the FirePro, meaning any workload leveraging AI acceleration or ray tracing will simply not run on the AMD card. The FirePro’s display outputs are four DisplayPort 1.2 ports, while the RTX 2080 SUPER offers one HDMI 2.0, three DisplayPort 1.4a, and one USB Type-C, reflecting the shift toward newer display standards and VR connectivity.

The production status of both cards is end-of-life, though their release dates of 2014 and 2019 respectively frame the generational leap. The FirePro’s predecessor is FirePro Terascale, and its successor is Radeon Pro Polaris. The RTX 2080 SUPER’s predecessor is GeForce 10, and its successor is GeForce 30. These lineage notes confirm that the two cards are not direct competitors but rather products from different market segments and eras, with the benchmark data quantifying exactly how far GPU technology advanced in five years.