GPU Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 and AMD FirePro W7100 represent two distinct eras of professional workstation graphics. The data shows a generational chasm in raw compute and API support, yet the older AMD card still holds relevance in specific legacy environments. This analysis compares their benchmark results, architectural foundations, and practical use cases strictly from the provided specifications.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two cards share only two common benchmark results in the data: Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. In both tests, the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 delivers a decisive victory, with margins that underscore the architectural leap between generations.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro RTX 8000 scores 101,883 against the FirePro W7100’s 24,182. The delta is 321.3%, the NVIDIA card is more than four times faster in this compute workload. This is not a marginal improvement; it reflects a fundamental difference in raw FP32 throughput and memory bandwidth. The Quadro’s 16.31 TFLOPS FP32 performance and 672.0 GB/s bandwidth simply overwhelm the FirePro’s 3.297 TFLOPS and 160.0 GB/s.

The Geekbench Vulkan result is even more lopsided. The RTX 8000 posts 122,637 points, while the W7100 manages 27,529, a 345.5% advantage for NVIDIA. Vulkan is a modern, low-overhead API, and the Turing architecture’s dedicated hardware, including 72 RT cores and 576 tensor cores, likely contributes to this massive gap. The FirePro W7100, built on GCN 3.0, has no such dedicated units and its Vulkan support is limited to version 1.2.170 compared to the Quadro’s 1.4.

It is worth remembering the W7100’s average benchmark score of 25,856 puts it in the 71st percentile of all GPUs, while the RTX 8000’s 28,421 average sits at the 74th percentile. This narrow percentile gap (3 points) is misleading; the head-to-head data reveals the true scale of performance difference. The FirePro’s nearest rivals include the AMD FirePro D700 (25,842, delta 0.1%) and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Mobile (25,740, delta 0.5%). The RTX 8000’s rivals are far more powerful, including the AMD Radeon R9 M295X (28,580, delta -0.6%) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti (28,020, delta 1.4%).

Architecture Differences

The architectural gulf is evident from the silicon itself. The Quadro RTX 8000 uses NVIDIA’s TU102 chip on a 12 nm process at TSMC, packing 18,600 million transistors onto a 754 mm² die. This yields a transistor density of 24.7 million per mm². The FirePro W7100, by contrast, uses AMD’s Tonga chip on a 28 nm process, also at TSMC, with just 5,000 million transistors on a 366 mm² die, a density of 13.7 million per mm².

These figures translate directly into compute resources. The RTX 8000 fields 4,608 shading units, 288 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 96 raster operation units (ROPs). The W7100 has 1,792 shaders, 112 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. NVIDIA’s card also includes 72 RT cores and 576 tensor cores, neither of which exist on the AMD part. The RTX 8000’s pixel rate is 169.9 GPixel/s versus 29.44 GPixel/s, and its texture rate is 509.8 GTexel/s versus 103.0 GTexel/s.

Memory is another chasm. The RTX 8000 carries 48 GB of GDDR6 on a 384-bit bus, delivering 672.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The W7100 has 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, yielding just 160.0 GB/s. Effective memory speed tells the same story: the Quadro runs at 14 Gbps effective, the FirePro at 5 Gbps.

API support differs significantly. The RTX 8000 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the W7100 is limited to DirectX 12 (12_0). Both cards support OpenGL 4.6, but Vulkan versions differ, 1.4 on NVIDIA versus 1.2.170 on AMD. The physical footprints also diverge: the RTX 8000 is a dual-slot card at 267 mm length, while the W7100 is single-slot at 241 mm. Power demands follow suit: the Quadro requires 260 W with a 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin connector setup and a 600 W suggested PSU, whereas the FirePro draws 150 W from a single 6-pin connector with a 450 W PSU recommendation.

Where Each One Wins

The data is unambiguous: the Quadro RTX 8000 wins every benchmark where both cards have results. Its 2 wins in the head-to-head table compare to 0 for the FirePro W7100. The strengths are not confined to one workload type, the RTX 8000 dominates in both OpenCL (a general-purpose compute API) and Vulkan (a graphics and compute API).

For the RTX 8000, the clear wins are in high-end compute and modern graphics workloads. The 321.3% OpenCL lead suggests it is suited for GPU-accelerated rendering, scientific simulation, and AI inference, tasks that leverage its 32.62 TFLOPS FP16 performance and tensor cores. The 345.5% Vulkan lead indicates strong performance in real-time 3D applications that use modern APIs, including those requiring DirectX 12 Ultimate features.

The FirePro W7100, despite losing both head-to-head tests, has a structural advantage in its 150 W TDP and single-slot design. It can fit into workstations where space and power are constrained. Its 5 Gbps effective memory speed and 8 GB capacity are adequate for lighter workloads like 2D CAD or basic 3D modeling. The card’s 71st percentile ranking, while lower than the RTX 8000’s 74th, still indicates it performs near the middle of the pack historically. Its nearest rival, the AMD FirePro D700, scores nearly identically (0.1% delta), suggesting the W7100 is a stable, predictable performer for its era.

The Verdict

From the data alone, the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 is the superior card in every measurable benchmark. It leads by 321.3% in OpenCL and 345.5% in Vulkan. Anyone requiring maximum compute throughput, massive 48 GB memory capacity, or support for DirectX 12 Ultimate should choose the RTX 8000. Its 74th percentile ranking and nearest rivals (all within 1.4% of its average score) confirm it sits among high-performance GPUs. The launch MSRP of 9,999 USD reflects this positioning.

The AMD FirePro W7100 is the choice only in narrow circumstances. If a system requires a single-slot card with a 150 W power draw and a 450 W PSU, it is the only option between the two. For legacy applications that rely on OpenGL 4.6 but do not use Vulkan or modern DirectX, the W7100’s 3.297 TFLOPS FP32 performance is sufficient. However, its 0 head-to-head wins and 71st percentile ranking make it a poor choice for any new deployment where the RTX 8000 could physically fit.

The production status of both cards is end-of-life, but they serve different vintages. The RTX 8000, released in 2018, succeeded the Quadro Volta generation and was followed by Workstation Ampere. The W7100, from 2014, came after FirePro Terascale and was succeeded by Radeon Pro Polaris. For modern workloads, the RTX 8000 is the only defensible pick from the benchmark evidence.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher OpenCL performance?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 scores 101,883 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 321.3% higher than the AMD FirePro W7100’s 24,182.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The RTX 8000 has 48 GB of GDDR6 memory, while the W7100 has 8 GB of GDDR5. The RTX 8000’s memory bandwidth is 672.0 GB/s versus 160.0 GB/s for the W7100.

Q: Do both cards support the same DirectX version?

A: No. The RTX 8000 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the W7100 supports only DirectX 12 (12_0).

Q: How do their transistor counts compare?

A: The RTX 8000 contains 18,600 million transistors on a 754 mm² die, while the W7100 has 5,000 million transistors on a 366 mm² die.

Q: Which card has a lower power requirement?

A: The AMD FirePro W7100 has a 150 W TDP and requires a 450 W suggested PSU, whereas the RTX 8000 has a 260 W TDP and requires a 600 W suggested PSU.

Q: What is the Vulkan score difference?

A: The RTX 8000 scores 122,637 in Geekbench Vulkan, which is 345.5% higher than the W7100’s 27,529.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 | AMD FirePro W7100 |

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

| Chip | TU102 | Tonga |

| Architecture | Turing | GCN 3.0 |

| Process Node | 12 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 18,600 million | 5,000 million |

| Die Size | 754 mm² | 366 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 24.7M / mm² | 13.7M / mm² |

| Memory Speed | 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) | 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 48 GB | 8 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | 384 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 672.0 GB/s | 160.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 4608 | 1792 |

| TMUs | 288 | 112 |

| ROPs | 96 | 32 |

| RT Cores | 72 | None |

| Tensor Cores | 576 | None |

| Pixel Rate | 169.9 GPixel/s | 29.44 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 509.8 GTexel/s | 103.0 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 16.31 TFLOPS | 3.297 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 32.62 TFLOPS (2:1) | 3.297 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 260 W | 150 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | Single-slot |

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

| Suggested PSU | 600 W | 450 W |

| Display Outputs | 4x DisplayPort 1.4a, 1x USB Type-C | 4x DisplayPort 1.2 |

| DirectX Support | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (12_0) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.4 | 1.2.170 |

| Length | 267 mm (10.5 inches) | 241 mm (9.5 inches) |

| Height | 111 mm (4.4 inches) | 111 mm (4.4 inches) |

| Release Date | 2018-08-12 | 2014-08-11 |

| Predecessor | Quadro Volta | FirePro Terascale |

| Successor | Workstation Ampere | Radeon Pro Polaris |

| Launch MSRP | 9,999 USD | None listed |