AMD FirePro W7100 vs NVIDIA RTX A4000 Comparison

The NVIDIA RTX A4000 and AMD FirePro W7100 represent two very different eras of workstation graphics. The data shows a generational chasm, with the A4000 delivering staggering performance advantages across every shared benchmark, while the W7100 holds on primarily through its legacy status. This analysis breaks down the numbers, architecture, and use-case implications from the FACT PACK data alone.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only two benchmarks where both cards appear in the data tell a one-sided story. In Geekbench OpenCL, the NVIDIA RTX A4000 scores 105,739 points against the AMD FirePro W7100’s 24,182 points. That is a delta of 337.3% in favor of the A4000. The margin is not incremental; it is a multi-generational leap. The A4000 delivers over four times the raw compute throughput in this test, a result that aligns with its far more modern architecture and higher specification ceiling.

The Geekbench Vulkan test is even more lopsided. The RTX A4000 posts 127,645 points, while the FirePro W7100 manages only 27,529 points. The delta here expands to 363.7%. This is particularly notable because Vulkan is a lower-level API that often rewards newer hardware with better driver optimization and hardware feature support. The FirePro W7100’s GCN 3.0 architecture, released in 2014, simply lacks the dedicated hardware paths that the Ampere-based A4000 can leverage.

Looking at the broader benchmark landscape, the A4000 has ten recorded benchmark scores, ranging from a Passmark DirectX 12 score of 72 to a Geekbench Vulkan score of 127,645. Its average benchmark score is 26,683. The W7100 has only two recorded scores, both in Geekbench, with an average of 25,856. While the average scores are closer than the head-to-head deltas suggest, this is misleading. The A4000’s average is dragged down by low Passmark DirectX scores that are not present in the W7100’s dataset. The only true apples-to-apples comparisons are the two Geekbench tests, and those are decisively won by the A4000.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX A4000 wins every single head-to-head comparison in the data. Its 2-0 record in wins is absolute. There is no benchmark in the shared pool where the FirePro W7100 comes out ahead. This makes the use-case split straightforward: the A4000 is the superior choice for any workload that stresses OpenCL or Vulkan performance.

For compute-heavy tasks like GPU-accelerated rendering, scientific simulation, or machine learning inference, the A4000’s 19.17 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 19.17 TFLOPS of FP16 performance provide a massive foundation. The W7100’s 3.297 TFLOPS in both FP32 and FP16 is a fraction of that capability. The A4000 also offers 16 GB of GDDR6 memory with 448.0 GB/s bandwidth, compared to the W7100’s 8 GB of GDDR5 with 160.0 GB/s bandwidth. For large datasets or high-resolution textures, the A4000’s memory capacity and bandwidth are decisive advantages.

The FirePro W7100 does not win any performance category in the data. Its only potential edge is historical: it was released in 2014 and served its purpose in its era. For legacy software certification or maintaining old workstation setups, the W7100 might still function, but the benchmark data offers no evidence of any performance benefit. The A4000 also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the W7100 only reaches DirectX 12 (12_0), which matters for modern graphics features like ray tracing and mesh shaders.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two cards is the core explanation for the benchmark results. The RTX A4000 uses the GA104 chip built on Ampere architecture, fabricated on an 8 nm process at Samsung. It packs 17,400 million transistors into a 392 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 44.4 million per mm². The FirePro W7100 uses the Tonga chip with GCN 3.0 architecture, built on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It contains 5,000 million transistors on a 366 mm² die, with a density of 13.7 million per mm². The A4000 crams over three times more transistors into a similar physical space, enabled by the much newer manufacturing process.

The compute resources differ drastically. The A4000 has 6,144 shading units, 192 texture mapping units, and 96 render output units. It also includes 48 ray tracing cores and 192 tensor cores, features that simply do not exist on the W7100. The W7100 has 1,792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The pixel rate tells the story: 149.8 GPixel/s for the A4000 versus 29.44 GPixel/s for the W7100. Similarly, texture rate is 299.5 GTexel/s versus 103.0 GTexel/s.

Memory architecture also diverges. Both cards use a 256-bit bus, but the A4000 pairs it with GDDR6 at 14 Gbps effective, achieving 448.0 GB/s bandwidth. The W7100 uses GDDR5 at 5 Gbps effective, yielding 160.0 GB/s. The A4000’s 16 GB capacity doubles the W7100’s 8 GB. Clock speeds are hard to compare directly because the W7100 has no base or boost clock listed, but the A4000 runs at 735 MHz base and 1560 MHz boost. The W7100’s memory clock is 1250 MHz, while the A4000’s memory clock is 1750 MHz.

The A4000 also brings newer connectivity and API support. It uses PCIe 4.0 x16 versus the W7100’s PCIe 3.0 x16, doubling the potential bandwidth to the host system. Display outputs are 4x DisplayPort 1.4a on the A4000 versus 4x DisplayPort 1.2 on the W7100, which matters for high-resolution multi-monitor setups. Vulkan support is 1.4 on the A4000 versus 1.2.170 on the W7100. Both cards support OpenGL 4.6, but the A4000’s DirectX 12 Ultimate support is a significant feature gap.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA RTX A4000 is the superior workstation GPU in every measurable way. Its Geekbench OpenCL score is 337.3% higher, and its Geekbench Vulkan score is 363.7% higher. It wins all 2 head-to-head benchmarks in the dataset. The A4000’s 72nd percentile ranking among all GPUs, compared to the W7100’s 71st, understates the gap because the W7100’s percentile is based on far fewer data points.

Who should pick the RTX A4000? Anyone running modern workstation workloads that use OpenCL or Vulkan, which includes most contemporary 3D rendering, video editing, and compute applications. The 16 GB memory, 448.0 GB/s bandwidth, and 19.17 TFLOPS FP32 performance make it suitable for large models and high-resolution assets. The presence of ray tracing and tensor cores adds future-proofing for AI-accelerated tasks.

Who should pick the AMD FirePro W7100? The data offers no performance-based reason. Its only advantages are historical: it is an end-of-life product from 2014 that may still be found in legacy systems. For a new purchase or upgrade, the A4000 is the only rational choice based on the benchmark evidence. The W7100’s 8 GB memory and 160.0 GB/s bandwidth are severe bottlenecks for modern workloads, and its lack of ray tracing or tensor cores limits its relevance.

The average benchmark scores tell a cautionary tale. The A4000’s average of 26,683 is only 3.2% higher than the W7100’s 25,856, but this is a statistical artifact. The A4000’s Passmark DirectX scores (126 in DX10, 158 in DX11, 72 in DX12, 240 in DX9) are all very low and drag down its average. The W7100 has no Passmark scores in the data, so its average is based solely on the two Geekbench tests where it performs poorly. Relying on average scores alone would mislead; the head-to-head deltas are the correct metric.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher FP32 performance?

A: The NVIDIA RTX A4000 delivers 19.17 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, compared to the AMD FirePro W7100’s 3.297 TFLOPS.

Q: Do both cards support the same DirectX version?

A: No. The RTX A4000 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the FirePro W7100 only supports DirectX 12 (12_0).

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The RTX A4000 has 448.0 GB/s bandwidth from 16 GB of GDDR6, while the FirePro W7100 has 160.0 GB/s bandwidth from 8 GB of GDDR5.

Q: Which card has ray tracing cores?

A: Only the RTX A4000 has ray tracing cores, with 48 dedicated RT cores. The FirePro W7100 has no ray tracing cores listed.

Q: How do the transistor counts compare?

A: The RTX A4000 contains 17,400 million transistors on a 392 mm² die, while the FirePro W7100 contains 5,000 million transistors on a 366 mm² die.

Q: What is the percentile ranking difference?

A: The RTX A4000 ranks in the 72nd percentile among all GPUs, while the FirePro W7100 ranks in the 71st percentile.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA RTX A4000 | AMD FirePro W7100 |

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

| Architecture | Ampere | GCN 3.0 |

| Process Node | 8 nm | 28 nm |

| Foundry | Samsung | TSMC |

| Transistors | 17,400 million | 5,000 million |

| Die Size | 392 mm² | 366 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 44.4M / mm² | 13.7M / mm² |

| Memory Size | 16 GB | 8 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |

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

| Bandwidth | 448.0 GB/s | 160.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 6144 | 1792 |

| TMUs | 192 | 112 |

| ROPs | 96 | 32 |

| RT Cores | 48 | N/A |

| Tensor Cores | 192 | N/A |

| Pixel Rate | 149.8 GPixel/s | 29.44 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 299.5 GTexel/s | 103.0 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 19.17 TFLOPS | 3.297 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 19.17 TFLOPS | 3.297 TFLOPS |

| TDP | 140 W | 150 W |

| Suggested PSU | 300 W | 450 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | 4x DisplayPort 1.4a | 4x DisplayPort 1.2 |

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

| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.2.170 |

| Release Date | 2021-04-11 | 2014-08-11 |