AMD FirePro W8000 vs AMD Radeon Pro W5700 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded benchmark data presents a decisive picture in favor of the newer card. Across the two shared tests, the AMD Radeon Pro W5700 wins both, leaving the AMD FirePro W8000 without a single head-to-head victory. The margin is not subtle; it is a generational gap expressed in raw scores.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the W5700 scores 74,613 against the W8000's 24,440. That is a 67.2% deficit for the older card, meaning the W5700 delivers roughly three times the compute throughput in this workload. For context, the W8000's average benchmark score of 29,211 places it in the 75th percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the W5700's average of 25,726 sits at the 71st percentile. The apparent contradiction, a lower average despite a higher OpenCL score, is explained by the W5700's broader test suite, which includes Metal, multiple DirectX versions, and 2D tests that drag its mean downward. The W8000's average is derived from only two OpenCL and Vulkan results, both of which are strong for its era, but it simply does not have the same breadth of recorded workloads.

The Vulkan test tells the same story. The W5700 posts 70,706, while the W8000 manages 33,981, a 51.9% gap. Again, the W5700 more than doubles the older card's output. The Vulkan result is particularly telling because it reflects modern API efficiency; the W8000 was released before Vulkan matured, and its GCN 1.0 architecture was not designed with this API in mind. The W5700, built on RDNA 1.0, supports Vulkan 1.4, which explains its superior API-level performance.

Looking at the rival context, the W8000's nearest competitors in the database are the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH (29,197 average, 0% delta), Intel Arc A370M (29,175, 0.1% faster), AMD Radeon RX 470 (28,996, 0.7% faster), and AMD Radeon RX 6800M (28,874, 1.2% faster). The W8000's average is effectively tied with these cards, all within 1.2% of each other. This tells you that the W8000, despite being a 2012 workstation card, still holds its own against mid-range GPUs from later generations in the limited tests it was run through. However, that comparison is misleading; the W8000's benchmark count is sparse, and the tests available to it are not the same ones that stress newer architectures.

The W5700's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Mobile (25,740 average, 0.1% faster), AMD Radeon RX 6700M (25,633, 0.4% slower), AMD FirePro D700 (25,842, 0.4% faster), and AMD FirePro W7100 (25,856, 0.5% faster). The W5700 sits right in the middle of this pack, with all four rivals within half a percent of its average. This is a dense cluster of performance, suggesting that the W5700's average score is representative of a solid mid-range workstation GPU, not an outlier. The fact that its average is lower than the W8000's percentile ranking might confuse a casual reader, but the percentile is computed against all GPUs ever tested, and the W8000's two high scores inflate its standing relative to the W5700's more comprehensive and varied test results.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two cards is vast, spanning two distinct design philosophies from AMD. The FirePro W8000 uses the Tahiti chip, built on GCN 1.0 architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 4,313 million transistors into a 352 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.3 million per square millimeter. The Radeon Pro W5700 uses the Navi 10 chip, based on RDNA 1.0, on a 7 nm process, also from TSMC. It contains 10,300 million transistors on a smaller 251 mm² die, achieving 41.0 million transistors per square millimeter. The density difference, more than threefold, reflects the seven-year gap between their launches: 2012 versus 2019.

The memory subsystems are equally divergent. The W8000 comes with 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, running at an effective 5.5 Gbps, for a bandwidth of 176.0 GB/s. The W5700 doubles the capacity to 8 GB of GDDR6 on the same 256-bit bus, but at 14 Gbps effective speed, yielding 448.0 GB/s of bandwidth, a 2.5x improvement over the older card. Memory clock speeds also differ: the W8000 lists 1375 MHz (5.5 Gbps effective), while the W5700 lists 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective). The W5700 has a base clock of 1400 MHz and a boost clock of 1880 MHz; the W8000 has no listed base or boost clock in the database.

Compute resources follow the same trend. The W8000 has 1,792 shading units, 112 texture mapping units, and 32 render output units. The W5700 steps up to 2,304 shaders, 144 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. Pixel rate jumps from 28.80 GPixel/s to 120.3 GPixel/s, and texture rate from 100.8 GTexel/s to 270.7 GTexel/s. The FP32 throughput is 3.226 TFLOPS for the W8000 versus 8.663 TFLOPS for the W5700. The W5700 also has FP16 support at 17.33 TFLOPS using a 2:1 ratio; the W8000 has no listed FP16 capability. Neither card has ray tracing or tensor cores.

The W5700 supports a newer API set: DirectX 12 (12_1) versus the W8000's DirectX 12 (11_1), Vulkan 1.4 versus 1.2.170, and both share OpenGL 4.6. The W5700 also uses PCIe 4.0 x16, while the W8000 is limited to PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs differ too: the W8000 has 4x DisplayPort 1.2 and 1x SDI, the W5700 has 5x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a and 1x USB Type-C.

Power requirements also tell a story of efficiency gains. The W8000 draws 225 W and requires 2x 6-pin connectors. The W5700 draws 205 W and needs 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin. Both are dual-slot cards with a 550 W suggested PSU. The W8000 is longer at 279 mm (11 inches) versus 267 mm (10.5 inches) for the W5700; both are 111 mm (4.4 inches) tall. The W5700 achieves higher performance with lower power draw, a direct benefit of the 7 nm node.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in OpenCL workloads?

A: The Radeon Pro W5700 scores 74,613 in Geekbench OpenCL, more than triple the FirePro W8000's 24,440. The W5700 wins by a 67.2% margin.

Q: Does the FirePro W8000 win any benchmark in the comparison?

A: No. The head-to-head data shows zero wins for the W8000 and two wins for the W5700, covering Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan.

Q: How do their memory configurations compare?

A: The W5700 has 8 GB of GDDR6 with 448.0 GB/s bandwidth. The W8000 has 4 GB of GDDR5 with 176.0 GB/s bandwidth. Both use a 256-bit bus.

Q: What is the transistor density difference?

A: The W5700's 7 nm process yields 41.0M transistors per mm² on a 251 mm² die. The W8000's 28 nm process yields 12.3M per mm² on a 352 mm² die.

Q: Which card supports newer PCIe and APIs?

A: The W5700 uses PCIe 4.0 x16, DirectX 12 (12_1), and Vulkan 1.4. The W8000 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, DirectX 12 (11_1), and Vulkan 1.2.170.

Q: Are both cards still in production?

A: No. Both are marked as end-of-life. The W8000 was released in 2012, and the W5700 in 2019.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD FirePro W8000 | AMD Radeon Pro W5700 |

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

| Chip | Tahiti | Navi 10 |

| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | RDNA 1.0 |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 7 nm |

| Transistors | 4,313 million | 10,300 million |

| Die Size | 352 mm² | 251 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.3M / mm² | 41.0M / mm² |

| Base Clock | Not listed | 1400 MHz |

| Boost Clock | Not listed | 1880 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1375 MHz (5.5 Gbps effective) | 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 8 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bandwidth | 176.0 GB/s | 448.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1792 | 2304 |

| TMUs | 112 | 144 |

| ROPs | 32 | 64 |

| Pixel Rate | 28.80 GPixel/s | 120.3 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 100.8 GTexel/s | 270.7 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 3.226 TFLOPS | 8.663 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | Not listed | 17.33 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 225 W | 205 W |

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

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

| Display Outputs | 4x DisplayPort 1.2, 1x SDI | 5x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a, 1x USB Type-C |

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

| Vulkan | 1.2.170 | 1.4 |

| Length | 279 mm (11 inches) | 267 mm (10.5 inches) |

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

| Release Date | 2012-06-13 | 2019-11-18 |

| Launch MSRP | 1,599 USD | 799 USD |

Where Each One Wins

The data leaves little room for debate: the Radeon Pro W5700 is the superior card in every measured dimension. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks, and its architectural advantages, more shaders, higher clock speeds, double the memory, and a modern 7 nm process, translate directly into performance. For any compute-heavy workload using OpenCL or Vulkan, the W5700 is the clear choice. Its 8 GB of GDDR6 memory and 448.0 GB/s bandwidth also make it better suited for large datasets, high-resolution textures, or multi-monitor setups with 5x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs.

The FirePro W8000's only claim to relevance is its 75th percentile ranking, which is an artifact of its sparse benchmark record. With just two recorded tests, both of which are respectable for a 2012 card, its average score of 29,211 places it near modern mid-range GPUs like the RX 470 and RX 6800M. But that is a hollow victory. In direct comparison, the W5700 delivers 67.2% more OpenCL performance and 51.9% more Vulkan performance. The W8000 also lacks FP16 support, has a narrower API set, and cannot match the W5700's pixel rate (120.3 GPixel/s versus 28.80 GPixel/s) or texture rate (270.7 GTexel/s versus 100.8 GTexel/s).

For workstation buyers, the W5700 is the only rational pick. It consumes 20 W less power (205 W versus 225 W) while delivering over double the compute throughput. It is also physically shorter, at 267 mm, making it easier to fit in compact chassis. The W8000's sole advantages are its lower power connector requirement, 2x 6-pin versus 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin, and its SDI output, which may appeal to niche broadcast workflows. Neither card has ray tracing, so that is not a differentiator.

In summary, the W5700 wins on raw compute, memory capacity, bandwidth, modern API support, power efficiency, and connectivity. The W8000 wins on nothing in the recorded benchmarks. Its era has passed, and the data reflects that clearly. If the workload is OpenCL or Vulkan, the W5700 is the one to select. If the workload relies on legacy SDI output or a specific 6-pin power setup, the W8000 might still have a place, but only in those narrow edge cases.