AMD FirePro W8000 vs AMD Radeon R9 M295X Comparison

The AMD FirePro W8000 and AMD Radeon R9 M295X represent two distinct approaches to AMD’s GPU design from different eras. The FirePro W8000 is a workstation card built on the GCN 1.0 architecture, while the R9 M295X is a mobile-class module based on GCN 3.0. The benchmark data reveals a clear but nuanced picture: the FirePro W8000 dominates in the two shared tests, yet the R9 M295X counters with a unique advantage in a separate API. This analysis digs into the numbers to determine what each GPU does best and who should pay attention.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head comparison is limited to two tests, and the AMD FirePro W8000 wins both decisively. In Geekbench OpenCL, the FirePro W8000 scores 24,440 against the R9 M295X’s 22,858, a margin of 6.9%. This is a solid lead, but the gap widens dramatically in Geekbench Vulkan. Here, the FirePro W8000 posts 33,981, which is 16.8% ahead of the R9 M295X’s 29,091. That Vulkan delta is the single largest performance gap between the two cards across any test, indicating the older GCN 1.0 architecture handles the Vulkan API particularly well compared to the newer GCN 3.0 part.

However, the data also includes a Geekbench Metal score for the R9 M295X, which the FirePro W8000 lacks entirely. The R9 M295X achieves 33,790 in Metal, a figure that surpasses the FirePro W8000’s OpenCL result and nearly matches its Vulkan score. This suggests the R9 M295X has a hidden strength in Apple’s Metal API, even if it cannot match the FirePro W8000 in the two cross-platform tests. The wins tally stands at 2 for the FirePro W8000 and 0 for the R9 M295X in direct competition, but the Metal result complicates the narrative—it shows the R9 M295X is not a slouch, just optimized for a different software ecosystem.

Average benchmark scores reinforce the FirePro W8000’s overall edge. The FirePro W8000 averages 29,211 across its two tests, while the R9 M295X averages 28,580 across its three. That is a 2.2% difference in favor of the FirePro W8000. Interestingly, the R9 M295X’s average is dragged down by its OpenCL score, which is its weakest result. If we isolate the best-case scenarios, the FirePro W8000’s Vulkan score of 33,981 remains the highest single number between both cards, but the R9 M295X’s Metal score of 33,790 is remarkably close—a gap of just 0.6%. The data implies that in Metal-centric workloads, the R9 M295X is essentially on par with the FirePro W8000’s best effort.

Where Each One Wins

The FirePro W8000 wins in raw compute across both OpenCL and Vulkan, making it the superior choice for general-purpose GPU workloads and cross-platform APIs. Its OpenCL advantage of 6.9% is meaningful for tasks like scientific simulation or video encoding that rely heavily on this API. The 16.8% Vulkan lead is even more significant, suggesting the FirePro W8000 is better suited for Vulkan-based game engines or compute applications that leverage modern graphics APIs. For users running Linux or Windows environments where OpenCL and Vulkan are standard, the FirePro W8000 is the clear performer.

The R9 M295X wins in a narrower but important niche: Metal performance. Its Geekbench Metal score of 33,790 is not just higher than its own OpenCL and Vulkan results—it is also within striking distance of the FirePro W8000’s best scores. This makes the R9 M295X the logical pick for macOS or iOS development environments where Metal is the primary API. The card’s mobile MXM form factor also suggests it was designed for laptops or all-in-one systems, so its portability could be a deciding factor for users who need GPU compute on the go. The data does not show the R9 M295X winning any head-to-head test, but its Metal capability fills a gap the FirePro W8000 cannot address.

Another way to split the wins is by workload type. The FirePro W8000’s higher pixel rate of 28.80 GPixel/s versus the R9 M295X’s 23.14 GPixel/s indicates better raw pixel throughput, which benefits traditional rasterization. The texture rate also favors the FirePro W8000 at 100.8 GTexel/s versus 92.54 GTexel/s. However, the R9 M295X counters with more shading units (2,048 vs. 1,792) and more TMUs (128 vs. 112), suggesting it has greater theoretical parallelism for shader-heavy tasks, even if its real-world scores lag. The verdict is not simple: the FirePro W8000 wins on measured performance, but the R9 M295X has architectural headroom that could shine in specific Metal-based scenarios.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are separated by two generations of GCN architecture. The FirePro W8000 uses GCN 1.0 on the Tahiti chip, while the R9 M295X employs GCN 3.0 on the Amethyst chip. Both are fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC, but the R9 M295X packs more transistors: 5,000 million versus 4,313 million. The die size also grows slightly, from 352 mm² on the FirePro W8000 to 366 mm² on the R9 M295X. This translates to a higher transistor density for the newer card—13.7M per mm² versus 12.3M per mm²—indicating a more efficient use of silicon.

Memory configurations are similar on paper but differ in speed. Both cards feature 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus. However, the FirePro W8000 runs its memory at 1375 MHz with 5.5 Gbps effective, yielding 176.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The R9 M295X operates at 1250 MHz with 5 Gbps effective, producing 160.0 GB/s. That is a 10% bandwidth advantage for the FirePro W8000, which likely contributes to its higher pixel and texture rates. The R9 M295X makes up for some of this deficit with a higher core configuration: 2,048 shading units and 128 TMUs versus the FirePro W8000’s 1,792 shading units and 112 TMUs. Both cards share 32 ROPs.

The compute capabilities diverge in interesting ways. The FirePro W8000 delivers 3.226 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the R9 M295X offers 2.961 TFLOPS—a 9% gap in favor of the older card. The R9 M295X does list FP16 performance at 2.961 TFLOPS (1:1), meaning it can match its FP32 throughput for half-precision workloads, a feature the FirePro W8000 does not specify. API support differs too: the FirePro W8000 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), while the R9 M295X supports DirectX 12 (12_0), giving the newer card better feature-level compliance. Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.170.

Power and physical design highlight their different roles. The FirePro W8000 is a dual-slot card with a 225 W TDP, requiring 2x 6-pin power connectors and a 550 W power supply. It measures 279 mm in length and 111 mm in height. The R9 M295X is an MXM Module with a higher 250 W TDP but no power connectors, as it relies on the host system. It has no listed dimensions, reflecting its mobile orientation. The FirePro W8000 offers 4x DisplayPort 1.2 and 1x SDI outputs, while the R9 M295X’s display outputs are described as portable device dependent. The FirePro W8000 also has a launch MSRP of 1,599 USD, while the R9 M295X has no MSRP listed.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear winner for cross-platform compute: the AMD FirePro W8000. Its 6.9% lead in OpenCL and 16.8% lead in Vulkan are substantial, and its higher memory bandwidth and pixel rate back up those results. For anyone working in Linux or Windows environments with OpenCL or Vulkan workloads, the FirePro W8000 is the superior choice. Its workstation pedigree, with four DisplayPort outputs and a robust dual-slot design, reinforces its role as a professional-grade compute card. The average benchmark score of 29,211 versus 28,580 further solidifies this position.

However, the AMD Radeon R9 M295X is not without merit. Its Geekbench Metal score of 33,790 is the only test where it outpaces the FirePro W8000’s OpenCL result, and it nearly matches the FirePro W8000’s Vulkan score. For macOS users or developers targeting Metal, the R9 M295X is the only viable option between the two. Its MXM form factor also makes it suitable for laptops, where the FirePro W8000’s 279 mm length would never fit. The R9 M295X’s higher shading unit count and DirectX 12_0 support give it a theoretical edge in modern shader-heavy games, even if the benchmark data does not confirm this in OpenCL or Vulkan.

The FirePro W8000 is the pick for raw compute and workstation tasks. The R9 M295X is the pick for Metal ecosystems and mobile deployments. The 2.2% average score difference is small enough that software optimization matters more than raw hardware. If you are locked into Apple’s Metal API, the R9 M295X is your only choice. If you need maximum OpenCL or Vulkan throughput, the FirePro W8000 wins outright. There is no tie-breaker in the data—it comes down to your specific API and form factor requirements.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD FirePro W8000 averages 29,211 across its two tests, while the AMD Radeon R9 M295X averages 28,580 across its three tests, giving the FirePro W8000 a 2.2% edge.

Q: How much faster is the FirePro W8000 in Geekbench Vulkan?

A: The FirePro W8000 scores 33,981, which is 16.8% higher than the R9 M295X’s 29,091 in the same test.

Q: Does the R9 M295X win any benchmark against the FirePro W8000?

A: No, the R9 M295X loses both head-to-head tests (OpenCL and Vulkan). However, it has a Geekbench Metal score of 33,790, which is a test the FirePro W8000 does not have.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between the two cards?

A: The FirePro W8000 achieves 176.0 GB/s, while the R9 M295X achieves 160.0 GB/s, a 10% advantage for the FirePro W8000.

Q: Which card supports a newer version of DirectX?

A: The R9 M295X supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the FirePro W8000 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), making the R9 M295X more compliant with the latest API version.

Q: Are both GPUs fabricated on the same process node?

A: Yes, both the FirePro W8000 and R9 M295X are built on a 28 nm process at TSMC, but the R9 M295X uses more transistors at 5,000 million versus 4,313 million.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD FirePro W8000 | AMD Radeon R9 M295X |

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

| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | GCN 3.0 |

| Chip | Tahiti | Amethyst |

| Transistors | 4,313 million | 5,000 million |

| Die Size | 352 mm² | 366 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.3M / mm² | 13.7M / mm² |

| Memory Clock | 1375 MHz (5.5 Gbps effective) | 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Bandwidth | 176.0 GB/s | 160.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1,792 | 2,048 |

| TMUs | 112 | 128 |

| Pixel Rate | 28.80 GPixel/s | 23.14 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 100.8 GTexel/s | 92.54 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 3.226 TFLOPS | 2.961 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | Not specified | 2.961 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 225 W | 250 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | MXM Module |

| Power Connectors | 2x 6-pin | None |

| Suggested PSU | 550 W | Not specified |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | MXM-B (3.0) |

| Display Outputs | 4x DisplayPort 1.2, 1x SDI | Portable Device Dependent |

| DirectX Support | 12 (11_1) | 12 (12_0) |

| Dimensions | 279 mm length, 111 mm height | Not specified |

| Release Date | 2012-06-13 | 2014-11-22 |

| Launch MSRP | 1,599 USD | Not specified |