AMD FirePro W8000 vs AMD Radeon R9 M395X Comparison

The AMD FirePro W8000 and AMD Radeon R9 M395X represent two very different branches of AMD's GCN lineage: a power-hungry workstation card built on the original GCN 1.0 architecture, and a mobile part built on the newer GCN 3.0 design. The database records one direct head-to-head benchmark between them, and it goes decisively to the FirePro. The W8000 wins the shared Geekbench OpenCL test by 37.1%, and its higher average benchmark score (29211 versus 25891) plus a higher percentile ranking against all GPUs in the database (75th versus 71st) confirm its lead in compute-oriented measurements. The R9 M395X answers with architectural advantages of its own: double the memory capacity, a newer feature level in DirectX 12, native half-precision throughput, and a 75 W TDP that fits a mobile envelope the W8000 could never occupy. This comparison is less a fight over the same buyer and more a study in how two 28 nm GCN parts diverged for different markets.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Only one test appears in both cards' recorded results: Geekbench OpenCL. There, the FirePro W8000 scores 24440 against 17829 for the Radeon R9 M395X, a 37.1% victory for the workstation card. That is not a marginal win. It is the kind of gap that shows up as clearly shorter compute job times, and it aligns with the raw specification story: the W8000 delivers 3.226 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput against 2.961 TFLOPS for the M395X, backed by higher pixel rate (28.80 versus 23.14 GPixel/s) and texture rate (100.8 versus 92.54 GTexel/s).

The supporting averages reinforce the picture. The W8000's average benchmark score of 29211 sits at the 75th percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the M395X averages 25891 at the 71st percentile. The W8000 also posts a Geekbench Vulkan score of 33981, a test the M395X does not record; the mobile card instead logs a Geekbench Metal score of 33953 on a test the W8000 does not record. Those two numbers, nearly identical in magnitude, come from different APIs and cannot be compared directly, but they indicate each card performs respectably on the graphics API benchmarks available to it.

Context from each card's nearest rivals sharpens the analysis. The W8000's average score lands within a rounding error of the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH (29197, a 0% delta), essentially tied with the Intel Arc A370M (0.1% gap), and modestly ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 470 (0.7%) and the AMD Radeon RX 6800M (1.2%). In other words, its average performance clusters with a mixed field of later discrete and mobile GPUs. The M395X's neighborhood is equally telling: it effectively matches the AMD FirePro W7100 (0.1%), the AMD FirePro D700 (0.2%), and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Mobile (0.6%), while trailing the AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT by a slight 0.5% on average score.

The head-to-head record closes at one win for the W8000 and zero for the M395X. On the measured evidence, the W8000 is the faster card in the one test where they meet.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs come from TSMC's 28 nm process, but they sit three GCN generations apart. The FirePro W8000 uses the Tahiti chip on GCN 1.0, the first iteration of AMD's Graphics Core Next design, and belongs to the FirePro GCN (Wx000) workstation generation. The Radeon R9 M395X uses the Amethyst chip on GCN 3.0, part of the Gem System (R9 M300) mobile generation. The successor chain also differs: the W8000 was followed by the Radeon Pro Polaris line, while the M395X's successor is Polaris Mobile. Their predecessors differ too, FirePro Terascale for the W8000 and Solar System for the M395X.

The newer architecture carries more silicon. The M395X packs 5,000 million transistors on a 366 mm² die at 13.7M per mm², against 4,313 million transistors on a 352 mm² die at 12.3M per mm² for the W8000. That density gain translates into more shading units (2048 versus 1792) and more texture units (128 versus 112), while raster output units are equal at 32 apiece. Yet the W8000's higher texture and pixel rates show that raw unit counts do not tell the whole story, since clock behavior (not recorded for either card) evidently favors the older part in the measured throughput figures.

Memory is where the M395X pulls ahead in capacity but behind in speed. It carries 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus at 160.0 GB/s, with memory running at 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective). The W8000 has half the capacity at 4 GB on the same 256-bit bus, but its memory runs at 1375 MHz (5.5 Gbps effective) for 176.0 GB/s of bandwidth. Neither card has RT cores or tensor cores, which is expected for their era.

The API story favors the newer card. The M395X supports DirectX 12 at feature level 12_0, while the W8000 stops at feature level 11_1 within a DirectX 12 API layer. Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.170. The M395X also records FP16 throughput of 2.961 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, a capability the W8000's record does not include.

The Verdict

The data supports a split decision. For raw compute performance, the FirePro W8000 is the clear pick: it wins the only shared benchmark by 37.1%, holds the higher average score, the higher percentile, and the higher percentile ranking in the database (75 versus 71), and delivers more bandwidth, more FP32 throughput, and higher pixel and texture rates. Its professional orientation also shows in its outputs, with 4x DisplayPort 1.2 plus 1x SDI, against the M395X's portable-device-dependent display options.

The Radeon R9 M395X wins on modernity and practicality. It is a mobile MXM module with a 75 W TDP and no power connectors, whereas the W8000 is a dual-slot desktop card drawing 225 W through 2x 6-pin connectors with a 550 W suggested PSU. It has double the VRAM at 8 GB, a newer DirectX 12 feature level, and native FP16 support. Nothing in the data suggests the M395X is faster, but plenty suggests it is the more relevant card for a portable system and for workloads or titles that depend on the 12_0 feature level or larger memory capacity.

Both are end-of-life parts, so the practical question is which one's strengths match the workload: measured compute speed favors the W8000, and architecture, capacity, and efficiency favor the M395X.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in the shared benchmark?

A: The AMD FirePro W8000. It scores 24440 in Geekbench OpenCL against 17829 for the Radeon R9 M395X, a 37.1% lead.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The W8000 averages 29211 against 25891 for the M395X, and ranks at the 75th percentile versus the M395X's 71st percentile against all GPUs in the database.

Q: How much memory does each card have?

A: The W8000 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus at 176.0 GB/s. The M395X has 8 GB of GDDR5 on the same 256-bit bus at 160.0 GB/s.

Q: What is the power difference?

A: The W8000 is a dual-slot desktop card with a 225 W TDP, 2x 6-pin power connectors, and a 550 W suggested PSU. The M395X is an MXM mobile module with a 75 W TDP and no power connectors.

Q: Which GPU architectures do they use?

A: The W8000 uses the Tahiti chip on GCN 1.0; the M395X uses the Amethyst chip on GCN 3.0. Both are built on TSMC's 28 nm process.

Q: Which rivals perform most similarly to each card?

A: The W8000's average score is essentially tied with the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH (0% delta) and the Intel Arc A370M (0.1%). The M395X matches the AMD FirePro W7100 (0.1%) and AMD FirePro D700 (0.2%) almost exactly.

Where Each One Wins

The FirePro W8000 wins wherever measured throughput matters. Its OpenCL score leads by 37.1%, making it the stronger choice for GPU compute workloads of its era. Its superior memory bandwidth (176.0 GB/s versus 160.0 GB/s), FP32 throughput (3.226 versus 2.961 TFLOPS), pixel rate (28.80 versus 23.14 GPixel/s), and texture rate (100.8 versus 92.54 GTexel/s) all point the same direction. Its fixed professional output configuration, 4x DisplayPort 1.2 and 1x SDI, suits multi-display workstation setups that a mobile module cannot replicate.

The Radeon R9 M395X wins on capacity, features, and form factor. Its 8 GB of VRAM is double the W8000's 4 GB, an advantage in memory-hungry workloads despite slightly lower bandwidth. Its DirectX 12 feature level 12_0 support exceeds the W8000's 11_1, and its 1:1 FP16 throughput gives it half-precision capability the W8000's record lacks. Most fundamentally, it is a 75 W MXM module for portable systems, a category the 225 W, dual-slot, 279 mm long W8000 simply cannot serve.

Specification Differences

• Chip: Tahiti (W8000) versus Amethyst (M395X)
• Architecture: GCN 1.0 versus GCN 3.0
• Generation: FirePro GCN (Wx000) versus Gem System (R9 M300)
• Transistors: 4,313 million versus 5,000 million
• Die size: 352 mm² versus 366 mm²
• Transistor density: 12.3M/mm² versus 13.7M/mm²
• Memory size: 4 GB versus 8 GB
• Memory bandwidth: 176.0 GB/s versus 160.0 GB/s
• Memory clock: 1375 MHz (5.5 Gbps effective) versus 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective)
• Shading units: 1792 versus 2048
• TMUs: 112 versus 128
• Pixel rate: 28.80 GPixel/s versus 23.14 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 100.8 GTexel/s versus 92.54 GTexel/s
• FP32: 3.226 TFLOPS versus 2.961 TFLOPS
• FP16: not recorded versus 2.961 TFLOPS (1:1)
• TDP: 225 W versus 75 W
• Form factor: dual-slot desktop card versus MXM module
• Power connectors: 2x 6-pin versus none
• Suggested PSU: 550 W versus none listed
• Display outputs: 4x DisplayPort 1.2, 1x SDI versus portable device dependent
• DirectX: 12 (11_1) versus 12 (12_0)
• Card length: 279 mm (11 inches) versus not applicable
• Card height: 111 mm (4.4 inches) versus not applicable
• Release date: June 2012 versus May 2015
• Predecessor: FirePro Terascale versus Solar System
• Successor: Radeon Pro Polaris versus Polaris Mobile
• Launch MSRP: 1,599 USD for the W8000; none recorded for the M395X