AMD FirePro W8000 vs AMD Radeon RX 590 Comparison

The Verdict

The data presents two very different AMD cards with a clear performance gap. The FirePro W8000 records an average benchmark score of 29,211, placing it in the 75th percentile of all GPUs, while the Radeon RX 590 averages 24,744, sitting in the 70th percentile. The W8000 is 18% ahead on average score, a decisive margin that makes it the stronger choice for raw compute workloads. Its nearest rival, the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH, scores 29,197 with a delta of 0%, meaning the W8000 essentially trades blows with that mobile flagship. Meanwhile, the RX 590 sits just 0.1% behind the NVIDIA RTX A5000 Mobile, showing it is competitive with a professional mobile GPU but ultimately trails the older FirePro in aggregate performance. For users prioritizing compute throughput, the FirePro W8000 is the data-backed pick. The RX 590, however, offers a different set of advantages: it has double the memory, a newer architecture, and higher clock speeds, which matter in specific scenarios. The verdict from the numbers is that the W8000 wins on raw benchmark strength, but the RX 590 is the more balanced, modern card for gaming and DirectX 12 applications.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two cards is substantial. The FirePro W8000 uses the Tahiti chip built on GCN 1.0, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The RX 590 uses Polaris 30, built on GCN 4.0, produced on a 12 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The process node difference is significant: 28 nm versus 12 nm, which explains why the RX 590 packs 5,700 million transistors into a 232 mm² die, while the W8000 fits 4,313 million transistors into a larger 352 mm² die. Transistor density tells the story clearly: the RX 590 achieves 24.6 million transistors per mm², exactly double the 12.3 million per mm² of the W8000. This is a generational leap in manufacturing efficiency.

The memory configurations differ sharply. The W8000 ships with 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 176.0 GB/s of bandwidth at a memory clock of 1375 MHz (5.5 Gbps effective). The RX 590 doubles capacity to 8 GB, also on a 256-bit bus, but with a much faster memory clock of 2000 MHz (8 Gbps effective), yielding 256.0 GB/s. That is 45% more bandwidth for the newer card, a clear advantage for texture-heavy workloads. In terms of compute units, the RX 590 has 2304 shading units, 144 texture units, and 32 ROPs, compared to the W8000's 1792 shading units, 112 texture units, and 32 ROPs. The RX 590 also supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3, while the W8000 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The architecture differences point to the RX 590 being a more efficient, more capable design on paper, yet the benchmark averages favor the older W8000, which suggests the FirePro's drivers or compute optimizations give it an edge in the recorded tests.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits cleanly by workload type. The FirePro W8000 wins the aggregate score category outright, with its 29,211 average versus the RX 590's 24,744. In the recorded tests, the W8000 posts a Geekbench OpenCL score of 24,440 and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 33,981. These are compute-oriented tests, and the W8000's strong showing there aligns with its professional workstation heritage. It also edges out its nearest rivals in the database: it is 0% behind the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH, 0.1% ahead of the Intel Arc A370M, 0.7% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 470, and 1.2% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 6800M. This indicates the W8000 holds its own against much newer hardware in compute tasks.

The RX 590 wins in entirely different categories. It has a Geekbench Metal score of 48,407, a test the W8000 does not even appear in, and a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1,081, which the W8000 also lacks. These are modern API tests, and the RX 590's support for DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3 makes it the better fit for current game engines. Its nearest rivals tell a different story: it is 0.1% behind the NVIDIA RTX A5000 Mobile, 0.4% ahead of the Intel Arc A350M, 1.2% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT, and 1.9% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630. The RX 590 is competitive with professional and mainstream GPUs in its class, but its lower average score means it loses the overall comparison. The data implies the W8000 is for compute professionals, while the RX 590 is for gamers and users who need modern API support, more memory, and higher clock speeds.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD FirePro W8000 scores 29,211 on average, which is 18% higher than the AMD Radeon RX 590's 24,744.

Q: Does the RX 590 have more memory than the W8000?

A: Yes. The RX 590 has 8 GB of GDDR5, while the W8000 has 4 GB of GDDR5. Both use a 256-bit bus, but the RX 590 also has higher memory bandwidth at 256.0 GB/s versus 176.0 GB/s.

Q: Which card supports newer APIs?

A: The RX 590 supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3, while the W8000 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Q: How do the two cards compare in pixel and texture rates?

A: The RX 590 is faster in both: it has a pixel rate of 49.44 GPixel/s versus 28.80 GPixel/s for the W8000, and a texture rate of 222.5 GTexel/s versus 100.8 GTexel/s.

Q: What is the transistor density difference between the two?

A: The RX 590 has a transistor density of 24.6 million per mm², exactly double the W8000's 12.3 million per mm², despite the W8000 having a larger die size of 352 mm² versus 232 mm².

Q: Which card has a higher power draw?

A: The W8000 has a TDP of 225 W and requires a 550 W power supply with 2x 6-pin connectors. The RX 590 has a lower TDP of 175 W, a 450 W suggested PSU, and uses a single 8-pin connector.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark list in the database is empty, so the comparison relies on the individual benchmark scores and average ratings. The FirePro W8000's Geekbench OpenCL score of 24,440 is a strong compute result, and its Geekbench Vulkan score of 33,981 is even more impressive. These numbers are the foundation of its 29,211 average, which places it above the RX 590's 24,744 average by a clear 4,467 points. In percentage terms, the W8000 leads by 18%, a margin that puts it in a different performance tier despite its older GCN 1.0 architecture.

The RX 590 counters with a Geekbench Metal score of 48,407, which is far higher than any single score the W8000 recorded, but Metal is a platform-specific API, and this result does not translate to the OpenCL or Vulkan tests where the W8000 competes. The RX 590's 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1,081 shows it handles modern DirectX 12 workloads, a category where the W8000 has no recorded result. The pixel rate comparison is also lopsided: the RX 590 achieves 49.44 GPixel/s, nearly double the W8000's 28.80 GPixel/s. Texture rate follows the same trend, with the RX 590 at 222.5 GTexel/s versus 100.8 GTexel/s. The FP32 compute numbers are stark: the RX 590 delivers 7.119 TFLOPS, while the W8000 manages 3.226 TFLOPS, a 121% advantage for the newer card. Yet the average benchmark score still favors the W8000, which suggests the recorded tests weight compute stability or driver efficiency over raw theoretical throughput.

The nearest rival data adds context. The W8000's closest competitor is the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH at 29,197, a 0% delta, meaning they are statistically tied. The RX 590's closest rival is the NVIDIA RTX A5000 Mobile at 24,763, a -0.1% delta, meaning the RX 590 is essentially equal to a professional mobile GPU. These rival positions clarify that the W8000 competes at a higher tier overall, while the RX 590 sits in a mainstream bracket. The biggest wins for the W8000 are in OpenCL and Vulkan compute, while the RX 590 wins decisively in pixel rate, texture rate, FP32 throughput, and memory bandwidth. The data does not support a single winner across all categories, but the aggregate benchmark score is the strongest single metric, and it belongs to the FirePro W8000.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every specification field. The chip is Tahiti for the W8000 and Polaris 30 for the RX 590, with architectures GCN 1.0 and GCN 4.0 respectively. The process node is 28 nm from TSMC for the W8000, while the RX 590 uses 12 nm from GlobalFoundries. Transistor count is 4,313 million for the W8000 and 5,700 million for the RX 590. Die size is 352 mm² for the W8000 and 232 mm² for the RX 590, giving transistor densities of 12.3 million per mm² and 24.6 million per mm². The W8000 has no recorded base or boost clock, while the RX 590 has a base clock of 1469 MHz and a boost clock of 1545 MHz. Memory clocks are 1375 MHz (5.5 Gbps effective) for the W8000 and 2000 MHz (8 Gbps effective) for the RX 590. Memory size is 4 GB versus 8 GB, both GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, with bandwidth of 176.0 GB/s versus 256.0 GB/s. Shading units are 1792 versus 2304, TMUs are 112 versus 144, and ROPs are 32 for both. Pixel rates are 28.80 GPixel/s versus 49.44 GPixel/s, and texture rates are 100.8 GTexel/s versus 222.5 GTexel/s. FP32 is 3.226 TFLOPS versus 7.119 TFLOPS, with the RX 590 also supporting FP16 at 7.119 TFLOPS (1:1), a feature the W8000 lacks. TDP is 225 W for the W8000 and 175 W for the RX 590. Power connectors are 2x 6-pin for the W8000 and 1x 8-pin for the RX 590, with suggested PSUs of 550 W and 450 W. The W8000 is 279 mm long, while the RX 590 is 241 mm. Display outputs differ: the W8000 has 4x DisplayPort 1.2 and 1x SDI, while the RX 590 has 1x HDMI 2.0b and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a. API support differs as noted, with the RX 590 supporting DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3 versus the W8000's DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170. The release dates are 2012-06-13 for the W8000 and 2018-11-14 for the RX 590. The launch MSRP for the W8000 was 1,599 USD, while the RX 590 launched at 279 USD. Both cards are end-of-life, but the specification sheet makes it clear that the RX 590 is the more modern, efficient, and feature-rich design, even though the benchmark average favors the older W8000.