AMD FirePro W8000 vs AMD Radeon RX 590 GME Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clear and consistent performance advantage for the AMD Radeon RX 590 GME across every shared benchmark. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the RX 590 GME scores 36,294 points against the FirePro W8000's 24,440 points, a decisive 48.5% lead. This is not a marginal improvement; the RX 590 GME nearly halves the completion time for compute-heavy OpenCL workloads. The gap widens further in the Geekbench Vulkan test, where the RX 590 GME posts 60,508 points versus 33,981 points for the FirePro W8000, a 78.1% difference. That 78.1% delta is substantial, indicating that the newer architecture scales much better with modern graphics APIs.

The overall average benchmark scores reinforce this pattern. The RX 590 GME holds an average score of 32,601 across all recorded tests, while the FirePro W8000 averages 29,211. The RX 590 GME sits at the 77th percentile of all GPUs in the database, compared to the 75th percentile for the FirePro W8000. Though the percentile gap is narrow, the head-to-head results are not close. The RX 590 GME wins both direct comparisons, giving it a 2 to 0 record in shared tests. The FirePro W8000 does not claim a single victory in any benchmark where both cards were measured.

Context from the nearest rival lists helps frame these results. The RX 590 GME's average score of 32,601 places it just 0.2% ahead of the AMD FirePro S9300 X2 (32,540) and 0.4% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 7900 GRE (32,456). It trails the NVIDIA T600 Mobile (32,849) by 0.8%. The FirePro W8000's average of 29,211, meanwhile, sits essentially level with the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH (29,197, 0% delta) and 0.1% ahead of the Intel Arc A370M (29,175). It leads the AMD Radeon RX 470 (28,996) by 0.7% and the AMD Radeon RX 6800M (28,874) by 1.2%. The delta between the two cards in this review, roughly 11.6% in average score, is larger than any of the gaps to their immediate rivals, highlighting that these two GPUs occupy different performance tiers despite their similar percentile rankings.

Architecture Differences

The underlying hardware tells the story of two very different design philosophies separated by nearly eight years of engineering. The AMD Radeon RX 590 GME uses the Polaris 20 chip built on GCN 4.0 architecture, fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The FirePro W8000 uses the Tahiti chip with GCN 1.0 architecture, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The process node difference alone explains much of the efficiency and clock speed disparity.

The RX 590 GME packs 5,700 million transistors into a 232 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 24.6 million per square millimeter. The FirePro W8000 contains 4,313 million transistors spread across a much larger 352 mm² die, resulting in just 12.3 million transistors per square millimeter. The RX 590 GME achieves nearly double the transistor density, a direct consequence of the newer fabrication process. This density advantage translates into higher clock speeds: the RX 590 GME runs at a base clock of 1257 MHz and boosts to 1420 MHz, while the FirePro W8000 has no recorded base or boost clocks in the database, only a memory clock of 1375 MHz (5.5 Gbps effective).

Memory configurations differ significantly. The RX 590 GME comes with 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth at 2000 MHz (8 Gbps effective). The FirePro W8000 offers only 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on the same 256-bit bus, with a lower 176.0 GB/s bandwidth at 1375 MHz. The RX 590 GME therefore provides twice the memory capacity and roughly 45% more memory bandwidth, which matters for texture-heavy workloads and large datasets.

Compute resources also favor the newer card. The RX 590 GME has 2,304 shading units, 144 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The FirePro W8000 has 1,792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and also 32 ROPs. The RX 590 GME fields 28.6% more shaders and 28.6% more TMUs, while matching the ROP count. Pixel throughput stands at 45.44 GPixel/s for the RX 590 GME against 28.80 GPixel/s for the FirePro W8000. Texture rate is 204.5 GTexel/s versus 100.8 GTexel/s. Floating-point performance shows the largest gap: the RX 590 GME delivers 6.543 TFLOPS FP32, more than double the FirePro W8000's 3.226 TFLOPS. The RX 590 GME also supports FP16 at 6.543 TFLOPS (1:1), while the FirePro W8000 has no recorded FP16 capability.

API support follows the generational split. The RX 590 GME supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The FirePro W8000 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The DirectX feature level difference (12_0 versus 11_1) and the newer Vulkan version on the RX 590 GME explain its dominant Vulkan benchmark showing. Display outputs also differ: the RX 590 GME provides 1x HDMI 2.0b and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a, while the FirePro W8000 offers 4x DisplayPort 1.2 and 1x SDI, reflecting its professional broadcast-oriented heritage.

Power and physical specifications show the FirePro W8000 as the hungrier card. The RX 590 GME has a TDP of 175 W with a single 8-pin power connector and a suggested PSU of 450 W. The FirePro W8000 draws 225 W, requires two 6-pin connectors, and recommends a 550 W PSU. Both cards are dual-slot designs. The RX 590 GME measures 241 mm (9.5 inches) in length, while the FirePro W8000 is longer at 279 mm (11 inches) and 111 mm (4.4 inches) tall. The RX 590 GME launched on March 8, 2020, while the FirePro W8000 launched on June 13, 2012. The RX 590 GME is classified as end-of-life, as is the FirePro W8000, with the former's predecessor being Arctic Islands and successor being Vega, while the latter's predecessor is FirePro Terascale and successor is Radeon Pro Polaris.

The Verdict

The benchmark data supports a straightforward conclusion: the AMD Radeon RX 590 GME outperforms the AMD FirePro W8000 in every measurable shared workload. The 48.5% lead in OpenCL and 78.1% lead in Vulkan are too large to be dismissed as architectural preference; they represent a fundamental generational advantage in compute throughput, memory bandwidth, and API efficiency.

The RX 590 GME is the card to choose for anyone running OpenCL compute tasks, Vulkan-based applications, or modern DirectX 12 workloads. Its 8 GB memory capacity and 256.0 GB/s bandwidth provide headroom that the FirePro W8000's 4 GB and 176.0 GB/s cannot match. The higher shading unit count and more than double the FP32 throughput make it the superior choice for general-purpose GPU compute.

The FirePro W8000 retains specific appeal only in narrow professional contexts. Its 4x DisplayPort 1.2 and 1x SDI outputs suggest broadcast or multi-display professional environments where SDI connectivity is essential. Its 225 W TDP and dual 6-pin power requirement are less efficient than the RX 590 GME's 175 W and single 8-pin, but the older card's launch MSRP of 1,599 USD reflects its original workstation positioning. For modern workloads, the data does not favor the FirePro W8000 in any benchmark category.

FAQ

Q: Which card has better OpenCL performance?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 590 GME scores 36,294 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 48.5% higher than the FirePro W8000's 24,440.

Q: How do the cards compare in Vulkan?

A: The RX 590 GME scores 60,508 in Geekbench Vulkan, beating the FirePro W8000's 33,981 by 78.1%.

Q: What are the memory differences?

A: The RX 590 GME has 8 GB of GDDR5 memory with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the FirePro W8000 has 4 GB of GDDR5 with 176.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The RX 590 GME has 2,304 shading units, compared to 1,792 on the FirePro W8000.

Q: What is the FP32 performance gap?

A: The RX 590 GME delivers 6.543 TFLOPS FP32, more than double the FirePro W8000's 3.226 TFLOPS.

Q: Which card supports newer API versions?

A: The RX 590 GME supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3, while the FirePro W8000 supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 590 GME wins in every category where both cards were measured. For general compute performance, the 6.543 TFLOPS FP32 rating versus 3.226 TFLOPS gives it a clear edge in scientific simulation, machine learning inference, and rendering tasks that rely on raw floating-point throughput. The 204.5 GTexel/s texture rate versus 100.8 GTexel/s favors texture-heavy workloads like 3D modeling viewport rendering and game asset production. The 45.44 GPixel/s pixel rate versus 28.80 GPixel/s benefits high-resolution display output and pixel shader workloads.

Memory-bound applications see a major advantage on the RX 590 GME. Its 256.0 GB/s bandwidth versus 176.0 GB/s, combined with 8 GB capacity versus 4 GB, allows larger textures, bigger datasets, and more complex scenes without swapping to system memory. The newer Vulkan 1.3 support versus 1.2.170 and DirectX 12_0 versus 11_1 make the RX 590 GME the better match for modern game engines and Vulkan-based compute frameworks.

The FirePro W8000 has no benchmark wins in the shared test suite, but its professional connectivity set gives it a niche. The 4x DisplayPort 1.2 and 1x SDI outputs support video wall configurations and broadcast workflows that require SDI signal output, something the RX 590 GME cannot offer with its HDMI 2.0b and DisplayPort 1.4a layout. For tasks that rely on multiple synchronized display outputs or SDI integration, the FirePro W8000 remains functionally relevant despite its older architecture. Its 4 GB memory and 3.226 TFLOPS FP32 are sufficient for legacy professional applications that do not stress modern API paths, though the data shows no performance scenario where it overtakes the RX 590 GME in raw compute.