AMD FirePro W8000 vs AMD Radeon RX 6700M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive victory for the AMD Radeon RX 6700M in every direct comparison. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the RX 6700M scores 77,666 against the FirePro W8000’s 24,440, a difference of 68.5 percent in favor of the newer mobile part. That is not a marginal gap; it is a generational leap in raw compute throughput as measured by this workload.

The Vulkan results tell a similar story. The Radeon RX 6700M posts 90,816 points, while the FirePro W8000 manages 33,981. The delta here is 62.6 percent, again favoring the RX 6700M. Both tests are consistent: the RX 6700M leads by more than two-thirds in OpenCL and by nearly two-thirds in Vulkan. The FirePro W8000 has zero wins across the two recorded head-to-head benchmarks, while the RX 6700M takes both.

What is striking is not just the magnitude of the lead but its consistency across different API workloads. OpenCL often stresses memory bandwidth and shader throughput, while Vulkan can expose driver efficiency and hardware scheduling. The RX 6700M wins both, which suggests its advantage is architectural rather than workload-specific. The FirePro W8000, despite being a workstation-class card from its era, simply cannot keep pace with the mobile GPU in these synthetic tests.

Looking at the broader database context, the FirePro W8000’s average benchmark score is 29,211, placing it at the 75th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH at 29,197 (0 percent delta), the Intel Arc A370M at 29,175 (0.1 percent ahead), the AMD Radeon RX 470 at 28,996 (0.7 percent behind), and the AMD Radeon RX 6800M at 28,874 (1.2 percent behind). These are tight margins, meaning the FirePro W8000 sits in a cluster of similar-performing GPUs. The RX 6700M, by contrast, has an average score of 25,633, which places it at the 71st percentile. Its nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon Pro W5700 at 25,726 (0.4 percent ahead), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Mobile at 25,740 (0.4 percent ahead), the AMD FirePro D700 at 25,842 (0.8 percent ahead), and the AMD FirePro W7100 at 25,856 (0.9 percent ahead).

This is an interesting inversion. The FirePro W8000 has a higher average score than the RX 6700M in the aggregate database, yet in the head-to-head OpenCL and Vulkan tests, the RX 6700M wins by enormous margins. The explanation lies in the benchmark mix. The RX 6700M’s average includes many different tests, some where it scores lower, such as PassMark DirectX 9 at 155, PassMark DirectX 10 at 92, and PassMark DirectX 11 at 129. The FirePro W8000 only has two recorded benchmarks, both of which are the same tests used in the head-to-head comparison. So the aggregate average is not directly comparable; the head-to-head data is the more reliable indicator for these two specific GPUs.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6700M wins with a score of 77,666 against the AMD FirePro W8000’s 24,440, a 68.5 percent advantage.

Q: Which GPU wins in Geekbench Vulkan?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6700M wins again, scoring 90,816 versus the FirePro W8000’s 33,981, a 62.6 percent lead.

Q: How many head-to-head benchmark wins does each GPU have?

A: The FirePro W8000 has zero wins, while the Radeon RX 6700M has two wins across the two recorded tests.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each GPU in the database?

A: The FirePro W8000 has an average benchmark score of 29,211, while the Radeon RX 6700M has an average benchmark score of 25,633.

Q: Which GPU has a higher percentile ranking among all GPUs?

A: The FirePro W8000 sits at the 75th percentile, while the Radeon RX 6700M sits at the 71st percentile, according to the database.

Q: Are the two GPUs close in aggregate performance?

A: The FirePro W8000 has a slightly higher average score (29,211 vs. 25,633), but its nearest rivals are within 1.2 percent, and the RX 6700M’s nearest rivals are within 0.9 percent, indicating both are surrounded by similar-performing GPUs. However, the head-to-head tests show a large gap in favor of the RX 6700M.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from entirely different architectural eras. The FirePro W8000 is built on the Tahiti chip using GCN 1.0 architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 4,313 million transistors onto a 352 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 12.3 million per square millimeter. The Radeon RX 6700M uses the Navi 22 chip with RDNA 2.0 architecture, built on a 7 nm process, also at TSMC. It contains 17,200 million transistors on a 335 mm² die, with a density of 51.3 million per square millimeter. The density difference is stark: the newer process allows more than four times as many transistors per area.

The FirePro W8000 has 1,792 shading units, 112 texture mapping units, and 32 render output units. The RX 6700M has 2,304 shading units, 144 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. Beyond these counts, the RX 6700M includes 36 ray tracing cores, a feature entirely absent from the FirePro W8000. This is a fundamental architectural shift: RDNA 2.0 adds dedicated hardware for ray tracing, which GCN 1.0 does not have.

The API support reflects this gap. The FirePro W8000 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The RX 6700M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The DirectX 12 Ultimate designation indicates support for features like ray tracing and mesh shaders, which the older card cannot offer.

The memory subsystem also differs fundamentally. The FirePro W8000 uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 176.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The RX 6700M uses 10 GB of GDDR6 on a 160-bit bus, delivering 320.0 GB/s. Despite the narrower bus, the newer memory type achieves nearly double the bandwidth. The pixel rate and texture rate tell a similar story: the FirePro W8000 has 28.80 GPixel/s and 100.8 GTexel/s, while the RX 6700M has 153.6 GPixel/s and 345.6 GTexel/s. The FP32 throughput is 3.226 TFLOPS for the FirePro and 11.06 TFLOPS for the RX 6700M. The RX 6700M also has FP16 capability at 22.12 TFLOPS (2:1), which the FirePro W8000 lacks entirely.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every specification field. The process node is 28 nm for the FirePro W8000 and 7 nm for the Radeon RX 6700M. Transistor count is 4,313 million versus 17,200 million. Die size is 352 mm² versus 335 mm². Transistor density is 12.3M per mm² versus 51.3M per mm².

Clock speeds show the RX 6700M has explicit base, boost, and game clocks: 1489 MHz, 2400 MHz, and 2300 MHz respectively. The FirePro W8000 has no recorded base or boost clock. Memory clock is 1375 MHz (5.5 Gbps effective) for the FirePro, while the RX 6700M runs at 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective).

Memory configuration differs in size (4 GB vs. 10 GB), type (GDDR5 vs. GDDR6), bus width (256-bit vs. 160-bit), and bandwidth (176.0 GB/s vs. 320.0 GB/s). Shading units are 1,792 versus 2,304. TMUs are 112 versus 144. ROPs are 32 versus 64. Ray tracing cores are absent on the FirePro and numbered at 36 on the RX 6700M. Pixel rate is 28.80 GPixel/s versus 153.6 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 100.8 GTexel/s versus 345.6 GTexel/s. FP32 is 3.226 TFLOPS versus 11.06 TFLOPS. FP16 is absent versus 22.12 TFLOPS.

Power and physical specs also differ. The FirePro W8000 has a TDP of 225 W, is dual-slot, uses 2x 6-pin power connectors, and has a suggested PSU of 550 W. The RX 6700M has a TDP of 135 W, is IGP (integrated graphics package), uses no power connectors, and has no suggested PSU. Bus interface is PCIe 3.0 x16 for the FirePro and PCIe 4.0 x16 for the RX 6700M. Display outputs are 4x DisplayPort 1.2 and 1x SDI for the FirePro, while the RX 6700M is portable device dependent. The FirePro has dimensions of 279 mm length and 111 mm height; the RX 6700M has no recorded dimensions.

The FirePro W8000 has a launch MSRP of 1,599 USD. The RX 6700M has no launch MSRP recorded. Release dates are 2012-06-13 for the FirePro and 2021-05-30 for the RX 6700M. The FirePro’s predecessor is FirePro Terascale and its successor is Radeon Pro Polaris. The RX 6700M’s predecessor is Polaris Mobile and it has no successor recorded. Both are end-of-life production status.

Where Each One Wins

The Radeon RX 6700M is the clear winner in raw compute benchmarks. It dominates the FirePro W8000 in both Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan by margins of 68.5 percent and 62.6 percent respectively. Its higher shading unit count, doubled ROPs, higher clock speeds, and much greater memory bandwidth all contribute to this result. For any workload that stresses shader throughput, texture filtering, or memory bandwidth, the RX 6700M is the superior part.

The RX 6700M also brings features the FirePro W8000 simply cannot match. Ray tracing cores are present in the RX 6700M, which means games and applications that use DirectX 12 Ultimate features will run on this GPU but not on the FirePro. The newer Vulkan 1.4 support and DirectX 12_2 API level also give the RX 6700M access to more modern rendering techniques.

The FirePro W8000 has some advantages in the database, though they are less about performance and more about positioning. Its average benchmark score of 29,211 is higher than the RX 6700M’s 25,633, and it sits at the 75th percentile versus the RX 6700M’s 71st. Its nearest rivals are all within 1.2 percent, meaning it is competitive with its immediate peers. The FirePro W8000 also has a workstation-oriented feature set with 4x DisplayPort 1.2 and 1x SDI outputs, which could be relevant for multi-display professional setups. Its 256-bit memory bus, while narrower in bandwidth than the RX 6700M, is wider in terms of bus width, which some workloads may favor.

The FirePro W8000 also has a dual-slot form factor with 2x 6-pin power connectors, which indicates it is designed for desktop workstations with ample power delivery. The RX 6700M, as an IGP, is meant for laptops and portable devices, so it cannot be used in a desktop expansion slot directly.

The Verdict

The data points to a straightforward conclusion for compute performance: the AMD Radeon RX 6700M is in a different class. Its OpenCL score is more than three times higher than the FirePro W8000’s, and its Vulkan score is nearly three times higher. The architectural gap between GCN 1.0 and RDNA 2.0, combined with the process node shrink from 28 nm to 7 nm, yields a massive performance advantage. The RX 6700M also offers modern features like ray tracing and DirectX 12 Ultimate support, which the FirePro W8000 lacks entirely.

However, the FirePro W8000 is not without its place. It has a higher average benchmark score in the database and a higher percentile ranking, meaning that across all recorded tests, it performs closer to its peers than the RX 6700M does. Its workstation display outputs and dual-slot desktop design make it suitable for fixed professional installations where multiple DisplayPort connections and SDI output are required. The FirePro W8000 also has a lower transistor density and a simpler architecture, which could translate to easier driver stability in legacy applications, though the data does not explicitly measure that.

For a user choosing between these two, the decision hinges on the workload. If the task involves modern game engines, ray tracing, or compute-heavy rendering with Vulkan or OpenCL, the RX 6700M wins decisively. If the task requires a desktop workstation GPU with SDI output and a wide memory bus, and the software is older or tuned for GCN architecture, the FirePro W8000 may still serve. But on pure benchmark scores, the RX 6700M is the stronger GPU, and the head-to-head data confirms it with no ambiguity.