AMD FirePro W8000 vs AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT Comparison

The AMD FirePro W8000 and AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT represent two very different eras of GPU design. The W8000 is a workstation card from 2012 built on GCN 1.0, while the RX 6750 XT is a 2022 gaming-focused card using RDNA 2.0. The recorded benchmark data shows a clear generational split, with each card winning one of the two head-to-head tests. This analysis covers the measurable differences, architectural changes, and practical implications based solely on the database records.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two cards were tested in two shared workloads: Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. The results are starkly opposite. In Geekbench OpenCL, the FirePro W8000 scores 24440, while the RX 6750 XT scores 16360. That gives the FirePro a 49.4% advantage. This is a massive margin, especially considering the age difference. The W8000’s compute-oriented design, with its 1792 shading units and 4 GB of GDDR5 memory, clearly excels in this legacy API workload. The database places the W8000 at the 75th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 29211. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH at 29197 (0% delta), the Intel Arc A370M at 29175 (0.1% delta), and the AMD Radeon RX 470 at 28996 (0.7% delta). This means the W8000 is competitive with much newer mid-range cards in this particular test.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the situation flips completely. The RX 6750 XT scores 98089, while the FirePro W8000 scores 33981. The delta is 65.4% in favor of the RX 6750 XT, meaning the newer card is roughly three times faster in this workload. The RX 6750 XT’s Vulkan support is listed as 1.4, compared to 1.2.170 for the W8000, and the newer architecture handles the modern API far more efficiently. The RX 6750 XT sits at the 71st percentile overall, with an average benchmark score of 26011. Its nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon R9 M395X at 25891 (0.5% delta), the AMD FirePro W7100 at 25856 (0.6% delta), and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Mobile at 25740 (1.1% delta). Despite losing the OpenCL test, the RX 6750 XT’s Vulkan score is so high that its average benchmark score remains respectable, though lower than the W8000’s average of 29211.

The head-to-head record is 1 win for each card. The FirePro W8000 wins OpenCL by 49.4%, and the RX 6750 XT wins Vulkan by 65.4%. The absolute score difference in Vulkan (98089 minus 33981 equals 64108) is much larger than the OpenCL difference (24440 minus 16360 equals 8080). This suggests the RX 6750 XT has a more profound advantage in modern graphics workloads, while the W8000’s OpenCL lead is notable but smaller in absolute terms.

Architecture Differences

The two cards are built on entirely different foundations. The FirePro W8000 uses the Tahiti chip, based on the GCN 1.0 architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 4,313 million transistors into a 352 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 12.3 million per square millimeter. The RX 6750 XT uses the Navi 22 chip, based on RDNA 2.0, fabricated on a 7 nm process, also at TSMC. It contains 17,200 million transistors on a 335 mm² die, achieving a density of 51.3 million per square millimeter. The 7 nm node allows the RX 6750 XT to fit roughly four times as many transistors into a slightly smaller die area.

The memory subsystems differ drastically. The W8000 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, with a bandwidth of 176.0 GB/s and a memory clock of 1375 MHz (5.5 Gbps effective). The RX 6750 XT has 12 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus, with a bandwidth of 432.0 GB/s and a memory clock of 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective). The RX 6750 XT offers 2.45 times the bandwidth and three times the capacity, which is critical for modern textures and compute workloads.

The compute units are also very different. The W8000 has 1792 shading units, 112 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 32 raster output units (ROPs). It achieves a pixel rate of 28.80 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 100.8 GTexel/s, with FP32 performance of 3.226 TFLOPS. The RX 6750 XT has 2560 shading units, 160 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. Its pixel rate is 166.4 GPixel/s, texture rate is 416.0 GTexel/s, and FP32 performance is 13.31 TFLOPS. The RX 6750 XT is roughly 4.1 times faster in FP32, 4.1 times faster in texture fill, and 5.8 times faster in pixel fill. It also has 40 ray tracing cores, a feature entirely absent from the W8000. The RX 6750 XT offers FP16 performance of 26.62 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio, while the W8000 has no listed FP16 capability.

The RX 6750 XT has a higher TDP at 250 W compared to the W8000’s 225 W. Both are dual-slot cards. The W8000 requires two 6-pin power connectors and a suggested 550 W PSU, while the RX 6750 XT uses one 6-pin and one 8-pin connector, with a suggested 600 W PSU. The RX 6750 XT supports PCIe 4.0 x16, while the W8000 is limited to PCIe 3.0 x16.

Display outputs also differ. The W8000 has 4x DisplayPort 1.2 and 1x SDI, which is typical for professional broadcast use. The RX 6750 XT has 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a, which is more consumer-friendly for gaming monitors and VR headsets.

The API support reflects the generational gap. The W8000 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The RX 6750 XT supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The RX 6750 XT also has ray tracing hardware, which the W8000 lacks entirely.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the recorded data, the RX 6750 XT is the superior overall card for modern workloads. Its Vulkan score of 98089 is 65.4% higher than the W8000’s 33981, and its FP32 performance of 13.31 TFLOPS dwarfs the W8000’s 3.226 TFLOPS. The RX 6750 XT also has 12 GB of memory versus 4 GB, and its bandwidth of 432.0 GB/s is far beyond the W8000’s 176.0 GB/s. For any gaming, real-time rendering, or modern compute task, the RX 6750 XT is the clear choice.

However, the W8000 wins the OpenCL benchmark by 49.4% (24440 vs 16360). This suggests that in legacy OpenCL compute workloads, particularly those optimized for GCN 1.0’s architecture, the W8000 can outperform the RX 6750 XT. The W8000 also has a higher average benchmark score (29211 vs 26011) and a higher percentile rank (75th vs 71st). This is unusual, but it reflects the fact that the database averages across a broader set of benchmarks where the W8000’s compute strengths show.

The RX 6750 XT is end-of-life, as is the W8000, but the RX 6750 XT is much newer (released 2022-03-02 vs 2012-06-13). The W8000’s launch MSRP was 1,599 USD, while the RX 6750 XT’s launch MSRP was 549 USD. That price difference, combined with the massive performance gap, makes the RX 6750 XT the better buy for almost anyone today.

FAQ

Q: Which card has better raw compute performance in FP32?

A: The RX 6750 XT is significantly ahead, with 13.31 TFLOPS compared to the W8000’s 3.226 TFLOPS. That is more than a 4x difference in favor of the RX 6750 XT.

Q: Why does the FirePro W8000 win the OpenCL benchmark?

A: The W8000 scores 24440 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the RX 6750 XT scores 16360. The W8000’s 49.4% lead suggests its GCN 1.0 architecture is better optimized for this specific legacy compute workload, despite the RX 6750 XT’s much higher theoretical FP32 throughput.

Q: Can the RX 6750 XT do ray tracing?

A: Yes, the RX 6750 XT has 40 ray tracing cores. The W8000 has no ray tracing hardware at all, as it predates this feature.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The RX 6750 XT has 12 GB of GDDR6 memory, while the W8000 has 4 GB of GDDR5. The RX 6750 XT also has higher bandwidth at 432.0 GB/s versus 176.0 GB/s.

Q: Which card supports newer PCIe standards?

A: The RX 6750 XT uses PCIe 4.0 x16, while the W8000 uses PCIe 3.0 x16. This gives the RX 6750 XT a potential bandwidth advantage in data transfer between CPU and GPU.

Q: Are both cards still in production?

A: No. Both are listed as end-of-life in the database. The W8000 was released in 2012 and the RX 6750 XT in 2022.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 6750 XT wins in every modern graphics and gaming scenario. Its Vulkan score of 98089 is 65.4% higher than the W8000’s, and its FP32 performance of 13.31 TFLOPS is more than four times higher. The 12 GB memory capacity and 432.0 GB/s bandwidth make it suitable for high-resolution textures and large datasets. The 40 ray tracing cores enable hardware-accelerated ray tracing, which the W8000 cannot do. The RX 6750 XT also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, ensuring compatibility with current game engines and applications.

The W8000 wins specifically in legacy OpenCL compute workloads. Its score of 24440 in Geekbench OpenCL is 49.4% higher than the RX 6750 XT’s 16360. This could matter for professional applications that are still built around OpenCL and were optimized for GCN 1.0’s compute architecture. The W8000’s 4x DisplayPort 1.2 and SDI outputs may also appeal to broadcast or video wall installations that need multiple display outputs. Its lower TDP of 225 W (versus 250 W) and simpler power requirement (2x 6-pin, suggested 550 W PSU) might be easier to integrate into older systems.

The W8000 also has a higher average benchmark score of 29211 compared to the RX 6750 XT’s 26011, and it sits at the 75th percentile versus the RX 6750 XT’s 71st. This is a result of the W8000’s strong OpenCL showing, but it does not offset the RX 6750 XT’s dominance in modern APIs.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two cards:

• Chip: Tahiti (W8000) vs Navi 22 (RX 6750 XT)
• Architecture: GCN 1.0 vs RDNA 2.0
• Process node: 28 nm vs 7 nm
• Transistors: 4,313 million vs 17,200 million
• Die size: 352 mm² vs 335 mm²
• Transistor density: 12.3M / mm² vs 51.3M / mm²
• Base clock: Not listed for W8000 vs 2150 MHz for RX 6750 XT
• Boost clock: Not listed for W8000 vs 2600 MHz for RX 6750 XT
• Game clock: Not listed for W8000 vs 2495 MHz for RX 6750 XT
• Memory clock: 1375 MHz (5.5 Gbps effective) vs 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective)
• Memory size: 4 GB vs 12 GB
• Memory type: GDDR5 vs GDDR6
• Memory bus width: 256 bit vs 192 bit
• Memory bandwidth: 176.0 GB/s vs 432.0 GB/s
• Shading units: 1792 vs 2560
• TMUs: 112 vs 160
• ROPs: 32 vs 64
• Ray tracing cores: Not listed vs 40
• Pixel rate: 28.80 GPixel/s vs 166.4 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 100.8 GTexel/s vs 416.0 GTexel/s
• FP32: 3.226 TFLOPS vs 13.31 TFLOPS
• FP16: Not listed vs 26.62 TFLOPS (2:1)
• TDP: 225 W vs 250 W
• Power connectors: 2x 6-pin vs 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin
• Suggested PSU: 550 W vs 600 W
• Bus interface: PCIe 3.0 x16 vs PCIe 4.0 x16
• Display outputs: 4x DisplayPort 1.2, 1x SDI vs 1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a
• DirectX support: 12 (11_1) vs 12 Ultimate (12_2)
• Vulkan support: 1.2.170 vs 1.4
• Dimensions: 279 mm length, 111 mm height, no width listed vs 267 mm length, 110 mm height, 40 mm width
• Release date: 2012-06-13 vs 2022-03-02
• Predecessor: FirePro Terascale vs Navi
• Successor: Radeon Pro Polaris vs Navi III
• Launch MSRP: 1,599 USD vs 549 USD (stated once each, per database rules)