AMD FirePro W8000 vs AMD Radeon RX 7700S Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits these two AMD workstation and mobile GPUs into very different performance classes. The AMD Radeon RX 7700S wins both recorded head-to-head tests, but the margin tells the real story. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RX 7700S scores 62,983 against the FirePro W8000's 24,440, a dominant 157.7% advantage. That is not a small gap; it is a generational leap in raw compute throughput. In Geekbench Vulkan, the RX 7700S scores 36,380 versus 33,981, a narrower 7.1% lead. This suggests the newer architecture scales better in compute-heavy workloads, while the older GCN card remains more competitive in graphics-oriented API tests.

The RX 7700S also holds the aggregate edge. Its average benchmark score sits at 33,849, placing it in the 78th percentile of all GPUs in the database. The FirePro W8000 averages 29,211, good for the 75th percentile. The RX 7700S sits near rivals like the AMD Radeon HD 7950 (33,951, -0.3%), the AMD Radeon RX 480 (33,997, -0.4%), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 5 GB (33,694, +0.5%). The FirePro W8000 trades blows with the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH (29,197, 0%), Intel Arc A370M (29,175, +0.1%), and AMD Radeon RX 470 (28,996, +0.7%).

Where each wins is clear: the RX 7700S wins everywhere measured. The FirePro W8000 does not win a single head-to-head test. Its only saving grace is that the Vulkan gap is modest, meaning in Vulkan-based applications the older card is not embarrassed. But in OpenCL, the RX 7700S is in another league entirely. The data shows no scenario where the FirePro W8000 comes out ahead.

Architecture Differences

These two GPUs come from entirely different eras of AMD design. The RX 7700S is built on the Navi 33 chip using RDNA 3.0 architecture, codenamed Hotpink Bonefish. It belongs to the Navi Mobile (RX 7000M) generation and uses a 6 nm process at TSMC. The FirePro W8000 uses the Tahiti chip with GCN 1.0 architecture, part of the FirePro GCN (Wx000) generation, fabricated on a 28 nm process, also at TSMC.

The transistor counts show the generational shift. The RX 7700S packs 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 65.2 million per mm². The FirePro W8000 has 4,313 million transistors on a much larger 352 mm² die, with a density of just 12.3 million per mm². The RX 7700S crams more than three times the transistors into a smaller physical area. That density advantage directly drives its compute lead.

Memory configurations differ sharply. The RX 7700S uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128 bit bus, with a memory clock of 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) and bandwidth of 288.0 GB/s. The FirePro W8000 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a wider 256 bit bus, with a memory clock of 1375 MHz (5.5 Gbps effective) and bandwidth of 176.0 GB/s. Despite the narrower bus, the RX 7700S delivers 64% more memory bandwidth.

Core counts also favor the newer card. The RX 7700S has 2048 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, 64 raster operations units, and 32 ray tracing cores. The FirePro W8000 has 1792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, with no ray tracing cores. The RX 7700S additionally supports hardware ray tracing, a feature entirely absent from the older GCN design.

Clock speeds cannot be directly compared because the FirePro W8000 has no recorded base, boost, or game clock in the database. The RX 7700S runs at a 1500 MHz base, 2500 MHz boost, and 2200 MHz game clock. Pixel and texture rates reflect this: the RX 7700S outputs 160.0 GPixel/s and 320.0 GTexel/s, while the FirePro W8000 manages 28.80 GPixel/s and 100.8 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 20.48 TFLOPS versus 3.226 TFLOPS. The RX 7700S also supports FP16 at 40.96 TFLOPS (2:1), while the FirePro W8000 has no recorded FP16 capability.

Power and physical design differ as expected. The RX 7700S is a 100 W mobile part with IGP slot width and no power connectors. The FirePro W8000 is a 225 W dual-slot workstation card requiring 2x 6-pin power connectors and a 550 W suggested PSU. The FirePro W8000 measures 279 mm in length (11 inches) and 111 mm in height (4.4 inches). The RX 7700S has no recorded dimensions, as it is designed for portable devices with display outputs that are device dependent.

API support also diverges. The RX 7700S supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The FirePro W8000 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The newer card has a more modern feature set, including the ray tracing API requirements of DirectX 12 Ultimate.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear recommendation: the AMD Radeon RX 7700S is the superior GPU in every measured category. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks, has a higher average score, sits in a higher percentile, and delivers dramatically better compute performance. The 157.7% OpenCL lead is decisive. Anyone choosing between these two for compute workloads should take the RX 7700S without hesitation.

The FirePro W8000 does retain some relevance in Vulkan workloads, where it trails by only 7.1%. For applications that rely heavily on Vulkan and do not stress OpenCL, the older card is not obsolete. Its 4 GB of GDDR5 memory and 176.0 GB/s bandwidth may suffice for lighter tasks. However, its 28 nm process, lack of ray tracing, and 3.226 TFLOPS FP32 performance put it at a severe disadvantage in modern workloads.

The RX 7700S is the pick for anyone needing current-generation features, high memory bandwidth, ray tracing, and massive compute throughput. The FirePro W8000 is a legacy workstation card that remains functional but cannot match the newer architecture. The database shows a 78th percentile ranking for the RX 7700S versus 75th for the FirePro W8000, reinforcing the gap. Choose the RX 7700S for new deployments; the FirePro W8000 only makes sense in legacy environments where its specific display outputs (4x DisplayPort 1.2 and 1x SDI) are required.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 7700S delivers 20.48 TFLOPS FP32, while the AMD FirePro W8000 delivers 3.226 TFLOPS FP32. The RX 7700S is over six times faster in raw FP32 throughput.

Q: How do the two compare in OpenCL benchmarks?

A: The RX 7700S scores 62,983 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 24,440 for the FirePro W8000, a 157.7% advantage for the RX 7700S.

Q: Does the FirePro W8000 win any benchmark?

A: No. The head-to-head data shows the RX 7700S winning both tests, with 2 wins and 0 losses for the FirePro W8000.

Q: What are the memory differences?

A: The RX 7700S has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128 bit bus with 288.0 GB/s bandwidth. The FirePro W8000 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256 bit bus with 176.0 GB/s bandwidth. The RX 7700S has more capacity and higher bandwidth.

Q: Does the FirePro W8000 support ray tracing?

A: No. The RX 7700S has 32 ray tracing cores, while the FirePro W8000 has no ray tracing cores recorded in the database.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The RX 7700S averages 33,849, placing it at the 78th percentile. The FirePro W8000 averages 29,211, placing it at the 75th percentile.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench OpenCL test is the single largest differentiator. The RX 7700S posts 62,983 points, while the FirePro W8000 manages only 24,440. That 157.7% delta is the biggest win in the entire comparison. It reflects the architectural gulf: the RX 7700S uses a 6 nm process with 13,300 million transistors and 20.48 TFLOPS FP32, while the FirePro W8000 uses 28 nm with 4,313 million transistors and 3.226 TFLOPS. OpenCL workloads that scale with compute units and memory bandwidth will overwhelmingly favor the RX 7700S.

The Geekbench Vulkan test is closer but still favors the RX 7700S. It scores 36,380, a 7.1% lead over the FirePro W8000's 33,981. This smaller margin suggests that Vulkan driver maturity and API optimization narrow the gap. The FirePro W8000's GCN architecture, despite its age, still handles Vulkan reasonably well. Its 1792 shading units and 112 TMUs are not far behind the RX 7700S's 2048 shading units and 128 TMUs in this specific workload. Still, the RX 7700S wins.

Looking at nearest rivals confirms the positioning. The RX 7700S's average score of 33,849 sits within 0.7% of the NVIDIA RTX A5000 (33,622) and within 0.5% of the GTX 1060 5 GB (33,694). It is effectively in the same performance tier as those cards. The FirePro W8000's average of 29,211 places it alongside the Intel Arc A370M (29,175, +0.1%) and the AMD Radeon RX 470 (28,996, +0.7%). The RX 6800M trails the FirePro W8000 by 1.2% (28,874), which is notable given the RX 6800M is a much newer mobile part.

The pixel and texture rate differences reinforce the benchmark results. The RX 7700S outputs 160.0 GPixel/s and 320.0 GTexel/s, versus 28.80 GPixel/s and 100.8 GTexel/s for the FirePro W8000. These are 5.6x and 3.2x advantages, respectively. The RX 7700S also has a 288.0 GB/s memory bandwidth versus 176.0 GB/s, a 64% lead. Every measurable performance metric in the database points the same direction.

The production status tells the final story. The RX 7700S is listed as Active, released on 2023-01-03, with a predecessor of Polaris Mobile and no successor. The FirePro W8000 is End-of-life, released on 2012-06-13, with a predecessor of FirePro Terascale and a successor of Radeon Pro Polaris. The FirePro W8000 had a launch MSRP of 1,599 USD, but the RX 7700S has no recorded launch MSRP. The data shows a clear generational shift: the RX 7700S is the modern choice, and the FirePro W8000 is a legacy product that cannot keep pace.