AMD FirePro W8000 vs AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH Comparison

The AMD FirePro W8000 and the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH are near-identical in overall performance, separated by a razor-thin 0.0% deltaPct in average benchmark score (29211 vs 29197). This places them in a dead heat, with the W8000 edging out the Vega M GH by just 14 points. However, a closer look at the individual benchmark results reveals a clear split: the FirePro W8000 dominates in Vulkan workloads, while the Vega M GH takes the lead in OpenCL. This makes the choice between them entirely dependent on the application's API preference, rather than raw computational power.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data presents a clean, two-way split. The AMD FirePro W8000 is the definitive winner in Geekbench Vulkan, scoring 33981 against the Vega M GH's 31268. This is a substantial 8.7% lead, indicating that the older GCN 1.0 architecture has a significant advantage in this particular API. For any workload that leverages Vulkan, the W8000 is the clear choice, delivering performance that is nearly 9% ahead of its rival.

Conversely, the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH wins decisively in Geekbench OpenCL. Here, it scores 27125, while the FirePro W8000 trails with 24440. This represents a -9.9% deltaPct from the perspective of the W8000, meaning the Vega M GH is roughly 10% faster in OpenCL compute tasks. This victory highlights the newer GCN 4.0 architecture's strength in general-purpose compute, making the Vega M GH the superior option for OpenCL-based applications.

The overall average scores are essentially tied, with the W8000 at 29211 and the Vega M GH at 29197. This means that in a mixed workload environment, neither card holds a meaningful advantage. The data suggests a portfolio approach: if your software stack is Vulkan-centric, the FirePro W8000 is the winner; if it is OpenCL-centric, the Radeon RX Vega M GH is the winner. The 0.1% deltaPct to the Intel Arc A370M (29175) and 0.7% to the AMD Radeon RX 470 (28996) shows both cards are at the top of their immediate performance tier.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent different generations of AMD's Graphics Core Next (GCN) architecture, built on different process nodes and manufacturing foundries. The FirePro W8000 uses the Tahiti chip, based on GCN 1.0, and is manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. In contrast, the Radeon RX Vega M GH uses the Polaris 22 chip, based on GCN 4.0, and is built on a more advanced 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. This process shrink is a fundamental difference, allowing the Vega M GH to pack 5,000 million transistors into a smaller 208 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 24.0M / mm². The W8000, with 4,313 million transistors on a larger 352 mm² die, has a lower density of 12.3M / mm².

The memory subsystems are entirely different. The FirePro W8000 relies on 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 176.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Vega M GH, however, uses 4 GB of HBM2 memory on a massive 1024-bit bus, resulting in significantly higher bandwidth at 204.8 GB/s. This is a key architectural advantage for the Vega M GH, as the wider bus and faster memory type provide a substantial bandwidth surplus. The W8000 compensates with a higher memory clock speed of 1375 MHz (5.5 Gbps effective) versus the Vega M GH's 800 MHz (1600 Mbps effective), but the bus width difference is the dominant factor.

Compute unit configurations also differ. The W8000 has more shading units (1792 vs 1536) and more texture mapping units (112 vs 96). However, the Vega M GH has double the render output units (64 vs 32), which explains its vastly superior pixel fill rate of 76.16 GPixel/s compared to the W8000's 28.80 GPixel/s. In terms of raw compute, the Vega M GH leads with 3.656 TFLOPS of FP32 performance versus the W8000's 3.226 TFLOPS. The Vega M GH also supports FP16 at a 1:1 ratio (3.656 TFLOPS), a feature the FirePro W8000 lacks entirely.

The Verdict

The data dictates a clear verdict based on API usage. For users running Vulkan-based applications, the AMD FirePro W8000 is the unequivocal choice. Its 8.7% lead in the Geekbench Vulkan benchmark is the single largest performance gap in this comparison, making it the dominant card for that specific workflow. Its professional heritage, evidenced by its 4x DisplayPort 1.2 and 1x SDI outputs, also makes it suitable for display-centric professional environments.

For users running OpenCL-based workloads, the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH is the superior option. Its 9.9% advantage in Geekbench OpenCL makes it the more powerful compute card, despite being designed as an integrated graphics processor. The higher FP32 throughput (3.656 TFLOPS vs 3.226 TFLOPS) and significantly higher memory bandwidth (204.8 GB/s vs 176.0 GB/s) support this result, indicating a hardware advantage in parallel compute tasks.

If the workload is a mix of both APIs, the decision is a toss-up. The average benchmark scores are virtually identical (29211 vs 29197), and the cards hold the same 75th and 74th percentiles among all GPUs. In this scenario, the choice may come down to other factors like power consumption, where the Vega M GH's 100 W TDP is dramatically lower than the W8000's 225 W, or physical footprint, where the Vega M GH is an IGP and the W8000 is a dual-slot, 279 mm card. The FirePro W8000 also has a launch MSRP of 1,599 USD.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in Vulkan benchmarks?

A: The AMD FirePro W8000 is significantly faster, scoring 33981 in Geekbench Vulkan compared to the Radeon RX Vega M GH's 31268, a lead of 8.7%.

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL benchmarks?

A: The AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH is faster, scoring 27125 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the FirePro W8000 scores 24440. This is a 9.9% advantage for the Vega M GH.

Q: What is the overall performance difference between the two cards?

A: The overall performance is effectively tied. The FirePro W8000 has an average benchmark score of 29211, while the Vega M GH scores 29197, a deltaPct of 0.0%.

Q: How does the memory configuration differ between the two?

A: The FirePro W8000 uses 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus with 176.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Vega M GH uses 4 GB of HBM2 memory on a 1024-bit bus with 204.8 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The AMD FirePro W8000 has more shading units, with 1792, compared to the Radeon RX Vega M GH's 1536.

Q: What are the pixel fill rates for each card?

A: The Radeon RX Vega M GH has a much higher pixel rate of 76.16 GPixel/s, while the FirePro W8000 has a pixel rate of 28.80 GPixel/s.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two-way benchmark split is stark and defines the entire comparison. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH achieves a commanding victory. It scores 27125, while the AMD FirePro W8000 trails with 24440. This is a -9.9% deltaPct for the W8000, meaning the Vega M GH is nearly 10% faster. This result aligns with the Vega M GH's architectural advantages: a newer GCN 4.0 design, higher FP32 throughput (3.656 TFLOPS vs 3.226 TFLOPS), and a much larger memory bus (1024-bit vs 256-bit) that provides 204.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The data clearly shows that for compute-heavy OpenCL tasks, the Vega M GH is the superior hardware.

The opposite is true in the Geekbench Vulkan test. Here, the AMD FirePro W8000 turns the tables with an 8.7% lead. It scores 33981, while the Vega M GH manages 31268. This is the W8000's only benchmark win, but it is a significant one. Despite having an older architecture and less raw compute power, the W8000's GCN 1.0 design appears to be more efficient at executing Vulkan instructions. The benchmark results indicate that the W8000 is the better choice for any Vulkan-based game or application, offering a performance advantage that is nearly as large as the Vega M GH's OpenCL lead.

These results show a balanced rivalry. With each card winning one benchmark and holding a ~9-10% advantage in its respective test, the head-to-head matchup is a draw. The average benchmark scores reflect this, with the W8000 at 29211 and the Vega M GH at 29197. The biggest win for the Vega M GH is its OpenCL performance, while the biggest win for the FirePro W8000 is its Vulkan performance. The data suggests that neither card is universally better; the optimal choice is dictated entirely by the software API in use.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across almost every major specification category, reflecting their different generations and intended use cases. The most fundamental difference is the chip and process node: the FirePro W8000 uses the Tahiti chip on a 28 nm process at TSMC, while the Vega M GH uses the Polaris 22 chip on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. This leads to different transistor counts (4,313 million vs 5,000 million) and die sizes (352 mm² vs 208 mm²).

Memory configurations are starkly different. The W8000 uses GDDR5 memory with a 256-bit bus and 176.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the Vega M GH uses HBM2 memory with a 1024-bit bus and 204.8 GB/s bandwidth. The memory clocks also differ, with the W8000 running at 1375 MHz (5.5 Gbps effective) and the Vega M GH at 800 MHz (1600 Mbps effective). Both have 4 GB of memory.

The compute unit configurations vary. The W8000 has 1792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The Vega M GH has 1536 shading units, 96 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. This results in different fill rates: the W8000 has a pixel rate of 28.80 GPixel/s and texture rate of 100.8 GTexel/s, while the Vega M GH has a pixel rate of 76.16 GPixel/s and texture rate of 114.2 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 3.226 TFLOPS for the W8000 and 3.656 TFLOPS for the Vega M GH, which also offers FP16 at 3.656 TFLOPS.

Power and physical characteristics are also distinct. The W8000 has a 225 W TDP and is a Dual-slot card requiring 2x 6-pin power connectors and a 550 W suggested PSU. The Vega M GH has a 100 W TDP and is an IGP with no power connectors or suggested PSU listed. The W8000 uses a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface and is 279 mm long, while the Vega M GH uses an IGP bus interface. Finally, the API support differs: the W8000 supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170, while the Vega M GH supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3. Both support OpenGL 4.6.