AMD FirePro W8000 vs NVIDIA A2 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA A2 wins both recorded benchmark comparisons, but the magnitude of those wins tells a very different story depending on the workload. In OpenCL compute tasks, the A2 dominates with a 44.7% lead over the FirePro W8000, scoring 35,357 versus 24,440. That is a decisive margin that indicates the A2 is substantially stronger for general-purpose GPU compute, particularly in tasks that leverage the full FP32 pipeline and modern architecture features.

The Vulkan result is nearly a dead heat. The A2 scores 34,023 against the FirePro's 33,981, a difference of just 0.1%. For graphics workloads that use Vulkan, these two cards are effectively interchangeable in performance terms. This suggests the FirePro W8000, despite being much older and built on a different architecture, still holds its own in modern graphics API workloads where geometry throughput and rasterization matter more than raw compute density.

The A2's average benchmark score across both tests is 34,690, placing it in the 79th percentile of all GPUs in the database. The FirePro W8000 averages 29,211, which lands in the 75th percentile. The A2's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA T1000 8 GB at 34,561 (0.4% behind), the AMD Radeon HD 7970 at 34,541 (0.4% behind), and the NVIDIA TITAN V at 34,355 (1% behind). The FirePro W8000 sits near the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH at 29,197 (0% delta), the Intel Arc A370M at 29,175 (0.1% behind), and the AMD Radeon RX 470 at 28,996 (0.7% behind).

The use-case split is clear. If the workload is compute-heavy, OpenCL-based, or requires sustained FP32 throughput, the A2 is the superior choice by a wide margin. If the workload is Vulkan graphics rendering, the two cards are statistically tied, and other factors like memory capacity, power draw, and physical footprint will determine the better fit.

Architecture Differences

The NVIDIA A2 is built on the Ampere architecture using the GA107 chip, fabricated by Samsung on an 8 nm process. It packs 8,700 million transistors into a 200 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 43.5 million transistors per square millimeter. The FirePro W8000 uses the older GCN 1.0 architecture with the Tahiti chip, built by TSMC on a 28 nm process. It contains 4,313 million transistors spread across a much larger 352 mm² die, resulting in a density of just 12.3 million transistors per square millimeter.

The A2's transistor density advantage is roughly 3.5 times higher, which explains how it delivers more compute performance while consuming only 60 W compared to the FirePro's 225 W. The A2 also has a much higher base clock at 1440 MHz with a boost to 1770 MHz, while the FirePro's clock speeds are not recorded in the database.

Architecturally, the A2 includes 10 ray tracing cores and 40 tensor cores, features entirely absent from the FirePro W8000. The A2 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), Vulkan 1.4, and OpenGL 4.6. The FirePro supports DirectX 12 (11_1), Vulkan 1.2.170, and OpenGL 4.6. The A2's newer API support matters for modern applications that take advantage of mesh shaders, variable rate shading, and other DirectX 12 Ultimate features.

Memory configurations differ substantially. The A2 uses 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 200.1 GB/s of bandwidth. The FirePro W8000 uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, providing 176.0 GB/s. The A2 has four times the capacity but a narrower bus; the net result is that the A2 still has higher bandwidth, but the FirePro's wider bus partially compensates for its slower memory clock of 1375 MHz (5.5 Gbps effective) versus the A2's 1563 MHz (12.5 Gbps effective).

The FirePro W8000 has more shading units (1792 versus 1280), more texture mapping units (112 versus 40), and the same number of render output units (32). Despite having more units, the FirePro's FP32 throughput is only 3.226 TFLOPS versus the A2's 4.531 TFLOPS. The A2 also supports FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32 (4.531 TFLOPS), while the FirePro has no recorded FP16 capability. The FirePro's texture rate is higher at 100.8 GTexel/s versus the A2's 70.80 GTexel/s, but the A2's pixel rate is nearly double at 56.64 GPixel/s versus 28.80 GPixel/s.

The A2 is a single-slot card with no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The FirePro is dual-slot, requires two 6-pin power connectors, and needs a 550 W PSU. The A2 has no display outputs, making it a compute-only accelerator, while the FirePro offers 4x DisplayPort 1.2 and 1x SDI. The FirePro is physically large at 279 mm in length and 111 mm in height.

FAQ

Q: Which card has better raw compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA A2 scores 35,357 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 24,440 for the AMD FirePro W8000, a 44.7% advantage. Its FP32 throughput is 4.531 TFLOPS compared to 3.226 TFLOPS for the FirePro.

Q: Are these cards comparable in Vulkan graphics performance?

A: Yes, essentially tied. The A2 scores 34,023 and the FirePro scores 33,981 in Geekbench Vulkan, a difference of only 0.1% in favor of the A2.

Q: How do their memory capacities compare?

A: The A2 has 16 GB of GDDR6 memory, while the FirePro W8000 has 4 GB of GDDR5. The A2's bandwidth is 200.1 GB/s versus 176.0 GB/s for the FirePro.

Q: Does the A2 support ray tracing?

A: Yes, the A2 includes 10 ray tracing cores and 40 tensor cores. The FirePro W8000 has no ray tracing or tensor core hardware.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The A2 has a TDP of 60 W, no power connectors, and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The FirePro W8000 has a TDP of 225 W, requires two 6-pin power connectors, and a suggested PSU of 550 W.

Q: Which card has a higher overall benchmark percentile?

A: The A2 ranks in the 79th percentile of all GPUs with an average score of 34,690. The FirePro W8000 ranks in the 75th percentile with an average score of 29,211.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA A2 | AMD FirePro W8000 |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | Ampere | GCN 1.0 |

| Process node | 8 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 8,700 million | 4,313 million |

| Die size | 200 mm² | 352 mm² |

| Transistor density | 43.5M / mm² | 12.3M / mm² |

| Base clock | 1440 MHz | Not recorded |

| Boost clock | 1770 MHz | Not recorded |

| Memory clock | 1563 MHz (12.5 Gbps effective) | 1375 MHz (5.5 Gbps effective) |

| Memory size | 16 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory type | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |

| Memory bus | 128 bit | 256 bit |

| Bandwidth | 200.1 GB/s | 176.0 GB/s |

| Shading units | 1280 | 1792 |

| TMUs | 40 | 112 |

| ROPs | 32 | 32 |

| RT cores | 10 | None |

| Tensor cores | 40 | None |

| Pixel rate | 56.64 GPixel/s | 28.80 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 70.80 GTexel/s | 100.8 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 4.531 TFLOPS | 3.226 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 4.531 TFLOPS (1:1) | Not recorded |

| TDP | 60 W | 225 W |

| Slot width | Single-slot | Dual-slot |

| Power connectors | None | 2x 6-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | 550 W |

| Bus interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| Display outputs | No outputs | 4x DisplayPort 1.2, 1x SDI |

| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (11_1) |

| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.2.170 |

| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |

| Length | Not recorded | 279 mm (11 inches) |

| Height | Not recorded | 111 mm (4.4 inches) |

| Release date | 2021-11-09 | 2012-06-13 |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench OpenCL result is the largest gap in the comparison. The NVIDIA A2 scores 35,357, while the AMD FirePro W8000 scores 24,440. That 44.7% delta shows a generational leap in compute efficiency. The A2 achieves this with fewer shading units (1280 versus 1792) and fewer TMUs (40 versus 112), which makes the result particularly striking. The A2's higher clock speeds, newer architecture, and 16 GB of GDDR6 memory with 200.1 GB/s bandwidth allow it to outperform a card that has more raw hardware units but older and slower memory technology.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the scores are 34,023 for the A2 and 33,981 for the FirePro. The 0.1% delta is within noise territory. Both cards deliver nearly identical graphics performance in this API. The FirePro's higher texture rate of 100.8 GTexel/s and wider 256-bit memory bus help it compensate for the A2's architectural advantages in graphics workloads. The A2's higher pixel rate of 56.64 GPixel/s versus 28.80 GPixel/s does not translate into a measurable Vulkan advantage, suggesting that the workload is not pixel-throughput bound.

The A2's average benchmark score of 34,690 places it 18.8% above the FirePro's average of 29,211. Both cards are end-of-life products, but their release dates are nearly a decade apart: the FirePro launched in June 2012, the A2 in November 2021. The A2's nearest rival, the NVIDIA T1000 8 GB, scores 34,561, just 0.4% behind. The FirePro's closest competitor, the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH, scores 29,197, essentially identical to the FirePro's 29,211.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split decision. For compute workloads, the NVIDIA A2 is the unequivocal winner. Its 44.7% OpenCL advantage, 16 GB memory capacity, and 4.531 TFLOPS FP32 throughput make it the superior choice for machine learning inference, data processing, and any OpenCL-based compute task. The A2 also brings modern features like ray tracing cores and tensor cores that the FirePro simply does not have.

For Vulkan graphics workloads, the choice is less obvious. The 0.1% delta in the Vulkan benchmark means both cards deliver essentially identical performance. If the primary use case is Vulkan rendering and the physical constraints of the system matter, the FirePro W8000's 4 GB of memory and dual-slot footprint could be a limitation, but its performance is not. The FirePro also offers display outputs, making it a viable option for systems that need to drive monitors directly.

Power consumption is a decisive differentiator. The A2 draws 60 W with no power connectors and a 250 W suggested PSU. The FirePro draws 225 W, requires two 6-pin connectors, and needs a 550 W PSU. In any power-constrained environment, the A2 is the obvious pick. In a desktop workstation with ample power delivery and a need for display outputs, the FirePro remains serviceable.

The A2's 79th percentile ranking versus the FirePro's 75th percentile confirms the overall performance gap is modest in the broader GPU landscape, but the specific workload determines which card is appropriate. Compute users should choose the A2 without hesitation. Vulkan graphics users should weigh the FirePro's display outputs and near-parity performance against its much higher power draw and older architecture. The A2 wins 2 of 2 head-to-head benchmarks, and that includes the one that matters most for modern compute tasks.