AMD FirePro W8000 vs NVIDIA Quadro GV100 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro GV100 and AMD FirePro W8000 represent two very different eras of professional workstation graphics. The data shows a decisive overall victory for the GV100, which outperforms the FirePro W8000 in every recorded benchmark category, often by a substantial margin. This analysis will break down the specific performance deltas, architectural foundations, and the use cases where each card retains a distinct, if limited, advantage.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark results are unambiguous. In the two tests where both cards have recorded scores, the NVIDIA Quadro GV100 wins outright with dominant margins. The most significant gap appears in the Geekbench OpenCL test, which measures general-purpose compute performance. The GV100 scores 150,004 points, while the FirePro W8000 manages 24,440 points. This translates to a 513.8% advantage for the NVIDIA card, a massive lead that indicates the GV100 is in a completely different performance class for compute-heavy workloads.

The second shared test, Geekbench Vulkan, shows a similar story but with a slightly narrower gap. The GV100 records 139,526 points against the FirePro W8000's 33,981 points, resulting in a 310.6% delta. This still represents a multi-generational leap in graphics API performance. While Vulkan is a lower-level API that can favor newer hardware designs, the sheer scale of the difference highlights the architectural advantages present in the GV100.

Beyond these two head-to-head tests, the database contains a broader set of benchmarks for the GV100 alone, such as Passmark G3D (19,650) and Passmark GPU Compute (9,069). The FirePro W8000 has no recorded scores for these tests, meaning the data does not support a direct comparison. However, the FirePro W8000's average benchmark score of 29,211 across its recorded tests is notably lower than the GV100's average of 35,520. This overall average further cements the GV100's position as the superior performer in the database's measurements.

The GV100's average score also places it in the 80th percentile of all GPUs, while the FirePro W8000 sits in the 75th percentile. This is a smaller gap than the head-to-head deltas suggest, but it is still a meaningful indicator of overall capability. In terms of nearest rivals, the GV100 is closely matched with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti Mobile (0.2% ahead) and the AMD Radeon Pro Duo (0.9% behind), showing that its performance is competitive with modern hardware. The FirePro W8000, by contrast, is clustered with the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH (0% delta) and the Intel Arc A370M (0.1% ahead), placing it in a much lower performance tier.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro GV100 is far ahead, scoring 150,004 versus the AMD FirePro W8000's 24,440, a 513.8% difference.

Q: How does the Geekbench Vulkan performance compare between the two?

A: The GV100 again leads with 139,526 points, compared to 33,981 for the FirePro W8000, giving the NVIDIA card a 310.6% advantage.

Q: Which GPU has more memory bandwidth?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro GV100 has a bandwidth of 868.4 GB/s, while the AMD FirePro W8000 offers 176.0 GB/s.

Q: What is the transistor count for each processor?

A: The GV100 uses 21,100 million transistors on a 815 mm² die, while the FirePro W8000 uses 4,313 million transistors on a 352 mm² die.

Q: Do both cards support Vulkan?

A: Yes, both support Vulkan, but the GV100 supports version 1.4, while the FirePro W8000 supports version 1.2.170.

The Verdict

The data is clear: the NVIDIA Quadro GV100 is the superior product for nearly all professional workloads. Its massive wins in OpenCL and Vulkan benchmarks, combined with higher memory bandwidth and a greater number of shading units, make it the appropriate choice for users who prioritize raw compute power and modern API performance. The GV100's 80th percentile ranking versus the FirePro W8000's 75th percentile supports this conclusion.

The AMD FirePro W8000, however, is not without a place. Its lower power draw (225 W vs. 250 W) and a smaller physical footprint (279 mm length vs. 267 mm) might be relevant for specific system constraints. Yet, for any task that relies on the measured benchmarks, the FirePro W8000 cannot compete. The GV100 is the definitive choice for compute-intensive tasks, while the FirePro W8000 is a legacy product whose advantages are limited to power efficiency and physical dimensions, not performance.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across almost every core specification. The NVIDIA Quadro GV100 features 5,120 shading units, 320 TMUs, and 128 ROPs, whereas the AMD FirePro W8000 has 1,792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. This fundamental difference in execution resources explains the performance gap.

Memory configurations are also starkly different. The GV100 has 32 GB of HBM2 memory on a 4096-bit bus, achieving 868.4 GB/s bandwidth. The FirePro W8000 has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, providing 176.0 GB/s. The GV100 also has a higher memory clock at 848 MHz (1696 Mbps effective) compared to the FirePro's 1375 MHz (5.5 Gbps effective), though the bus width is the dominant factor.

Power requirements differ, with the GV100 rated at a 250 W TDP and requiring a 600 W suggested PSU and a single 8-pin connector. The FirePro W8000 has a 225 W TDP, a 550 W suggested PSU, and uses two 6-pin connectors. Display outputs are similar in quantity (4x DisplayPort), but the GV100 uses DisplayPort 1.4a while the FirePro W8000 uses DisplayPort 1.2 and includes a 1x SDI output. Finally, the GV100's DirectX support is 12 (12_1), while the FirePro W8000 supports 12 (11_1).

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide is a product of their respective generations. The NVIDIA Quadro GV100 is built on the Volta architecture using a 12 nm process at TSMC, packing 21,100 million transistors into an 815 mm² die. The AMD FirePro W8000 uses the older GCN 1.0 architecture on a 28 nm process, also at TSMC, with 4,313 million transistors on a 352 mm² die. This results in a transistor density of 25.9M per mm² for the GV100 versus 12.3M per mm² for the FirePro W8000.

The GV100's Volta architecture includes 640 dedicated tensor cores, which are absent from the FirePro W8000. This is a major feature difference, as tensor cores are designed for AI and deep learning workloads, giving the GV100 capabilities the FirePro W8000 lacks entirely. The GV100 also has a higher FP32 throughput at 16.66 TFLOPS versus 3.226 TFLOPS, and it supports FP16 at 33.32 TFLOPS (2:1), a feature the FirePro W8000 does not list.

The generation names reflect this gap: the GV100 is from the "Quadro Volta (Vx000)" generation, while the FirePro W8000 is from "FirePro GCN (Wx000)." The predecessor and successor relationships also differ, with the GV100 following Quadro Pascal and preceding Quadro Turing, while the FirePro W8000 follows FirePro Terascale and precedes Radeon Pro Polaris.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro GV100 wins in every measurable performance category. It is the clear choice for computational tasks such as OpenCL and Vulkan-based workloads, where its scores are 513.8% and 310.6% higher, respectively. Its larger memory capacity (32 GB vs. 4 GB) and higher bandwidth make it suitable for large datasets and high-resolution textures. The presence of tensor cores positions it for modern AI and machine learning applications, a domain where the FirePro W8000 has no features to compete.

The AMD FirePro W8000 has no benchmark wins in the recorded data. Its advantages are limited to non-performance aspects. It has a lower TDP (225 W vs. 250 W), which can be beneficial in power-constrained environments. It is also slightly longer (279 mm vs. 267 mm), but this is not an advantage. The inclusion of an SDI output could be a niche benefit for specific video broadcast workflows that require that interface. For any user prioritizing performance, the GV100 is the only logical choice based on the data.