AMD FirePro W8000 vs NVIDIA RTX A2000 12 GB Comparison

The NVIDIA RTX A2000 12 GB and the AMD FirePro W8000 represent two distinct eras of workstation graphics. The database records a single shared benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, where the NVIDIA card delivers a score of 66998 against 24440 for the AMD card. That is a delta of 174.1 percent, meaning the RTX A2000 achieves nearly 2.74 times the raw compute throughput in this test. No other common benchmark exists in the recorded data, so the comparison rests primarily on this result, architectural specifications, and the surrounding performance context.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available is Geekbench OpenCL. The RTX A2000 scores 66998, while the FirePro W8000 scores 24440. The performance gap is substantial: the NVIDIA card is 174.1 percent faster in this workload. To put that in perspective, the RTX A2000 sits at the 79th percentile among all GPUs in the database, while the FirePro W8000 sits at the 75th percentile. Despite the percentile proximity, the absolute scores differ by a wide margin, which suggests the percentile ranking compresses older and newer cards differently across the full distribution.

The RTX A2000 also appears in the database with a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1309, though no equivalent result exists for the FirePro W8000. The AMD card instead records a Geekbench Vulkan score of 33981, which has no counterpart on the NVIDIA side. These non-overlapping results prevent a broader head-to-head comparison, but the OpenCL result is decisive in its own right.

Looking at average benchmark scores across all recorded tests, the RTX A2000 posts 34154, while the FirePro W8000 posts 29211. That difference is 4943 points, roughly 16.9 percent higher for the NVIDIA card. The nearest rivals for the RTX A2000 include the AMD Radeon RX 560 XT at 34133 (0.1 percent lower), the NVIDIA RTX A1000 at 34207 (0.2 percent higher), the AMD Radeon RX 480 at 33997 (0.5 percent lower), and the NVIDIA TITAN V at 34355 (0.6 percent higher). These deltas are all within 1 percent, indicating that the RTX A2000 performs in a tight cluster with those cards despite its much higher OpenCL score. The FirePro W8000, by contrast, sits near the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH at 29197 (0 percent delta), the Intel Arc A370M at 29175 (0.1 percent higher), the AMD Radeon RX 470 at 28996 (0.7 percent lower), and the AMD Radeon RX 6800M at 28874 (1.2 percent lower). The W8000 edges out all of these by small margins, but its average score remains far below the RTX A2000’s cluster.

In the single shared test, the RTX A2000 wins outright. The database records 1 win for the NVIDIA card and 0 for the AMD card. That is the entire head-to-head record, and it favors the newer part decisively.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different foundries and process nodes. The RTX A2000 uses the GA106 chip on an 8 nm Samsung process, while the FirePro W8000 uses the Tahiti chip on a 28 nm TSMC process. The transistor counts differ sharply: the RTX A2000 packs 12,000 million transistors into a 276 mm² die, yielding a density of 43.5 million transistors per square millimeter. The FirePro W8000 has 4,313 million transistors on a 352 mm² die, for a density of 12.3 million per square millimeter. The NVIDIA chip is smaller in physical area but holds nearly three times as many transistors.

The architecture generation also separates them. The RTX A2000 belongs to the Ampere generation, specifically the Workstation Ampere (Ax000) family. The FirePro W8000 belongs to GCN 1.0, in the FirePro GCN (Wx000) family. Ampere brings features that GCN 1.0 lacks: the RTX A2000 includes 26 ray tracing cores and 104 tensor cores, while the FirePro W8000 has none of either. The RTX A2000 also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), whereas the FirePro W8000 only reaches DirectX 12 (11_1). Both cards support OpenGL 4.6, but Vulkan support differs: the RTX A2000 runs Vulkan 1.4, while the FirePro W8000 runs Vulkan 1.2.170.

The memory subsystem reflects the generational gap. The RTX A2000 uses 12 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus, delivering 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The FirePro W8000 uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 176.0 GB/s. The NVIDIA card has less bus width but more than makes up for it with faster memory and a larger capacity. The RTX A2000’s memory clock is listed at 1500 MHz with 12 Gbps effective transfer, while the FirePro W8000 runs at 1375 MHz with 5.5 Gbps effective.

Compute resources also skew heavily toward the newer card. The RTX A2000 has 3328 shading units, 104 texture mapping units, and 48 raster operation units. The FirePro W8000 has 1792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The AMD card has more TMUs, but fewer shaders and ROPs. The RTX A2000 achieves a pixel rate of 57.60 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 124.8 GTexel/s. The FirePro W8000 reaches 28.80 GPixel/s and 100.8 GTexel/s. In floating-point performance, the RTX A2000 delivers 7.987 TFLOPS for FP32, and the same 7.987 TFLOPS for FP16 at a 1:1 ratio. The FirePro W8000 delivers 3.226 TFLOPS for FP32, with no recorded FP16 capability.

Power and physical design differ as well. The RTX A2000 has a 70 W TDP, requires no power connectors, and suggests a 250 W power supply. It is a dual-slot card measuring 167 mm in length and 69 mm in height. The FirePro W8000 has a 225 W TDP, requires two 6-pin power connectors, and suggests a 550 W power supply. It is also dual-slot but much larger: 279 mm long and 111 mm tall. The RTX A2000 connects via PCIe 4.0 x16, while the FirePro W8000 uses PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs also differ: the RTX A2000 offers 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a, while the FirePro W8000 offers 4x DisplayPort 1.2 plus 1x SDI.

The Verdict

The recorded data points to a clear winner for most compute workloads. The RTX A2000 is 174.1 percent ahead of the FirePro W8000 in Geekbench OpenCL, holds a 4943-point higher average benchmark score, and wins the only direct head-to-head test. The architectural advantages are equally pronounced: a newer process node, more transistors, ray tracing and tensor cores, double the memory capacity, and nearly 2.5 times the FP32 throughput.

The FirePro W8000 does have a few areas where it is not outclassed. It has more texture mapping units (112 versus 104) and a wider memory bus (256-bit versus 192-bit). It also supports Vulkan, with a recorded Geekbench Vulkan score of 33981, though no comparable NVIDIA result exists in the database. For users who need SDI output, the FirePro W8000 is the only option of the two, as the RTX A2000 has no SDI port.

However, the overall picture is lopsided. The RTX A2000’s average benchmark score places it at the 79th percentile, while the FirePro W8000 sits at the 75th percentile. The difference in absolute scores, 34154 versus 29211, is larger than the percentile gap suggests. In the nearest rival comparisons, the RTX A2000 trades places within a 0.6 percent band around its average, while the FirePro W8000 sits within a 1.2 percent band. Neither card leads its peer group by a wide margin, but the peer groups themselves are a generation apart in performance.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every specification field. The RTX A2000 uses an 8 nm Samsung process, while the FirePro W8000 uses a 28 nm TSMC process. Transistor counts are 12,000 million versus 4,313 million. Die sizes are 276 mm² versus 352 mm². Transistor density is 43.5 million per mm² versus 12.3 million per mm². The RTX A2000 has a base clock of 562 MHz and a boost clock of 1200 MHz, while the FirePro W8000 has no recorded base or boost clocks. Memory type is GDDR6 versus GDDR5, with capacities of 12 GB versus 4 GB, bus widths of 192-bit versus 256-bit, and bandwidths of 288.0 GB/s versus 176.0 GB/s. Shading units are 3328 versus 1792, TMUs are 104 versus 112, and ROPs are 48 versus 32. The RTX A2000 includes 26 RT cores and 104 tensor cores; the FirePro W8000 includes neither. Pixel rates are 57.60 GPixel/s versus 28.80 GPixel/s. Texture rates are 124.8 GTexel/s versus 100.8 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 7.987 TFLOPS versus 3.226 TFLOPS. The RTX A2000 has FP16 at 7.987 TFLOPS; the FirePro W8000 has no FP16 listing. TDP is 70 W versus 225 W. Power connectors are none versus 2x 6-pin. Suggested PSU is 250 W versus 550 W. Bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x16 versus PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs are 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a versus 4x DisplayPort 1.2 plus 1x SDI. DirectX support is 12 Ultimate (12_2) versus 12 (11_1). Vulkan support is 1.4 versus 1.2.170. Dimensions are 167 mm by 69 mm versus 279 mm by 111 mm. Release dates are 2021-11-22 versus 2012-06-13. The RTX A2000 lists a launch MSRP of 449 USD, while the FirePro W8000 lists 1,599 USD.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA RTX A2000 12 GB scores 66998, while the AMD FirePro W8000 scores 24440. The RTX A2000 leads by 174.1 percent.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The RTX A2000 averages 34154 across recorded tests, while the FirePro W8000 averages 29211. That is a 4943-point difference in favor of the NVIDIA card.

Q: Does the FirePro W8000 support ray tracing?

A: No. The FirePro W8000 has no ray tracing cores, while the RTX A2000 includes 26 RT cores.

Q: What memory configurations do the two cards use?

A: The RTX A2000 has 12 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-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.

Q: Which card has a higher FP32 throughput?

A: The RTX A2000 delivers 7.987 TFLOPS, while the FirePro W8000 delivers 3.226 TFLOPS.

Q: Are there any benchmarks where the FirePro W8000 wins?

A: In the recorded head-to-head data, the FirePro W8000 has zero wins. The RTX A2000 has one win. The FirePro W8000 does have a Vulkan score of 33981, but no comparable NVIDIA Vulkan result exists in the database.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX A2000 wins in every measured comparison. It dominates in OpenCL compute, where it more than doubles the FirePro W8000’s score. It wins on memory capacity, bandwidth, and speed. It wins on FP32 and FP16 throughput. It wins on pixel and texture rates. It wins on process node efficiency, drawing 70 W versus 225 W while delivering higher performance. It wins on modern feature support, including DirectX 12 Ultimate, ray tracing cores, tensor cores, and PCIe 4.0. It also wins on physical footprint, being shorter and thinner than the FirePro W8000.

The FirePro W8000 holds only narrow technical advantages. It has 112 TMUs against 104, a 256-bit bus against 192-bit, and an SDI output that the RTX A2000 lacks entirely. Its Vulkan score of 33981 is recorded, but without a corresponding NVIDIA score, it cannot be interpreted as a win in the database. Its nearest rivals include the RX Vega M GH and Arc A370M, both within 0.1 percent of its average, suggesting it competes at a lower performance tier.

For users choosing between these two cards, the data points entirely toward the RTX A2000 for general workstation compute, rendering, and any workload that benefits from newer APIs or higher memory capacity. The FirePro W8000 would only be relevant for a legacy environment requiring SDI output or a specific need for its older DisplayPort 1.2 configuration. The RTX A2000’s average score places it in a cluster with cards like the RTX A1000 and TITAN V, while the FirePro W8000 sits with RX 470 and RX 6800M level parts. That separation in average performance, combined with the 174.1 percent OpenCL gap, leaves no ambiguity in the recorded data.