AMD FirePro W8000 vs NVIDIA T1000 8 GB Comparison

The NVIDIA T1000 8 GB and AMD FirePro W8000 are workstation cards separated by nearly a decade of silicon development, yet the recorded data shows them landing surprisingly close in aggregate performance. The T1000 sits at the 79th percentile of all GPUs in the database, the W8000 at the 75th, and their single head-to-head benchmark differs by under two percent. What makes this comparison interesting is not the margin of victory but the wildly different paths each card takes to arrive at nearly the same result: one is a compact, power-sipping modern design, the other a large, power-hungry legacy flagship.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct head-to-head test in the database is Geekbench Vulkan, and it is a narrow win for the T1000: 34,561 versus 33,981, a delta of 1.7 percent. That is a margin small enough to vanish inside run-to-run variance on many systems, so the honest reading is that these two cards are effectively tied on Vulkan compute.

Aggregate averages tell a slightly different story. The T1000's average benchmark score across its recorded results is 34,561 (it has only the Vulkan test on file), while the W8000 averages 29,211 across its two tests, which include a Geekbench OpenCL score of 24,440 alongside its Vulkan result. The OpenCL figure drags the W8000's average down considerably, sitting roughly 29 percent below its own Vulkan score. Why the W8000 falls off in OpenCL is worth pondering: the older GCN 1.0 architecture may simply map less efficiently onto that workload, or the driver path for it has aged poorly.

Context from each card's rival set sharpens the picture. The T1000's 34,561 average places it within one percent of the AMD Radeon HD 7970 (34,541, delta of 0.1 percent), just behind the NVIDIA A2 (34,690, delta of -0.4 percent), and ahead of both the NVIDIA TITAN V (34,355, 0.6 percent) and the NVIDIA RTX A1000 (34,207, 1 percent). The W8000's 29,211 average is essentially identical to the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH (29,197, 0 percent) and the Intel Arc A370M (29,175, 0.1 percent), and slightly ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 470 (28,996, 0.7 percent) and the AMD Radeon RX 6800M (28,884, 1.2 percent). Both cards occupy crowded neighborhoods where fractions of a percent separate neighbors.

On paper specifications, the W8000 actually holds the theoretical raw-performance edge in several categories: 3.226 TFLOPS FP32 versus 2.500 TFLOPS, 100.8 GTexel/s versus 78.12 GTexel/s of texture throughput, and 176.0 GB/s versus 160.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth. The T1000 counters with a substantially higher pixel fill rate, 44.64 GPixel/s against 28.80 GPixel/s. The fact that the T1000 matches or beats the W8000 in Vulkan despite lower theoretical compute strongly suggests its newer architecture extracts far more performance per FLOP.

Where Each One Wins

The T1000's case rests on efficiency and modern platform features. It draws just 50 W with no power connectors required, versus the W8000's 225 W fed by two 6-pin connectors. It fits in a single slot and measures 156 mm long and 69 mm tall, against the W8000's dual-slot, 279 mm by 111 mm frame. For compact workstations or systems with limited power headroom, the data points clearly in one direction. The T1000 also doubles the memory capacity, 8 GB of GDDR6 versus 4 GB of GDDR5, which matters for larger datasets in professional applications. Its API support is more current too: DirectX 12 at feature level 12_1 versus 11_1, and Vulkan 1.4 versus 1.2.170.

The W8000's wins are narrower and more situational. Its wider 256-bit bus delivers more bandwidth, 176.0 GB/s against 160.0 GB/s, and its higher texture rate of 100.8 GTexel/s could benefit bandwidth- and texture-bound workloads. Its display configuration is distinctive: four DisplayPort 1.2 outputs plus SDI, a broadcast-oriented feature the T1000 cannot match with its four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a connectors. Whether any of that offsets a 1.7 percent Vulkan deficit, half the memory, and vastly higher power draw is the operative question.

Architecture Differences

These cards bookend two very different eras of GPU design. The T1000 uses NVIDIA's TU117 chip on the Turing architecture, fabricated at TSMC on a 12 nm process. The W8000 uses AMD's Tahiti chip on GCN 1.0, built at TSMC on a much older 28 nm process. The transistor counts are closer than expected, 4,700 million for the T1000 versus 4,313 million for the W8000, but the die sizes diverge dramatically: 200 mm² versus 352 mm². Density tells the story, 23.5M transistors per mm² versus 12.3M per mm², nearly a doubling of packing efficiency for the newer card.

Core configuration philosophies also differ. The W8000 spreads its transistors across 1,792 shading units and 112 TMUs, a wide, slow-clocked design. The T1000 uses just 896 shading units and 56 TMUs, but clocks them to a 1065 MHz base and 1395 MHz boost. Both have 32 ROPs. Neither card has RT cores or tensor cores listed in the database. The T1000 does list FP16 throughput of 5.000 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio, a capability simply absent from the W8000's record, another marker of generational divergence.

Generational lineage confirms the gap: the T1000 belongs to the Quadro Turing (Tx000) generation, succeeded by Workstation Ampere, while the W8000 belongs to FirePro GCN (Wx000), preceded by FirePro Terascale and succeeded by Radeon Pro Polaris. Both are now end-of-life. The W8000 launched with a stated launch MSRP of 1,599 USD; no launch MSRP is recorded for the T1000.

The Verdict

The benchmark data makes this a lopsided recommendation despite the close scores. The T1000 wins the only head-to-head test, holds a higher percentile ranking (79 versus 75), offers twice the memory with a newer memory type, supports more recent API levels, and does all of this at roughly a quarter of the power draw with no auxiliary connectors, in a single-slot, far smaller card. Unless a workflow specifically needs the W8000's SDI outputs or its extra memory bandwidth, the recorded data favors the T1000 in essentially every measurable dimension.

The W8000 remains relevant only as a data point in GPU history: a large, hot, expensive-era design whose raw specifications still nearly match a modern card running on slot power alone. That near-match is itself the most telling finding here, and it illustrates how much architectural and process improvement can accomplish between 28 nm GCN and 12 nm Turing.

FAQ

Q: Which card wins in the head-to-head benchmark? A: The NVIDIA T1000 8 GB wins Geekbench Vulkan with 34,561 points versus 33,981 for the FirePro W8000, a 1.7 percent margin.

Q: How much more power does the W8000 consume? A: The W8000 has a 225 W TDP and requires two 6-pin power connectors, while the T1000 has a 50 W TDP and needs no power connectors at all.

Q: How do their memory configurations compare? A: The T1000 has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 160.0 GB/s of bandwidth; the W8000 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 176.0 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: Which card is smaller? A: The T1000 is a single-slot card measuring 156 mm by 69 mm; the W8000 is dual-slot at 279 mm by 111 mm.

Q: Do both cards support the same API versions? A: No. The T1000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the W8000 supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Q: Which GPUs are their closest rivals in the database? A: The T1000's average of 34,561 sits nearest the AMD Radeon HD 7970 (34,541) and NVIDIA A2 (34,690); the W8000's average of 29,211 sits nearest the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH (29,197) and Intel Arc A370M (29,175).

Specification Differences

| Field | NVIDIA T1000 8 GB | AMD FirePro W8000 |

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

| Manufacturer | NVIDIA | AMD |

| Chip | TU117 | Tahiti |

| Architecture | Turing | GCN 1.0 |

| Generation | Quadro Turing (Tx000) | FirePro GCN (Wx000) |

| Process node | 12 nm | 28 nm |

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

| Die size | 200 mm² | 352 mm² |

| Transistor density | 23.5M / mm² | 12.3M / mm² |

| Base clock | 1065 MHz | Not recorded |

| Boost clock | 1395 MHz | Not recorded |

| Memory size | 8 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory type | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |

| Bus width | 128 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory bandwidth | 160.0 GB/s | 176.0 GB/s |

| Shading units | 896 | 1,792 |

| TMUs | 56 | 112 |

| Pixel rate | 44.64 GPixel/s | 28.80 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 78.12 GTexel/s | 100.8 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 2.500 TFLOPS | 3.226 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 5.000 TFLOPS (2:1) | Not listed |

| TDP | 50 W | 225 W |

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

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

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | 550 W |

| Display outputs | 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a | 4x DisplayPort 1.2, 1x SDI |

| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (11_1) |

| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.2.170 |

| Length | 156 mm | 279 mm |

| Height | 69 mm | 111 mm |

| Release date | 2021-05-05 | 2012-06-13 |

| Predecessor | Quadro Volta | FirePro Terascale |

| Successor | Workstation Ampere | Radeon Pro Polaris |

| Launch MSRP | Not recorded | 1,599 USD |

| Percentile vs all GPUs | 79 | 75 |

| Average benchmark score | 34,561 | 29,211 |