AMD FirePro W8000 vs AMD Radeon 860M Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD FirePro W8000 has a higher average benchmark score of 29,211, while the AMD Radeon 860M scores 26,401. The FirePro W8000 sits in the 75th percentile of all GPUs, while the Radeon 860M is in the 72nd percentile.

Q: How do the two compare in raw compute performance?

A: The FirePro W8000 delivers 3.226 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the Radeon 860M delivers 3.072 TFLOPS. The FirePro also has a higher texture rate at 100.8 GTexel/s versus 96.00 GTexel/s for the Radeon 860M, though the Radeon 860M has a higher pixel rate at 48.00 GPixel/s versus 28.80 GPixel/s.

Q: What are the major architectural differences?

A: The FirePro W8000 uses GCN 1.0 architecture on a 28 nm process with 4,313 million transistors on a 352 mm² die. The Radeon 860M uses RDNA 3.5 architecture on a 4 nm process, with transistor count and die size listed as unknown. The FirePro is a discrete dual-slot card, while the Radeon 860M is an integrated graphics processor (IGP).

Q: Which GPU wins in the head-to-head benchmarks?

A: The AMD FirePro W8000 wins both recorded head-to-head tests. It beats the Radeon 860M by 7.4% in Geekbench OpenCL and by 13.1% in Geekbench Vulkan.

Q: What are the power requirements for each?

A: The FirePro W8000 has a TDP of 225 W and requires two 6-pin power connectors with a suggested 550 W power supply. The Radeon 860M has a TDP of 15 W, uses no power connectors, and has no suggested power supply listed.

Q: What are the memory configurations?

A: The FirePro W8000 has 4 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus with 176.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Radeon 860M uses system shared memory, with bus width, capacity, and bandwidth all listed as system dependent.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two AMD GPUs is substantial, representing over a decade of design evolution. The FirePro W8000 is built on GCN 1.0 architecture using a 28 nm process from TSMC, packing 4,313 million transistors into a 352 mm² die. The Radeon 860M, by contrast, uses the much newer RDNA 3.5 architecture on a 4 nm process, though its transistor count and die size are not recorded in the database.

The compute unit design differs fundamentally. The FirePro W8000 deploys 1,792 shading units, 112 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The Radeon 860M scales down to 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, but adds 8 ray tracing cores, a feature entirely absent from the older GCN design. This explains why the Radeon 860M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) while the FirePro W8000 only reaches DirectX 12 (11_1).

Memory architecture also diverges sharply. The FirePro uses dedicated GDDR5 with a 256-bit bus and 176.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Radeon 860M relies entirely on system shared memory, making its bandwidth dependent on the host platform. Clock behavior differs too: the FirePro W8000 has no recorded base or boost clocks, only a memory clock of 1375 MHz (5.5 Gbps effective), while the Radeon 860M has a 600 MHz base clock and a 3000 MHz boost clock.

The process node difference is significant for efficiency. The 28 nm FirePro draws 225 W, while the 4 nm Radeon 860M draws just 15 W. The bus interface also differs: PCIe 3.0 x16 for the FirePro versus PCIe 4.0 x8 for the Radeon 860M. The Radeon 860M supports Vulkan 1.4 versus 1.2.170 on the FirePro, and both support OpenGL 4.6.

Where Each One Wins

The data paints a clear picture: the FirePro W8000 wins in both recorded benchmark tests. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 24,440 beats the Radeon 860M's 22,759 by 7.4%. In Geekbench Vulkan, the FirePro's 33,981 outpaces the Radeon 860M's 30,043 by a wider 13.1% margin.

The FirePro W8000's advantage in Vulkan suggests its discrete memory setup and higher texture throughput (100.8 GTexel/s versus 96.00 GTexel/s) help in graphics-heavy workloads. Its larger shading unit count (1,792 versus 512) likely contributes to its compute lead, though the Radeon 860M's newer architecture partially compensates with higher pixel throughput (48.00 GPixel/s versus 28.80 GPixel/s).

The Radeon 860M's wins are not in raw performance but in efficiency and features. Its 15 W TDP versus 225 W represents a 15x power draw reduction. It offers ray tracing support, DirectX 12 Ultimate, and a much higher boost clock of 3000 MHz. These features make it suitable for modern portable devices, as its display outputs are listed as portable device dependent.

For users prioritizing maximum benchmark scores, the FirePro W8000 is the clear choice. For those needing an integrated solution with modern API support and minimal power consumption, the Radeon 860M fills that role, even if its recorded scores are lower.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD FirePro W8000 | AMD Radeon 860M |

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

| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | RDNA 3.5 |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 4 nm |

| Transistors | 4,313 million | unknown |

| Die Size | 352 mm² | unknown |

| Base Clock | null | 600 MHz |

| Boost Clock | null | 3000 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1375 MHz (5.5 Gbps effective) | System Shared |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | System Shared |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | System Shared |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | System Shared |

| Memory Bandwidth | 176.0 GB/s | System Dependent |

| Shading Units | 1792 | 512 |

| TMUs | 112 | 32 |

| ROPs | 32 | 16 |

| Ray Tracing Cores | null | 8 |

| Pixel Rate | 28.80 GPixel/s | 48.00 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 100.8 GTexel/s | 96.00 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 3.226 TFLOPS | 3.072 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | null | 3.072 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 225 W | 15 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | IGP |

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

| Suggested PSU | 550 W | null |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |

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

| Vulkan Support | 1.2.170 | 1.4 |

| Production Status | End-of-life | Active |

| Release Date | 2012-06-13 | 2025-02-28 |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded head-to-head data shows the FirePro W8000 taking both tests, but the margins tell different stories. In Geekbench OpenCL, the FirePro scores 24,440 against the Radeon 860M's 22,759, a 7.4% advantage. This moderate lead likely reflects the FirePro's significantly larger shading unit count and dedicated memory bandwidth.

The Vulkan test shows a more pronounced gap. The FirePro W8000 scores 33,981 versus 30,043 for the Radeon 860M, a 13.1% difference. This wider margin is notable because Vulkan is a modern API that should favor the newer RDNA 3.5 architecture. Yet the FirePro's older GCN design still manages to outperform, possibly due to its 176.0 GB/s dedicated bandwidth versus the Radeon 860M's system dependent memory performance.

Context from the nearest rivals is illuminating. The FirePro W8000's average score of 29,211 places it within 1.2% of the AMD Radeon RX 6800M (28,874) and just 0.7% ahead of the Radeon RX 470 (28,996). The Radeon 860M's average of 26,401 sits nearly exactly at parity with the NVIDIA GeForce MX550 (26,421, delta -0.1%) and slightly behind the NVIDIA RTX A4000 (26,683, delta -1.1%).

The Radeon 860M does show one theoretical advantage in pixel throughput, 48.00 GPixel/s versus 28.80 GPixel/s, and its boost clock reaches 3000 MHz. But these specifications do not translate into benchmark victories. The FirePro's 3.226 TFLOPS FP32 output edges out the Radeon's 3.072 TFLOPS, and its 100.8 GTexel/s texture rate beats the Radeon's 96.00 GTexel/s.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the AMD FirePro W8000 outperforms the AMD Radeon 860M in every recorded test. It wins Geekbench OpenCL by 7.4% and Geekbench Vulkan by 13.1%. Its average benchmark score of 29,211 places it in the 75th percentile of all GPUs, three points higher than the Radeon 860M's 72nd percentile.

Users seeking maximum compute performance from these two options should choose the FirePro W8000. Its 3.226 TFLOPS FP32, 100.8 GTexel/s texture rate, and 4 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory with 176.0 GB/s bandwidth deliver higher scores. The FirePro also sits in closer competition with stronger rivals: its nearest competitors include the Radeon RX 6800M (within 1.2%) and Radeon RX 470 (within 0.7%), whereas the Radeon 860M's closest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce MX550 (within 0.1%).

However, the Radeon 860M is not without its own case. It offers modern features the FirePro cannot match: 8 ray tracing cores, DirectX 12 Ultimate, Vulkan 1.4, and a 15 W TDP that is 15 times lower than the FirePro's 225 W. Its 3000 MHz boost clock and 48.00 GPixel/s pixel rate show architectural efficiency, and it is an active product released in 2025, while the FirePro is end-of-life from 2012.

The verdict depends entirely on context. For raw benchmark scores, the FirePro W8000 wins. For modern API support, ray tracing capability, and power efficiency in an integrated form factor, the Radeon 860M is the sensible pick. The data does not support one universal winner, but it clearly supports the FirePro for anyone whose priority is recorded performance in OpenCL and Vulkan workloads.