AMD FirePro W8000 vs AMD Radeon RX 480 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data splits these two cards cleanly by era and workload. The AMD Radeon RX 480 wins every head-to-head benchmark in the database, with two victories out of two possible tests. The AMD FirePro W8000 has zero wins in direct comparison. That is a categorical result, but it needs context: the RX 480 is a later architecture with a much higher average benchmark score, so the wins are expected.

Looking at the broader benchmark suite, the RX 480 posts an average benchmark score of 33,997, which places it at the 78th percentile of all GPUs in the database. The FirePro W8000 averages 29,211 and sits at the 75th percentile. The 4,786-point gap in average scores is substantial, but the percentile difference is only three points, suggesting both cards occupy a similar tier of overall performance relative to everything else recorded.

The use-case split is clearer when examining individual workloads. The RX 480 demonstrates strength in modern API tests: it scores 45,968 in Geekbench Vulkan, which is a 35.3% improvement over the FirePro W8000's 33,981. That gap shows the RX 480 handles compute-heavy, low-level graphics APIs with considerably more headroom. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RX 480 scores 37,998 versus 24,440 for the FirePro W8000, a 55.5% advantage. This is the biggest margin in the head-to-head data, indicating the RX 480 is far more efficient at general-purpose compute tasks.

The FirePro W8000's only recorded benchmark wins are absent entirely, so there is no workload category where the data shows it leading. However, its 4 GB memory capacity and 176.0 GB/s bandwidth, combined with four DisplayPort outputs and one SDI output, suggest a workstation-oriented role for multi-display professional use rather than raw compute dominance. The RX 480, with 8 GB of memory and 256.0 GB/s bandwidth, is better suited to gaming and modern API workloads, but the FirePro W8000's display output configuration implies it was designed for broadcast or multi-monitor environments where the RX 480's single HDMI and three DisplayPort outputs might fall short.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different generations of AMD's Graphics Core Next (GCN) design. The RX 480 uses GCN 4.0 on a 14 nm process from GlobalFoundries, while the FirePro W8000 uses GCN 1.0 on a 28 nm process from TSMC. This process node difference is the single largest architectural divider: the RX 480 packs 5,700 million transistors into a 232 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 24.6 million per mm². The FirePro W8000 has 4,313 million transistors on a much larger 352 mm² die, giving it a density of only 12.3 million per mm². The RX 480 nearly doubles the transistor density, which explains its higher clock speeds and throughput.

The compute unit layouts differ accordingly. The RX 480 has 2,304 shading units, 144 texture mapping units, and 32 raster output units. The FirePro W8000 has 1,792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and the same 32 ROPs. The RX 480 carries 512 more shading units and 32 more TMUs, which directly contributes to its higher fill rates: 40.51 GPixel/s pixel rate and 182.3 GTexel/s texture rate versus 28.80 GPixel/s and 100.8 GTexel/s for the FirePro W8000. FP32 compute follows the same pattern: the RX 480 delivers 5.834 TFLOPS, while the FirePro W8000 delivers 3.226 TFLOPS. The RX 480 also supports FP16 at a 1:1 ratio (5.834 TFLOPS), a feature the FirePro W8000 lacks entirely, as its FP16 field is null.

Memory architectures share a 256-bit bus on both cards, but the RX 480 runs GDDR5 at 2000 MHz (8 Gbps effective) for 256.0 GB/s, whereas the FirePro W8000 runs GDDR5 at 1375 MHz (5.5 Gbps effective) for 176.0 GB/s. The RX 480 also doubles the memory capacity to 8 GB versus 4 GB. API support diverges as well: the RX 480 supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3, while the FirePro W8000 supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170. Both cards offer OpenGL 4.6.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records two direct comparisons, and the RX 480 wins both by wide margins. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RX 480 scores 37,998 against the FirePro W8000's 24,440, a delta of 55.5%. That is more than half again as fast, and it reflects the combined effect of the newer process, higher clocks, and more compute units. The FirePro W8000 has no base or boost clock listed, but the RX 480 runs at 1120 MHz base and 1266 MHz boost, which likely contributes to the gap.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the RX 480 scores 45,968 versus 33,981 for the FirePro W8000, a 35.3% delta. The Vulkan margin is smaller than OpenCL but still decisive. The RX 480's Vulkan score is actually higher than its OpenCL score, suggesting the newer architecture scales better with low-level APIs. The FirePro W8000 shows the opposite pattern: its Vulkan score (33,981) exceeds its OpenCL score (24,440) by a significant amount, indicating that even the older GCN 1.0 design benefits from Vulkan's explicit control, but not enough to close the gap.

Looking at the nearest rivals in the database, the RX 480's average score of 33,997 is nearly identical to the AMD Radeon HD 7950's 33,951 (0.1% delta) and the AMD Radeon RX 560 XT's 34,133 (0.4% delta). The NVIDIA RTX A2000 12 GB sits slightly above at 34,154 (0.5% delta). This tells us the RX 480's average is tightly clustered with its direct contemporaries, despite its much stronger head-to-head results against the older FirePro card. The FirePro W8000's average of 29,211 is closest to the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH at 29,197 (0% delta) and the Intel Arc A370M at 29,175 (0.1% delta), with the AMD Radeon RX 470 at 28,996 (0.7% delta) and the AMD Radeon RX 6800M at 28,874 (1.2% delta) trailing slightly. The FirePro W8000 actually edges out all four rivals in average score, but only by margins of 1.2% or less.

Specification Differences

| Field | AMD Radeon RX 480 | AMD FirePro W8000 |

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

| Chip | Ellesmere | Tahiti |

| Architecture | GCN 4.0 | GCN 1.0 |

| Generation | Arctic Islands (RX 400) | FirePro GCN (Wx000) |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 28 nm |

| Foundry | GlobalFoundries | TSMC |

| Transistors | 5,700 million | 4,313 million |

| Die Size | 232 mm² | 352 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 24.6M / mm² | 12.3M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1120 MHz | Not listed |

| Boost Clock | 1266 MHz | Not listed |

| Memory Clock | 2000 MHz (8 Gbps effective) | 1375 MHz (5.5 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 8 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 256.0 GB/s | 176.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 2304 | 1792 |

| TMUs | 144 | 112 |

| ROPs | 32 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 40.51 GPixel/s | 28.80 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 182.3 GTexel/s | 100.8 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 5.834 TFLOPS | 3.226 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 5.834 TFLOPS (1:1) | Not listed |

| TDP | 150 W | 225 W |

| Power Connectors | 1x 6-pin | 2x 6-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 450 W | 550 W |

| Display Outputs | 1x HDMI 2.0b, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a | 4x DisplayPort 1.2, 1x SDI |

| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 (11_1) |

| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.2.170 |

| Length | 240 mm (9.4 inches) | 279 mm (11 inches) |

| Height | 95 mm (3.7 inches) | 111 mm (4.4 inches) |

| Width | 35 mm (1.4 inches) | Not listed |

| Release Date | 2016-06-28 | 2012-06-13 |

| Launch MSRP | 229 USD | 1,599 USD |

The two cards share the same bus interface (PCIe 3.0 x16), slot width (dual-slot), memory type (GDDR5), and ROP count (32). Everything else in the comparison favors the RX 480 in raw performance, while the FirePro W8000 counters with more display outputs and a lower transistor count on a larger die.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 480 averages 33,997, which is 4,786 points above the AMD FirePro W8000's 29,211.

Q: How much faster is the RX 480 in OpenCL?

A: The RX 480 scores 37,998 versus 24,440 for the FirePro W8000, a 55.5% advantage.

Q: What is the percentile ranking for each card?

A: The RX 480 sits at the 78th percentile of all GPUs, while the FirePro W8000 sits at the 75th percentile.

Q: Do both cards support the same DirectX version?

A: No. The RX 480 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the FirePro W8000 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), a lower feature level.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The RX 480 has 256.0 GB/s, while the FirePro W8000 has 176.0 GB/s, a difference of 80 GB/s.

Q: Which card has more display outputs?

A: The FirePro W8000 has four DisplayPort 1.2 outputs plus one SDI output, while the RX 480 has one HDMI 2.0b and three DisplayPort 1.4a outputs.

The Verdict

The data points to one straightforward conclusion: the AMD Radeon RX 480 outperforms the AMD FirePro W8000 in every recorded benchmark. The RX 480 wins both head-to-head tests, has a higher average score, a higher percentile ranking, and superior specifications across process node, transistor density, shading units, clock speeds, memory bandwidth, and API support. For anyone choosing between these two based on compute performance, the RX 480 is the clear pick.

However, the FirePro W8000 is not without a distinct role. Its four DisplayPort outputs and SDI output outnumber the RX 480's four total outputs, and the SDI option is unique to the FirePro card. The FirePro W8000 also carries a higher TDP (225 W versus 150 W) and requires two 6-pin power connectors, which suggests it was designed for sustained professional workloads in broadcast or multi-display environments. Its release date of 2012, four years before the RX 480, places it in an older generation, and its 4 GB memory capacity is half the RX 480's 8 GB.

The percentile data adds nuance: the RX 480 is only three percentile points above the FirePro W8000 (78 versus 75), despite a 16.4% higher average score. That means the FirePro W8000 was a strong performer in its own era, and its nearest rivals in the database (RX Vega M GH, Arc A370M, RX 470, RX 6800M) all fall within 1.2% of its average score. The RX 480's rivals (HD 7950, RX 560 XT, RX 7700S, RTX A2000 12 GB) are similarly clustered within 0.5%. Both cards are competitive within their respective peer groups, but the RX 480 operates in a higher performance band.

For a gamer or general-purpose user, the RX 480 is the obvious choice: higher compute throughput, more memory, better API support, and a lower TDP. For a professional needing multiple display outputs or SDI connectivity, the FirePro W8000 offers a configuration the RX 480 cannot match, even if its raw performance lags. The database records no scenario where the FirePro W8000 wins a benchmark, so the verdict rests on workload fit rather than speed. If the task is compute or modern graphics, pick the RX 480. If the task is multi-display professional output, the FirePro W8000's output configuration is the only area where it holds an advantage.