FirePro W8000 vs GeForce GTX 980M SLI

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 980M SLI with FirePro W8000, including specs and performance data.

GTX 980M SLI
2014
2x 8 GB GDDR5, 200 Watt
23.99
+144%

980M SLI outperforms W8000 by a whopping 144% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking264499
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data0.45
Power efficiency9.283.38
ArchitectureMaxwell (2014−2017)GCN 1.0 (2012−2020)
GPU code nameno dataTahiti
Market segmentLaptopWorkstation
Release date7 October 2014 (11 years ago)14 June 2012 (14 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$1,599

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

no data

Performance to price scatter graph

Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores30721792
Core clock speed1038 MHz900 MHz
Boost clock speed1127 MHzno data
Number of transistors2x 5200 Million4,313 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)200 Watt225 Watt
Texture fill rateno data100.8
Floating-point processing powerno data3.226 TFLOPS
ROPsno data32
TMUsno data112
L1 Cacheno data448 KB
L2 Cacheno data512 KB

Form factor & compatibility

Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).

Laptop sizelargeno data
Bus supportno dataPCIe 3.0
Interfaceno dataPCIe 3.0 x16
Lengthno data279 mm
Widthno data2-slot
Form factorno datafull height / full length
Supplementary power connectorsno data2x 6-pin
SLI options+-

VRAM capacity and type

Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.

Memory typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount2x 8 GB4 GB
Memory bus width2x 256 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed5000 MHz1375 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data176 GB/s
Shared memory--

Connectivity and outputs

This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.

Display Connectorsno data4x DisplayPort, 1x SDI
StereoOutput3D-+
DisplayPort countno data4
Dual-link DVI support-+

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

Optimus+-

API and SDK support

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12_112 (11_1)
Shader Modelno data5.1
OpenGLno data4.6
OpenCLno data1.2
Vulkan+1.2.131
CUDA+-

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Average FPS across all PC games

Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:

900p135
+145%
55−60
−145%
Full HD110
+144%
45−50
−144%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data35.53

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 130−140
+151%
55−60
−151%
Cyberpunk 2077 50−55
+152%
21−24
−152%
Palworld 60−65
+150%
24−27
−150%
Resident Evil 4 Remake 55−60
+176%
21−24
−176%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 95−100
+174%
35−40
−174%
Counter-Strike 2 130−140
+151%
55−60
−151%
Cyberpunk 2077 50−55
+152%
21−24
−152%
Far Cry 5 80−85
+167%
30−33
−167%
Fortnite 120−130
+167%
45−50
−167%
Forza Horizon 4 95−100
+177%
35−40
−177%
Palworld 60−65
+150%
24−27
−150%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 95−100
+174%
35−40
−174%
Valorant 160−170
+157%
65−70
−157%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 95−100
+174%
35−40
−174%
Counter-Strike 2 130−140
+151%
55−60
−151%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 250−260
+158%
100−105
−158%
Cyberpunk 2077 50−55
+152%
21−24
−152%
Dota 2 120−130
+146%
50−55
−146%
Far Cry 5 80−85
+167%
30−33
−167%
Fortnite 120−130
+167%
45−50
−167%
Forza Horizon 4 95−100
+177%
35−40
−177%
Grand Theft Auto V 85−90
+151%
35−40
−151%
Metro Exodus 50−55
+157%
21−24
−157%
Palworld 60−65
+150%
24−27
−150%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 95−100
+174%
35−40
−174%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 70−75
+170%
27−30
−170%
Valorant 160−170
+157%
65−70
−157%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 95−100
+174%
35−40
−174%
Cyberpunk 2077 50−55
+152%
21−24
−152%
Dota 2 120−130
+146%
50−55
−146%
Far Cry 5 80−85
+167%
30−33
−167%
Forza Horizon 4 95−100
+177%
35−40
−177%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 95−100
+174%
35−40
−174%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 70−75
+170%
27−30
−170%
Valorant 160−170
+157%
65−70
−157%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 120−130
+167%
45−50
−167%
Palworld 60−65
+150%
24−27
−150%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 50−55
+152%
21−24
−152%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 170−180
+147%
70−75
−147%
Grand Theft Auto V 45−50
+150%
18−20
−150%
Metro Exodus 30−35
+175%
12−14
−175%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+150%
70−75
−150%
Valorant 190−200
+145%
80−85
−145%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 65−70
+152%
27−30
−152%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
+167%
9−10
−167%
Far Cry 5 55−60
+167%
21−24
−167%
Forza Horizon 4 60−65
+163%
24−27
−163%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 35−40
+179%
14−16
−179%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 55−60
+146%
24−27
−146%
Palworld 30−35
+183%
12−14
−183%

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2 24−27
+167%
9−10
−167%
Grand Theft Auto V 45−50
+156%
18−20
−156%
Metro Exodus 21−24
+163%
8−9
−163%
Palworld 21−24
+163%
8−9
−163%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 35−40
+157%
14−16
−157%
Valorant 130−140
+147%
55−60
−147%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 35−40
+171%
14−16
−171%
Counter-Strike 2 24−27
+167%
9−10
−167%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−12
+175%
4−5
−175%
Dota 2 80−85
+167%
30−33
−167%
Far Cry 5 27−30
+190%
10−11
−190%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+169%
16−18
−169%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 24−27
+160%
10−11
−160%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 27−30
+170%
10−11
−170%
Palworld 21−24
+163%
8−9
−163%

This is how GTX 980M SLI and FirePro W8000 compete in popular games:

  • GTX 980M SLI is 145% faster in 900p
  • GTX 980M SLI is 144% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 23.99 9.82
Recency 7 October 2014 14 June 2012
Power consumption (TDP) 200 Watt 225 Watt

GTX 980M SLI has a 144% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, and 13% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 980M SLI is our recommended choice as it beats the FirePro W8000 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 980M SLI is a notebook graphics card while FirePro W8000 is a workstation one.

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.2 60 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 980M SLI on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.2 6 votes

Rate FirePro W8000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce GTX 980M SLI or FirePro W8000, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.