FirePro W5000 vs Radeon HD 6990M Crossfire
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 6990M Crossfire with FirePro W5000, including specs and performance data.
HD 6990M Crossfire outperforms W5000 by a significant 28% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 530 | 598 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.64 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 7.35 |
| Architecture | Terascale 2 (2009−2015) | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) |
| GPU code name | Blackcomb XTX | Pitcairn |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 12 July 2011 (15 years ago) | 7 August 2012 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $599 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
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 cores | 2240 | 768 |
| Core clock speed | 715 MHz | 825 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 2x1700 Million | 2,800 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 75 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 39.60 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 1.267 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 32 |
| TMUs | no data | 48 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 192 KB |
| L2 Cache | no data | 512 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 size | large | no data |
| Bus support | no data | PCIe 3.0 |
| Interface | no data | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 183 mm |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Form factor | no data | full height / half length |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
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 type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2x2 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 900 MHz | 800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 102.4 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 Connectors | no data | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort |
| DisplayPort count | no data | 2 |
| Dual-link DVI support | - | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11 | 12 (11_1) |
| Shader Model | no data | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.2.131 |
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:
| 900p | 99
+32%
| 75−80
−32%
|
| Full HD | 108
+35%
| 80−85
−35%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 7.49 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 21−24
+43.8%
|
16−18
−43.8%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
+40%
|
35−40
−40%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+35.7%
|
14−16
−35.7%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 21−24
+43.8%
|
16−18
−43.8%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+36.7%
|
30−33
−36.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
+40%
|
35−40
−40%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+35.7%
|
14−16
−35.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−33
+42.9%
|
21−24
−42.9%
|
| Fortnite | 55−60
+40%
|
40−45
−40%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+33.3%
|
30−33
−33.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 27−30
+33.3%
|
21−24
−33.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+37.5%
|
24−27
−37.5%
|
| Valorant | 85−90
+35.4%
|
65−70
−35.4%
|
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 21−24
+43.8%
|
16−18
−43.8%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+36.7%
|
30−33
−36.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
+40%
|
35−40
−40%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 140−150
+41%
|
100−105
−41%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+35.7%
|
14−16
−35.7%
|
| Dota 2 | 65−70
+36%
|
50−55
−36%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−33
+42.9%
|
21−24
−42.9%
|
| Fortnite | 55−60
+40%
|
40−45
−40%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+33.3%
|
30−33
−33.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 27−30
+33.3%
|
21−24
−33.3%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−35
+41.7%
|
24−27
−41.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 18−20
+28.6%
|
14−16
−28.6%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+37.5%
|
24−27
−37.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
+33.3%
|
18−20
−33.3%
|
| Valorant | 85−90
+35.4%
|
65−70
−35.4%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+36.7%
|
30−33
−36.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+35.7%
|
14−16
−35.7%
|
| Dota 2 | 65−70
+36%
|
50−55
−36%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−33
+42.9%
|
21−24
−42.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+33.3%
|
30−33
−33.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+37.5%
|
24−27
−37.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
+33.3%
|
18−20
−33.3%
|
| Valorant | 85−90
+35.4%
|
65−70
−35.4%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 55−60
+40%
|
40−45
−40%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+41.7%
|
12−14
−41.7%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 70−75
+40%
|
50−55
−40%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 12−14
+33.3%
|
9−10
−33.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−11
+42.9%
|
7−8
−42.9%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
+37.1%
|
35−40
−37.1%
|
| Valorant | 90−95
+31.4%
|
70−75
−31.4%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
+37.5%
|
16−18
−37.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+40%
|
5−6
−40%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18−20
+35.7%
|
14−16
−35.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+37.5%
|
16−18
−37.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+33.3%
|
9−10
−33.3%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 18−20
+35.7%
|
14−16
−35.7%
|
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 7−8
+40%
|
5−6
−40%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 20−22
+42.9%
|
14−16
−42.9%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
+42.9%
|
7−8
−42.9%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
+36.7%
|
30−33
−36.7%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 10−12
+37.5%
|
8−9
−37.5%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−35
+41.7%
|
24−27
−41.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
+28.6%
|
7−8
−28.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+50%
|
10−11
−50%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+28.6%
|
7−8
−28.6%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 9−10
+28.6%
|
7−8
−28.6%
|
This is how HD 6990M Crossfire and FirePro W5000 compete in popular games:
- HD 6990M Crossfire is 32% faster in 900p
- HD 6990M Crossfire is 35% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 9.16 | 7.13 |
| Recency | 12 July 2011 | 7 August 2012 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 28 nm |
HD 6990M Crossfire has a 28% higher aggregate performance score.
FirePro W5000, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, and a 43% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon HD 6990M Crossfire is our recommended choice as it beats the FirePro W5000 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon HD 6990M Crossfire is a notebook graphics card while FirePro W5000 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.
