FirePro W2100 vs Radeon Pro Vega 56
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon Pro Vega 56 with FirePro W2100, including specs and performance data.
Pro 56 outperforms W2100 by a whopping 1234% 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 | 223 | 928 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 15.83 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 10.66 | 6.46 |
| Architecture | GCN 5.0 (2017−2020) | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) |
| GPU code name | Vega 10 | Oland |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Workstation |
| Release date | 14 August 2017 (9 years ago) | 12 August 2014 (12 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $399 | no data |
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 | 3584 | 320 |
| Core clock speed | 1138 MHz | 630 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1250 MHz | 680 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 12,500 million | 950 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 210 Watt | 26 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 280.0 | 13.60 |
| Floating-point processing power | 8.96 TFLOPS | 0.4352 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 8 |
| TMUs | 224 | 20 |
| L1 Cache | 896 KB | 80 KB |
| L2 Cache | 4 MB | 256 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).
| Bus support | no data | PCIe 3.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Form factor | no data | low profile / half length |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 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 | HBM2 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 2048 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 786 MHz | 900 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 402.4 GB/s | 28.8 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 | 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort | 2x DisplayPort |
| HDMI | + | - |
| DisplayPort count | no data | 2 |
| Dual-link DVI support | - | + |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| AppAcceleration | - | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (11_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.125 | 1.2.131 |
Synthetic benchmarks
Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark score.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.
3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.
GeekBench 5 OpenCL
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.
GeekBench 5 Vulkan
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses Vulkan API by AMD & Khronos Group.
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:
| Full HD | 96
+700%
| 12
−700%
|
| 4K | 57
+2750%
| 2
−2750%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 4.16 | no data |
| 4K | 7.00 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 160−170
+3200%
|
5−6
−3200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 65−70
+1550%
|
4−5
−1550%
|
| Palworld | 75−80
+1150%
|
6−7
−1150%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 70−75
+3550%
|
2−3
−3550%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
+1733%
|
6−7
−1733%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 160−170
+3200%
|
5−6
−3200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 65−70
+1550%
|
4−5
−1550%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 95−100
+1820%
|
5−6
−1820%
|
| Fortnite | 130−140
+1260%
|
10−11
−1260%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 110−120
+945%
|
10−12
−945%
|
| Palworld | 75−80
+1150%
|
6−7
−1150%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 110−120
+883%
|
12−14
−883%
|
| Valorant | 180−190
+370%
|
40−45
−370%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
+1733%
|
6−7
−1733%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 160−170
+3200%
|
5−6
−3200%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+520%
|
40−45
−520%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 65−70
+1550%
|
4−5
−1550%
|
| Dota 2 | 107
+365%
|
21−24
−365%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 95−100
+1820%
|
5−6
−1820%
|
| Fortnite | 130−140
+1260%
|
10−11
−1260%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 110−120
+945%
|
10−12
−945%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 100−110
+2500%
|
4−5
−2500%
|
| Metro Exodus | 65−70
+2133%
|
3−4
−2133%
|
| Palworld | 75−80
+1150%
|
6−7
−1150%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 110−120
+883%
|
12−14
−883%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 116
+1189%
|
9−10
−1189%
|
| Valorant | 180−190
+370%
|
40−45
−370%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
+1733%
|
6−7
−1733%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 65−70
+1550%
|
4−5
−1550%
|
| Dota 2 | 102
+343%
|
21−24
−343%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 95−100
+1820%
|
5−6
−1820%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 110−120
+945%
|
10−12
−945%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 110−120
+883%
|
12−14
−883%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 64
+611%
|
9−10
−611%
|
| Valorant | 180−190
+370%
|
40−45
−370%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 130−140
+1260%
|
10−11
−1260%
|
| Palworld | 75−80
+1150%
|
6−7
−1150%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 65−70
+1240%
|
5−6
−1240%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 200−210
+1188%
|
16−18
−1188%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 55−60
+1325%
|
4−5
−1325%
|
| Metro Exodus | 40−45
+1267%
|
3−4
−1267%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+733%
|
21−24
−733%
|
| Valorant | 210−220
+1188%
|
16−18
−1188%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 80−85
+1500%
|
5−6
−1500%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
+3000%
|
1−2
−3000%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 65−70
+2200%
|
3−4
−2200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 75−80
+1460%
|
5−6
−1460%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 50−55
+1567%
|
3−4
−1567%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 70−75
+1750%
|
4−5
−1750%
|
| Palworld | 40−45
+1300%
|
3−4
−1300%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+1450%
|
2−3
−1450%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 55−60
+287%
|
14−16
−287%
|
| Metro Exodus | 24−27
+2500%
|
1−2
−2500%
|
| Palworld | 24−27
+2400%
|
1−2
−2400%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 42
+1300%
|
3−4
−1300%
|
| Valorant | 170−180
+1464%
|
10−12
−1464%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+1433%
|
3−4
−1433%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+1450%
|
2−3
−1450%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+1300%
|
1−2
−1300%
|
| Dota 2 | 96
+1820%
|
5−6
−1820%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
+5100%
|
1−2
−5100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+1033%
|
3−4
−1033%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 30−35
+1033%
|
3−4
−1033%
|
| Palworld | 24−27
+2400%
|
1−2
−2400%
|
This is how Pro Vega 56 and FirePro W2100 compete in popular games:
- Pro Vega 56 is 700% faster in 1080p
- Pro Vega 56 is 2750% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Forza Horizon 4, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Pro Vega 56 is 5100% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, Pro Vega 56 surpassed FirePro W2100 in all 53 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 28.95 | 2.17 |
| Recency | 14 August 2017 | 12 August 2014 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 2 GB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 210 Watt | 26 Watt |
Pro Vega 56 has a 1234% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.
FirePro W2100, on the other hand, has 708% lower power consumption.
The Radeon Pro Vega 56 is our recommended choice as it beats the FirePro W2100 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon Pro Vega 56 is a mobile workstation graphics card while FirePro W2100 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.
