Radeon PRO W7700 vs ATI FireGL X3-256

VS

Primary details

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

Place in the rankingnot rated61
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data56.21
Power efficiencyno data18.29
ArchitectureR400 (2004−2008)RDNA 3.0 (2022−2024)
GPU code nameR420Navi 32
Market segmentWorkstationWorkstation
Release date3 August 2004 (20 years ago)13 November 2023 (1 year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$1,099 $999

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

Detailed specifications

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

Pipelines / CUDA coresno data3072
Core clock speed491 MHz1900 MHz
Boost clock speedno data2600 MHz
Number of transistors160 million28,100 million
Manufacturing process technology130 nm5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)57 Watt190 Watt
Texture fill rate5.892499.2
Floating-point processing powerno data31.95 TFLOPS
ROPs1296
TMUs12192
Ray Tracing Coresno data48

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).

InterfaceAGP 8xPCIe 4.0 x16
Lengthno data241 mm
Width1-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectors1x Molex1x 8-pin

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 typeGDDR3GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount256 MB16 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed454 MHz2250 MHz
Memory bandwidth29.06 GB/s576.0 GB/s

Connectivity and outputs

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display Connectors2x DVI, 1x S-Video4x DisplayPort 2.1

API compatibility

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

DirectX9.0b (9_2)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Modelno data6.7
OpenGL2.04.6
OpenCLN/A2.2
VulkanN/A1.3

Pros & cons summary


Recency 3 August 2004 13 November 2023
Maximum RAM amount 256 MB 16 GB
Chip lithography 130 nm 5 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 57 Watt 190 Watt

ATI FireGL X3-256 has 233.3% lower power consumption.

PRO W7700, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 19 years, a 6300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 2500% more advanced lithography process.

We couldn't decide between FireGL X3-256 and Radeon PRO W7700. We've got no test results to judge.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


ATI FireGL X3-256
FireGL X3-256
AMD Radeon PRO W7700
Radeon PRO W7700

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


5 1 vote

Rate FireGL X3-256 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.8 4 votes

Rate Radeon PRO W7700 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.