Radeon RX Vega 9 vs FirePro S7150

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
S7000 S7150 S7150 x2 S9000 S9010 S9050 S9100 S9150 S9170 S9300 X2
VS
#ad 
Buy on Amazon
2 3 5 6 (Ryzen 2000/3000) 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000) 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) 9

Aggregate performance score

We've compared FirePro S7150 with Radeon RX Vega 9, including specs and performance data.

FirePro S7150
2016, $2,399
8 GB GDDR5, 150 Watt
9.01
+78.4%

S7150 outperforms RX Vega 9 by an impressive 78% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Contents

Share:
FirePro S7150 FirePro S7150
RX Vega 9 RX Vega 9

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking520669
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.25no data
Power efficiency4.6125.86
ArchitectureGCN 3.0 (2014−2019)Vega (2017−2020)
GPU code nameTongaVega Raven Ridge
Market segmentWorkstationLaptop
Release date1 February 2016 (9 years ago)26 October 2017 (8 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$2,399 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

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

no data

Performance to price scatter graph

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 cores2048576
Core clock speed920 MHzno data
Boost clock speedno data1300 MHz
Number of transistors5,000 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology28 nm14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)150 Watt15 Watt
Texture fill rate117.8no data
Floating-point processing power3.768 TFLOPSno data
ROPs32no data
TMUs128no data
L1 Cache512 KBno data
L2 Cache512 KBno data

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).

InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16no data
Length241 mmno data
Width1-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pinno data

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 typeGDDR5no data
Maximum RAM amount8 GBno data
Memory bus width256 Bitno data
Memory clock speed1250 MHzno data
Memory bandwidth160.0 GB/sno data
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 outputsno data

API and SDK support

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

DirectX12 (12_0)12_1
Shader Model6.3no data
OpenGL4.6no data
OpenCL2.0no data
Vulkan1.2.131-

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:

Full HD30−35
+66.7%
18
−66.7%

Cost per frame, $

1080p79.97no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Far Cry 5 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Fortnite 22
+0%
22
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Valorant 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Dota 2 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Far Cry 5 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Fortnite 16
+0%
16
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Metro Exodus 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 13
+0%
13
+0%
Valorant 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Dota 2 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Far Cry 5 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 8
+0%
8
+0%
Valorant 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 9
+0%
9
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Metro Exodus 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Valorant 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Far Cry 5 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Valorant 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Dota 2 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

This is how FirePro S7150 and RX Vega 9 compete in popular games:

  • FirePro S7150 is 67% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 61 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score 9.01 5.05
Recency 1 February 2016 26 October 2017
Chip lithography 28 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 150 Watt 15 Watt

FirePro S7150 has a 78.4% higher aggregate performance score.

RX Vega 9, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 900% lower power consumption.

The FirePro S7150 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon RX Vega 9 in performance tests.

Be aware that FirePro S7150 is a workstation graphics card while Radeon RX Vega 9 is a notebook one.

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.

AMD FirePro S7150
FirePro S7150
AMD Radeon RX Vega 9
Radeon RX Vega 9
Like
Like

Other comparisons

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

FirePro S7150 FirePro S7150
vs
T400 4 GB T400 4 GB
RX Vega 9 Radeon RX Vega 9
vs
GeForce 945M GeForce 945M
FirePro S7150 FirePro S7150
vs
GRID M60-1Q GRID M60-1Q
Pro WX 4100 Pro WX 4100
vs
RX 7800 XT RX 7800 XT
Pro WX 4100 Pro WX 4100
vs
Apple M3 Pro 14-Core GPU M3 Pro 14-Core GPU
S9300 X2 S9300 X2
vs
RX 5700 XT RX 5700 XT
S9300 X2 S9300 X2
vs
Xbox Series X 6nm GPU Xbox Series X 6nm GPU
FirePro S7150 S7150
vs
RX Vega 3 RX Vega 3
FirePro S7150 S7150
vs
RX Vega 2 RX Vega 2
FirePro S7150 S7150
vs
RX Vega 5 RX Vega 5
FirePro S7150 S7150
vs
RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server
S7150 x2 S7150 x2
vs
H800 PCIe 80 GB H800 PCIe 80 GB
S7150 x2 S7150 x2
vs
Arc B570 Arc B570

Community ratings

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

4.2 9 votes

Rate FirePro S7150 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6 29 votes

Rate Radeon RX Vega 9 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about FirePro S7150 or Radeon RX Vega 9, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.