Arc A550M vs FirePro S9000

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
D500 D700 S9000 S9010 S9050 S10000 S10000 Passive S10000 Passive 12GB W8000 W9000 Radeon Sky 700 Radeon Sky 900
VS
#ad 
Buy on Amazon
A350M A370M A380M A530M A550M A570M A730M A770M

Aggregate performance score

We've compared FirePro S9000 with Arc A550M, including specs and performance data.

FirePro S9000
2012, $2,499
6 GB GDDR5, 350 Watt
12.10

A550M outperforms S9000 by an impressive 87% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Contents

Share:
FirePro S9000 FirePro S9000
Arc A550M Arc A550M

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking447282
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.44no data
Power efficiency4.1428.98
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2012−2020)Generation 12.7 (2022−2023)
GPU code nameTahitiDG2-512
Market segmentWorkstationLaptop
Release date24 August 2012 (13 years ago)2022 (4 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$2,499 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 cores17922048
Core clock speed900 MHz900 MHz
Boost clock speedno data2050 MHz
Number of transistors4,313 million21,700 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)350 Watt60 Watt
Texture fill rate100.8262.4
Floating-point processing power3.226 TFLOPS8.397 TFLOPS
ROPs3264
TMUs112128
Tensor Coresno data256
Ray Tracing Coresno data16
L1 Cache448 KB3 MB
L2 Cache768 KB8 MB

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 supportPCIe 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x16
Length267 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Form factorfull height / full lengthno data
Supplementary power connectors1x 8-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 typeGDDR5GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount6 GB8 GB
Memory bus width384 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1375 MHz1750 MHz
Memory bandwidth264 GB/s224.0 GB/s
Shared memory--
Resizable BAR-+

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 Connectors1x DisplayPortPortable Device Dependent
DisplayPort count1no data
Dual-link DVI support+-

API and SDK support

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

DirectX12 (11_1)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model5.16.6
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.23.0
Vulkan1.2.1311.3
DLSS-+

Gaming performance

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

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Resident Evil 4 Remake 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Far Cry 5 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Fortnite 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Valorant 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 250−260
+0%
250−260
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Dota 2 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Far Cry 5 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Fortnite 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Metro Exodus 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Valorant 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Dota 2 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Far Cry 5 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Valorant 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Metro Exodus 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Valorant 190−200
+0%
190−200
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Far Cry 5 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Metro Exodus 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Valorant 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Dota 2 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Far Cry 5 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 60 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score 12.10 22.58
Maximum RAM amount 6 GB 8 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 6 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 350 Watt 60 Watt

Arc A550M has a 87% higher aggregate performance score, a 33% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 367% more advanced lithography process, and 483% lower power consumption.

The Arc A550M is our recommended choice as it beats the FirePro S9000 in performance tests.

Be aware that FirePro S9000 is a workstation graphics card while Arc A550M is a notebook one.

Other comparisons

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

FirePro S9000 FirePro S9000
vs
GRID M60-2Q GRID M60-2Q
Arc A550M Arc A550M
vs
RTX 3050 4GB Mobile GeForce RTX 3050 4GB Mobile
FirePro S9000 FirePro S9000
vs
CMP 30HX CMP 30HX
FirePro S9000 FirePro S9000
vs
Quadro4 980 XGL Quadro4 980 XGL
FirePro S9000 FirePro S9000
vs
Quadro2 Pro Quadro2 Pro
FirePro S9000 FirePro S9000
vs
R7 M520 Radeon R7 M520
FirePro S9000 FirePro S9000
vs
R7 A360 Radeon R7 A360
FirePro S9000 FirePro S9000
vs
Pro WX 9200 Radeon Pro WX 9200
FirePro S9000 FirePro S9000
vs
Pro W6300M Radeon Pro W6300M
FirePro S9000 FirePro S9000
vs
RTX 3050 Max-Q Refresh 6 GB GeForce RTX 3050 Max-Q Refresh 6 GB
FirePro S9000 FirePro S9000
vs
RTX 2000 Ada Generation RTX 2000 Ada Generation
FirePro W4000 FirePro W4000
vs
ATI HD 5450 PCIe x1 Radeon HD 5450 PCIe x1
FirePro W4000 FirePro W4000
vs
ATI SDR Radeon SDR

Community ratings

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

2.7 7 votes

Rate FirePro S9000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.9 100 votes

Rate Arc A550M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about FirePro S9000 or Arc A550M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.