Radeon Pro V620 vs FirePro W2100
Aggregate performance score
We've compared FirePro W2100 and Radeon Pro V620, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
Pro V620 outperforms W2100 by a whopping 1630% 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 | 909 | 136 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 6.38 | 9.56 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025) |
| GPU code name | Oland | Navi 21 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Workstation |
| Release date | 12 August 2014 (11 years ago) | 4 November 2021 (4 years ago) |
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 cores | 320 | 4608 |
| Core clock speed | 630 MHz | 1825 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 680 MHz | 2200 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 950 million | 26,800 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 26 Watt | 300 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 13.60 | 633.6 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.4352 TFLOPS | 20.28 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 128 |
| TMUs | 20 | 288 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 72 |
| L0 Cache | no data | 1.1 MB |
| L1 Cache | 80 KB | 1 MB |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 4 MB |
| L3 Cache | no data | 128 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 support | PCIe 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 267 mm |
| Width | 1-slot | 2-slot |
| Form factor | low profile / half length | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 2x 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 type | DDR3 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 32 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 900 MHz | 2000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 28.8 GB/s | 512.0 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 Connectors | 2x DisplayPort | No outputs |
| DisplayPort count | 2 | no data |
| 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 (11_1) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.2 |
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.
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 | 12
−1567%
| 200−210
+1567%
|
| 4K | 2
−1400%
| 30−35
+1400%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
−1600%
|
85−90
+1600%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−1600%
|
85−90
+1600%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
−1567%
|
100−105
+1567%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
−1600%
|
85−90
+1600%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−1600%
|
85−90
+1600%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 7−8
−1614%
|
120−130
+1614%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−1567%
|
100−105
+1567%
|
| Fortnite | 10−11
−1600%
|
170−180
+1600%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−1567%
|
200−210
+1567%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 5−6
−1600%
|
85−90
+1600%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−1567%
|
200−210
+1567%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
−1607%
|
700−750
+1607%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
−1567%
|
100−105
+1567%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
−1600%
|
85−90
+1600%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 40−45
−1605%
|
750−800
+1605%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−1600%
|
85−90
+1600%
|
| Dota 2 | 21−24
−1422%
|
350−400
+1422%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 7−8
−1614%
|
120−130
+1614%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−1567%
|
100−105
+1567%
|
| Fortnite | 10−11
−1600%
|
170−180
+1600%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−1567%
|
200−210
+1567%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 5−6
−1600%
|
85−90
+1600%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 4−5
−1525%
|
65−70
+1525%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
−1525%
|
65−70
+1525%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−1567%
|
200−210
+1567%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
−1567%
|
150−160
+1567%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
−1607%
|
700−750
+1607%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
−1567%
|
100−105
+1567%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−1600%
|
85−90
+1600%
|
| Dota 2 | 21−24
−1422%
|
350−400
+1422%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 7−8
−1614%
|
120−130
+1614%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−1567%
|
100−105
+1567%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−1567%
|
200−210
+1567%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−1567%
|
200−210
+1567%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
−1567%
|
150−160
+1567%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
−1607%
|
700−750
+1607%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 10−11
−1600%
|
170−180
+1600%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
−1600%
|
85−90
+1600%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 16−18
−1588%
|
270−280
+1588%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
−1567%
|
350−400
+1567%
|
| Valorant | 16−18
−1606%
|
290−300
+1606%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−1500%
|
16−18
+1500%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 5−6
−1600%
|
85−90
+1600%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
−1567%
|
50−55
+1567%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−1600%
|
85−90
+1600%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−1525%
|
65−70
+1525%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 4−5
−1525%
|
65−70
+1525%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−1567%
|
250−260
+1567%
|
| Valorant | 10−12
−1627%
|
190−200
+1627%
|
4K
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 5−6
−1600%
|
85−90
+1600%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 1−2
−1500%
|
16−18
+1500%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−1500%
|
16−18
+1500%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−1500%
|
16−18
+1500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
−1567%
|
50−55
+1567%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4
−1567%
|
50−55
+1567%
|
This is how FirePro W2100 and Pro V620 compete in popular games:
- Pro V620 is 1567% faster in 1080p
- Pro V620 is 1400% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.16 | 37.36 |
| Recency | 12 August 2014 | 4 November 2021 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 32 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 26 Watt | 300 Watt |
FirePro W2100 has 1053.8% lower power consumption.
Pro V620, on the other hand, has a 1629.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 1500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 300% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon Pro V620 is our recommended choice as it beats the FirePro W2100 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
