GeForce GTX 590 vs FirePro W8000
Aggregate performance score
We've compared FirePro W8000 with GeForce GTX 590, including specs and performance data.
W8000 outperforms GTX 590 by a significant 24% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 425 | 494 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.08 | 0.78 |
| Power efficiency | 3.29 | 1.63 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2011−2020) | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | Tahiti | GF110 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 14 June 2012 (12 years ago) | 24 March 2011 (13 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $1,599 | $699 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
FirePro W8000 has 38% better value for money than GTX 590.
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 | 1792 | 1024 |
| Core clock speed | 900 MHz | 607 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 4,313 million | 3,000 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 225 Watt | 365 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 97 °C |
| Texture fill rate | 100.8 | 38.91 |
| Floating-point processing power | 3.226 TFLOPS | 1.244 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 48 |
| TMUs | 112 | 64 |
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 | 16x PCI-E 2.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 279 mm | 279 mm |
| Height | no data | 4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm) |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Form factor | full height / full length | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 6-pin | 2x 8-pin |
| SLI options | - | + |
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 | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 3072 MB (1536 MB per GPU) |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 768-bit (384-bit per GPU) |
| Memory clock speed | 1375 MHz | 1707 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 176 GB/s | 327.7 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
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 Connectors | 4x DisplayPort, 1x SDI | Three Dual Link DVI-IMini DisplayPort |
| Multi monitor support | no data | + |
| HDMI | - | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
| StereoOutput3D | + | - |
| DisplayPort count | 4 | no data |
| Dual-link DVI support | + | - |
| Audio input for HDMI | no data | Internal |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.2 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | N/A |
| CUDA | - | + |
Synthetic benchmark performance
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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
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:
| 900p | 55−60
+17%
| 47
−17%
|
| Full HD | 130−140
+19.3%
| 109
−19.3%
|
| 1200p | 130−140
+16.1%
| 112
−16.1%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 12.30 | 6.41 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
This is how FirePro W8000 and GTX 590 compete in popular games:
- FirePro W8000 is 17% faster in 900p
- FirePro W8000 is 19% faster in 1080p
- FirePro W8000 is 16% faster in 1200p
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 72 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 10.77 | 8.67 |
| Recency | 14 June 2012 | 24 March 2011 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 3072 MB (1536 MB per GPU) |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 225 Watt | 365 Watt |
FirePro W8000 has a 24.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, a 33.3% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 42.9% more advanced lithography process, and 62.2% lower power consumption.
The FirePro W8000 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 590 in performance tests.
Be aware that FirePro W8000 is a workstation graphics card while GeForce GTX 590 is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
