FirePro W9000 vs Radeon HD 7970M Crossfire
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 7970M Crossfire with FirePro W9000, including specs and performance data.
W9000 outperforms HD 7970M Crossfire by a minimal 2% 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 | 395 | 390 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.41 |
| Power efficiency | 5.54 | 4.12 |
| Architecture | GCN (2012−2015) | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) |
| GPU code name | Wimbledon XT | Tahiti |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 1 May 2012 (13 years ago) | 14 June 2012 (13 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $3,999 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
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 cores | 2560 | 2048 |
| Core clock speed | 850 MHz | 975 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 4,313 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 200 Watt | 350 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 124.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 3.994 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 32 |
| TMUs | no data | 128 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 512 KB |
| L2 Cache | no data | 768 KB |
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).
| Laptop size | large | no data |
| Bus support | no data | PCIe 3.0 |
| Interface | no data | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 279 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Form factor | no data | full height / full length |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 6-pin + 1x 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 | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 6 GB |
| Memory bus width | 2x 256 Bit | 384 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 4800 MHz | 1375 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 264 GB/s |
| 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 Connectors | no data | 6x mini-DisplayPort, 1x SDI |
| StereoOutput3D | - | + |
| Dual-link DVI support | - | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 | 12 (11_1) |
| Shader Model | no data | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.2.131 |
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:
| 900p | 132
+1.5%
| 130−140
−1.5%
|
| Full HD | 102
+2%
| 100−110
−2%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 39.99 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 80−85
+3.8%
|
80−85
−3.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
+3.3%
|
30−33
−3.3%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65
+5%
|
60−65
−5%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 80−85
+3.8%
|
80−85
−3.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
+3.3%
|
30−33
−3.3%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45−50
+6.7%
|
45−50
−6.7%
|
| Fortnite | 80−85
+3.8%
|
80−85
−3.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 60−65
+1.7%
|
60−65
−1.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 45−50
+2.2%
|
45−50
−2.2%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 50−55
−1.9%
|
55−60
+1.9%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
+1.7%
|
120−130
−1.7%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65
+5%
|
60−65
−5%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 80−85
+3.8%
|
80−85
−3.8%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 190−200
−1.5%
|
200−210
+1.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
+3.3%
|
30−33
−3.3%
|
| Dota 2 | 90−95
+3.3%
|
90−95
−3.3%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45−50
+6.7%
|
45−50
−6.7%
|
| Fortnite | 80−85
+3.8%
|
80−85
−3.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 60−65
+1.7%
|
60−65
−1.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 45−50
+2.2%
|
45−50
−2.2%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 30−35
+3.3%
|
30−33
−3.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 50−55
−1.9%
|
55−60
+1.9%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 35−40
+11.4%
|
35−40
−11.4%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
+1.7%
|
120−130
−1.7%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65
+5%
|
60−65
−5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
+3.3%
|
30−33
−3.3%
|
| Dota 2 | 90−95
+3.3%
|
90−95
−3.3%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45−50
+6.7%
|
45−50
−6.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 60−65
+1.7%
|
60−65
−1.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 50−55
−1.9%
|
55−60
+1.9%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 35−40
+11.4%
|
35−40
−11.4%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
+1.7%
|
120−130
−1.7%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 80−85
+3.8%
|
80−85
−3.8%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
+3.7%
|
27−30
−3.7%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 100−110
−0.9%
|
110−120
+0.9%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
| Valorant | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+2.5%
|
40−45
−2.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+8.3%
|
12−14
−8.3%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 30−33
+0%
|
30−33
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
+6.7%
|
30−33
−6.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+2.9%
|
35−40
−2.9%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 30−35
+10%
|
30−33
−10%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+10%
|
10−11
−10%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−12
+10%
|
10−11
−10%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 20−22
+11.1%
|
18−20
−11.1%
|
| Valorant | 80−85
+1.3%
|
80−85
−1.3%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+10%
|
10−11
−10%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 50−55
+6%
|
50−55
−6%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
+4.2%
|
24−27
−4.2%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
This is how HD 7970M Crossfire and FirePro W9000 compete in popular games:
- HD 7970M Crossfire is 2% faster in 900p
- HD 7970M Crossfire is 2% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 14.44 | 14.72 |
| Recency | 1 May 2012 | 14 June 2012 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 200 Watt | 350 Watt |
HD 7970M Crossfire has 75% lower power consumption.
FirePro W9000, on the other hand, has a 1.9% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 1 month.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Radeon HD 7970M Crossfire and FirePro W9000.
Be aware that Radeon HD 7970M Crossfire is a notebook graphics card while FirePro W9000 is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
