FirePro S7150 vs Radeon R9 280X
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R9 280X with FirePro S7150, including specs and performance data.
R9 280X outperforms S7150 by an impressive 55% 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 | 397 | 508 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 4.64 | 0.24 |
| Power efficiency | 4.25 | 4.58 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) | GCN 3.0 (2014−2019) |
| GPU code name | Tahiti | Tonga |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Design | reference | no data |
| Release date | 8 October 2013 (11 years ago) | 1 February 2016 (9 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $299 | $2,399 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
R9 280X has 1833% better value for money than FirePro S7150.
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 | 2048 | 2048 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 920 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1000 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 4,313 million | 5,000 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 150 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 128.0 | 117.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | 4.096 TFLOPS | 3.768 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 32 |
| TMUs | 128 | 128 |
| L1 Cache | 512 KB | 512 KB |
| L2 Cache | 768 KB | 512 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).
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 275 mm | 241 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1 x 6-pin + 1 x 8-pin | 1x 6-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 | 3 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 384 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 1250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 288 GB/s | 160.0 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 | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort | No outputs |
| Eyefinity | + | - |
| HDMI | + | - |
| DisplayPort support | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| AppAcceleration | + | - |
| CrossFire | + | - |
| FreeSync | + | - |
| HD3D | + | - |
| LiquidVR | + | - |
| TressFX | + | - |
| TrueAudio | + | - |
| UVD | + | - |
| DDMA audio | + | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | 12 (12_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.3 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | + | 1.2.131 |
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 | 65
+62.5%
| 40−45
−62.5%
|
| 4K | 31
+72.2%
| 18−21
−72.2%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 4.60
+1204%
| 59.98
−1204%
|
| 4K | 9.65
+1282%
| 133.28
−1282%
|
- R9 280X has 1204% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- R9 280X has 1282% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 80−85
+60%
|
50−55
−60%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−33
+66.7%
|
18−20
−66.7%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 24−27
+62.5%
|
16−18
−62.5%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65
+74.3%
|
35−40
−74.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 80−85
+60%
|
50−55
−60%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−33
+66.7%
|
18−20
−66.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45−50
+70.4%
|
27−30
−70.4%
|
| Fortnite | 158
+58%
|
100−105
−58%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+68.6%
|
35−40
−68.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 40−45
+63%
|
27−30
−63%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 24−27
+62.5%
|
16−18
−62.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 50−55
+73.3%
|
30−33
−73.3%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+58.7%
|
75−80
−58.7%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65
+74.3%
|
35−40
−74.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 80−85
+60%
|
50−55
−60%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 190−200
+60%
|
120−130
−60%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−33
+66.7%
|
18−20
−66.7%
|
| Dota 2 | 90−95
+65.5%
|
55−60
−65.5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45−50
+70.4%
|
27−30
−70.4%
|
| Fortnite | 60
+71.4%
|
35−40
−71.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+68.6%
|
35−40
−68.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 40−45
+63%
|
27−30
−63%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 54
+80%
|
30−33
−80%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 24−27
+62.5%
|
16−18
−62.5%
|
| Metro Exodus | 27−30
+61.1%
|
18−20
−61.1%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 50−55
+73.3%
|
30−33
−73.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 48
+60%
|
30−33
−60%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+58.7%
|
75−80
−58.7%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65
+74.3%
|
35−40
−74.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−33
+66.7%
|
18−20
−66.7%
|
| Dota 2 | 137
+61.2%
|
85−90
−61.2%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45−50
+70.4%
|
27−30
−70.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+68.6%
|
35−40
−68.6%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 24−27
+62.5%
|
16−18
−62.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 29
+61.1%
|
18−20
−61.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 20
+66.7%
|
12−14
−66.7%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+58.7%
|
75−80
−58.7%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 48
+60%
|
30−33
−60%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
+55.6%
|
18−20
−55.6%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 100−110
+63.1%
|
65−70
−63.1%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 21−24
+64.3%
|
14−16
−64.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 16−18
+70%
|
10−11
−70%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 130−140
+60%
|
85−90
−60%
|
| Valorant | 140−150
+62.2%
|
90−95
−62.2%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+62.5%
|
24−27
−62.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+71.4%
|
7−8
−71.4%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
+72.2%
|
18−20
−72.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
+61.9%
|
21−24
−61.9%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 14−16
+66.7%
|
9−10
−66.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
+75%
|
12−14
−75%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 30−35
+72.2%
|
18−20
−72.2%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
+66.7%
|
6−7
−66.7%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 27−30
+68.8%
|
16−18
−68.8%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 8−9
+60%
|
5−6
−60%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−11
+66.7%
|
6−7
−66.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18−20
+58.3%
|
12−14
−58.3%
|
| Valorant | 75−80
+56%
|
50−55
−56%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 20−22
+66.7%
|
12−14
−66.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
+66.7%
|
6−7
−66.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Dota 2 | 68
+70%
|
40−45
−70%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
+66.7%
|
9−10
−66.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
+71.4%
|
14−16
−71.4%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 8−9
+60%
|
5−6
−60%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+55.6%
|
9−10
−55.6%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 14−16
+55.6%
|
9−10
−55.6%
|
This is how R9 280X and FirePro S7150 compete in popular games:
- R9 280X is 63% faster in 1080p
- R9 280X is 72% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 13.20 | 8.53 |
| Recency | 8 October 2013 | 1 February 2016 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 3 GB | 8 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 150 Watt |
R9 280X has a 54.7% higher aggregate performance score.
FirePro S7150, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years, a 166.7% higher maximum VRAM amount, and 66.7% lower power consumption.
The Radeon R9 280X is our recommended choice as it beats the FirePro S7150 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R9 280X is a desktop graphics card while FirePro S7150 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.
