FirePro W5000 vs Radeon R9 280X

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 280X with FirePro W5000, including specs and performance data.

R9 280X
2013
3 GB GDDR5, 250 Watt
15.13
+96%

R9 280X outperforms W5000 by an impressive 96% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking351522
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation5.551.46
Power efficiency4.217.16
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2011−2020)GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)
GPU code nameTahitiPitcairn
Market segmentDesktopWorkstation
Designreferenceno data
Release date8 October 2013 (11 years ago)7 August 2012 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$299 $599

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

R9 280X has 280% better value for money than FirePro W5000.

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 cores2048768
Core clock speedno data825 MHz
Boost clock speed1000 MHzno data
Number of transistors4,313 million2,800 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)250 Watt75 Watt
Texture fill rate128.039.60
Floating-point processing power4.096 TFLOPS1.267 TFLOPS
ROPs3232
TMUs12848

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 3.0PCIe 3.0
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Length275 mm183 mm
Width2-slot1-slot
Form factorno datafull height / half length
Supplementary power connectors1 x 6-pin + 1 x 8-pinNone

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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount3 GB2 GB
Memory bus width384 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speedno data800 MHz
Memory bandwidth288 GB/s102.4 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 Connectors2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort
Eyefinity+-
HDMI+-
DisplayPort support+-
DisplayPort countno data2
Dual-link DVI 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 compatibility

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

DirectXDirectX® 1212 (11_1)
Shader Model5.15.1
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan+1.2.131

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.

R9 280X 15.13
+96%
FirePro W5000 7.72

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.

R9 280X 5837
+96%
FirePro W5000 2978

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 HD64
+113%
30−35
−113%
4K31
+121%
14−16
−121%

Cost per frame, $

1080p4.6719.97
4K9.6542.79

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
+100%
12−14
−100%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 30−35
+113%
16−18
−113%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 24−27
+108%
12−14
−108%
Battlefield 5 45−50
+104%
24−27
−104%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 30−33
+114%
14−16
−114%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
+100%
12−14
−100%
Far Cry 5 35−40
+119%
16−18
−119%
Far Cry New Dawn 40−45
+128%
18−20
−128%
Forza Horizon 4 95−100
+96%
50−55
−96%
Hitman 3 27−30
+107%
14−16
−107%
Horizon Zero Dawn 75−80
+120%
35−40
−120%
Metro Exodus 50−55
+113%
24−27
−113%
Red Dead Redemption 2 40−45
+128%
18−20
−128%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 45−50
+104%
24−27
−104%
Watch Dogs: Legion 75−80
+123%
35−40
−123%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 30−35
+113%
16−18
−113%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 24−27
+108%
12−14
−108%
Battlefield 5 45−50
+104%
24−27
−104%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 30−33
+114%
14−16
−114%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
+100%
12−14
−100%
Far Cry 5 35−40
+119%
16−18
−119%
Far Cry New Dawn 40−45
+128%
18−20
−128%
Forza Horizon 4 95−100
+96%
50−55
−96%
Hitman 3 27−30
+107%
14−16
−107%
Horizon Zero Dawn 75−80
+120%
35−40
−120%
Metro Exodus 50−55
+113%
24−27
−113%
Red Dead Redemption 2 40−45
+128%
18−20
−128%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 45−50
+104%
24−27
−104%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 110
+100%
55−60
−100%
Watch Dogs: Legion 75−80
+123%
35−40
−123%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 30−35
+113%
16−18
−113%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 24−27
+108%
12−14
−108%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 30−33
+114%
14−16
−114%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
+100%
12−14
−100%
Far Cry 5 35−40
+119%
16−18
−119%
Forza Horizon 4 95−100
+96%
50−55
−96%
Hitman 3 27−30
+107%
14−16
−107%
Horizon Zero Dawn 75−80
+120%
35−40
−120%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 45−50
+104%
24−27
−104%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 20
+100%
10−11
−100%
Watch Dogs: Legion 75−80
+123%
35−40
−123%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 40−45
+128%
18−20
−128%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 27−30
+107%
14−16
−107%
Far Cry New Dawn 21−24
+130%
10−11
−130%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 14−16
+114%
7−8
−114%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 12−14
+100%
6−7
−100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 16−18
+100%
8−9
−100%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+100%
4−5
−100%
Far Cry 5 16−18
+113%
8−9
−113%
Forza Horizon 4 75−80
+97.5%
40−45
−97.5%
Hitman 3 18−20
+100%
9−10
−100%
Horizon Zero Dawn 30−35
+121%
14−16
−121%
Metro Exodus 27−30
+125%
12−14
−125%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 27−30
+125%
12−14
−125%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
+100%
8−9
−100%
Watch Dogs: Legion 90−95
+107%
45−50
−107%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 24−27
+108%
12−14
−108%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 14−16
+114%
7−8
−114%
Far Cry New Dawn 10−12
+120%
5−6
−120%
Hitman 3 10−12
+120%
5−6
−120%
Horizon Zero Dawn 75−80
+117%
35−40
−117%
Metro Exodus 14−16
+114%
7−8
−114%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
+100%
7−8
−100%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
+125%
4−5
−125%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 7−8
+133%
3−4
−133%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 8−9
+100%
4−5
−100%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Far Cry 5 8−9
+100%
4−5
−100%
Forza Horizon 4 20−22
+100%
10−11
−100%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 14−16
+114%
7−8
−114%
Watch Dogs: Legion 6−7
+100%
3−4
−100%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 14−16
+100%
7−8
−100%

This is how R9 280X and FirePro W5000 compete in popular games:

  • R9 280X is 113% faster in 1080p
  • R9 280X is 121% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 15.13 7.72
Recency 8 October 2013 7 August 2012
Maximum RAM amount 3 GB 2 GB
Power consumption (TDP) 250 Watt 75 Watt

R9 280X has a 96% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, and a 50% higher maximum VRAM amount.

FirePro W5000, on the other hand, has 233.3% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R9 280X is our recommended choice as it beats the FirePro W5000 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R9 280X is a desktop card while FirePro W5000 is a workstation one.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


AMD Radeon R9 280X
Radeon R9 280X
AMD FirePro W5000
FirePro W5000

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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

Community ratings

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


4.1 691 vote

Rate Radeon R9 280X on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 125 votes

Rate FirePro W5000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.