FirePro W8000 vs Radeon RX 470 Mobile
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX 470 Mobile with FirePro W8000, including specs and performance data.
RX 470 Mobile outperforms W8000 by an impressive 68% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 314 | 436 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 9.76 | 1.12 |
| Power efficiency | 14.70 | 3.29 |
| Architecture | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) | GCN 1.0 (2011−2020) |
| GPU code name | Ellesmere | Tahiti |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 4 August 2016 (8 years ago) | 14 June 2012 (12 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $549.99 | $1,599 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
RX 470 Mobile has 771% better value for money than FirePro W8000.
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 | 1792 |
| Core clock speed | 926 MHz | 900 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1074 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 5,700 million | 4,313 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 85 Watt | 225 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 137.5 | 100.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | 4.399 TFLOPS | 3.226 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 32 |
| TMUs | 128 | 112 |
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 | MXM-B (3.0) | 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 | 2x 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 | 8 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1750 MHz | 1375 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 224.0 GB/s | 176 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 | No outputs | 4x DisplayPort, 1x SDI |
| StereoOutput3D | - | + |
| DisplayPort count | no data | 4 |
| Dual-link DVI support | - | + |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| FreeSync | + | - |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 (11_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 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.
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 45−50
+87.5%
|
24−27
−87.5%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 95−100
+78.2%
|
55−60
−78.2%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+71.4%
|
21−24
−71.4%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 45−50
+87.5%
|
24−27
−87.5%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 70−75
+80%
|
40−45
−80%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 95−100
+78.2%
|
55−60
−78.2%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+71.4%
|
21−24
−71.4%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 55−60
+93.3%
|
30−33
−93.3%
|
| Fortnite | 90−95
+69.1%
|
55−60
−69.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 70−75
+75%
|
40−45
−75%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 50−55
+80%
|
30−33
−80%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 60−65
+82.9%
|
35−40
−82.9%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+77.3%
|
75−80
−77.3%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 45−50
+87.5%
|
24−27
−87.5%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 70−75
+80%
|
40−45
−80%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 95−100
+78.2%
|
55−60
−78.2%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 210−220
+80%
|
120−130
−80%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+71.4%
|
21−24
−71.4%
|
| Dota 2 | 100−110
+70%
|
60−65
−70%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 55−60
+93.3%
|
30−33
−93.3%
|
| Fortnite | 90−95
+69.1%
|
55−60
−69.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 70−75
+75%
|
40−45
−75%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 50−55
+80%
|
30−33
−80%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 60−65
+82.9%
|
35−40
−82.9%
|
| Metro Exodus | 35−40
+71.4%
|
21−24
−71.4%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 60−65
+82.9%
|
35−40
−82.9%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 45−50
+77.8%
|
27−30
−77.8%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+77.3%
|
75−80
−77.3%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 70−75
+80%
|
40−45
−80%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+71.4%
|
21−24
−71.4%
|
| Dota 2 | 100−110
+70%
|
60−65
−70%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 55−60
+93.3%
|
30−33
−93.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 70−75
+75%
|
40−45
−75%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 60−65
+82.9%
|
35−40
−82.9%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 45−50
+77.8%
|
27−30
−77.8%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+77.3%
|
75−80
−77.3%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 90−95
+69.1%
|
55−60
−69.1%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+94.4%
|
18−20
−94.4%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 120−130
+78.6%
|
70−75
−78.6%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 27−30
+81.3%
|
16−18
−81.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 21−24
+83.3%
|
12−14
−83.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 160−170
+70.5%
|
95−100
−70.5%
|
| Valorant | 160−170
+75.8%
|
95−100
−75.8%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+77.8%
|
27−30
−77.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+77.8%
|
9−10
−77.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
+81%
|
21−24
−81%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+79.2%
|
24−27
−79.2%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27−30
+75%
|
16−18
−75%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 35−40
+85.7%
|
21−24
−85.7%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 14−16
+75%
|
8−9
−75%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+75%
|
8−9
−75%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−35
+72.2%
|
18−20
−72.2%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12−14
+85.7%
|
7−8
−85.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
+71.4%
|
14−16
−71.4%
|
| Valorant | 95−100
+74.5%
|
55−60
−74.5%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
+78.6%
|
14−16
−78.6%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+75%
|
8−9
−75%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
| Dota 2 | 60−65
+71.4%
|
35−40
−71.4%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18−20
+80%
|
10−11
−80%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−33
+87.5%
|
16−18
−87.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
+70%
|
10−11
−70%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 16−18
+70%
|
10−11
−70%
|
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 15.68 | 9.31 |
| Recency | 4 August 2016 | 14 June 2012 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 85 Watt | 225 Watt |
RX 470 Mobile has a 68.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 164.7% lower power consumption.
The Radeon RX 470 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the FirePro W8000 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon RX 470 Mobile is a notebook card while FirePro W8000 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.
