FirePro D700 vs Radeon RX 480
Aggregate performance score
Radeon RX 480 outperforms FirePro D700 by an impressive 61% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 232 | 350 |
| Place by popularity | 97 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 11.58 | 5.18 |
| Architecture | Polaris (2016−2019) | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) |
| GPU code name | Polaris 10 Ellesmere | Tahiti |
| GCN generation | 4th Gen | no data |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Design | reference | no data |
| Release date | 29 June 2016 (7 years ago) | 18 January 2014 (10 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $229 | no data |
| Current price | $174 (0.8x MSRP) | $413 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
RX 480 has 124% better value for money than FirePro D700.
Detailed specifications
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 2304 | 2048 |
| Compute units | 36 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 1120 MHz | 850 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1266 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 5,700 million | 4,313 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 274 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 182.3 | 108.8 |
| Floating-point performance | 5,834 gflops | 3,482 gflops |
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 | n/a | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 241 mm | 279 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin | no data |
| Bridgeless CrossFire | 1 | no data |
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 | 6 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 384 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 8000 MHz | 5480 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 224 GB/s | 263.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | no data |
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 | 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort | 6x mini-DisplayPort, 1x SDI |
| Eyefinity | 1 | no data |
| HDMI | 2.0 | no data |
| DisplayPort support | 1.4HDR | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| AppAcceleration | n/a | no data |
| CrossFire | 1 | no data |
| Enduro | n/a | no data |
| FRTC | 1 | no data |
| FreeSync | + | no data |
| HD3D | n/a | no data |
| LiquidVR | 1 | no data |
| PowerTune | + | no data |
| TressFX | 1 | no data |
| TrueAudio | n/a | no data |
| ZeroCore | + | no data |
| UVD | + | no data |
| VCE | + | no data |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | 12 (11_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | + | 1.2.131 |
| Mantle | n/a | no data |
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 | 80
+77.8%
| 45−50
−77.8%
|
| 1440p | 49
+63.3%
| 30−35
−63.3%
|
| 4K | 38
+81%
| 21−24
−81%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+71.4%
|
21−24
−71.4%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 58
+65.7%
|
35−40
−65.7%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 35−40
+81%
|
21−24
−81%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 70−75
+62.2%
|
45−50
−62.2%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 45−50
+63.3%
|
30−33
−63.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+71.4%
|
21−24
−71.4%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 55−60
+83.3%
|
30−33
−83.3%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 60−65
+74.3%
|
35−40
−74.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 100
+66.7%
|
60−65
−66.7%
|
| Hitman 3 | 50−55
+80%
|
30−33
−80%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 70−75
+64.4%
|
45−50
−64.4%
|
| Metro Exodus | 93
+69.1%
|
55−60
−69.1%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 60−65
+71.4%
|
35−40
−71.4%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 65−70
+65%
|
40−45
−65%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 40−45
+75%
|
24−27
−75%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 49
+63.3%
|
30−33
−63.3%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 35−40
+81%
|
21−24
−81%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 48
+77.8%
|
27−30
−77.8%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 45−50
+63.3%
|
30−33
−63.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+71.4%
|
21−24
−71.4%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 51
+70%
|
30−33
−70%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 31
+72.2%
|
18−20
−72.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 93
+69.1%
|
55−60
−69.1%
|
| Hitman 3 | 50−55
+80%
|
30−33
−80%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 70−75
+64.4%
|
45−50
−64.4%
|
| Metro Exodus | 65−70
+65%
|
40−45
−65%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 60−65
+71.4%
|
35−40
−71.4%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 27
+68.8%
|
16−18
−68.8%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 78
+73.3%
|
45−50
−73.3%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 40−45
+75%
|
24−27
−75%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 35
+66.7%
|
21−24
−66.7%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 35−40
+81%
|
21−24
−81%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 45−50
+63.3%
|
30−33
−63.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+71.4%
|
21−24
−71.4%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45
+66.7%
|
27−30
−66.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 77
+71.1%
|
45−50
−71.1%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 70−75
+64.4%
|
45−50
−64.4%
|
| Metro Exodus | 69
+72.5%
|
40−45
−72.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 44
+63%
|
27−30
−63%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 40−45
+75%
|
24−27
−75%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 60−65
+71.4%
|
35−40
−71.4%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 65
+62.5%
|
40−45
−62.5%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 50
+66.7%
|
30−33
−66.7%
|
| Hitman 3 | 30−35
+77.8%
|
18−20
−77.8%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 21
+75%
|
12−14
−75%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 24−27
+71.4%
|
14−16
−71.4%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 21−24
+75%
|
12−14
−75%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 27−30
+61.1%
|
18−20
−61.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+75%
|
8−9
−75%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
+81%
|
21−24
−81%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+63%
|
27−30
−63%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 45−50
+70.4%
|
27−30
−70.4%
|
| Metro Exodus | 50
+66.7%
|
30−33
−66.7%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 45−50
+74.1%
|
27−30
−74.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
+62.5%
|
16−18
−62.5%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 16−18
+77.8%
|
9−10
−77.8%
|
4K
High Preset
| Far Cry 5 | 39
+62.5%
|
24−27
−62.5%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 25
+78.6%
|
14−16
−78.6%
|
| Hitman 3 | 16−18
+70%
|
10−11
−70%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 24−27
+78.6%
|
14−16
−78.6%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 18
+80%
|
10−11
−80%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27
+68.8%
|
16−18
−68.8%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 17
+70%
|
10−11
−70%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 12−14
+71.4%
|
7−8
−71.4%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
+62.5%
|
16−18
−62.5%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 16−18
+70%
|
10−11
−70%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−33
+66.7%
|
18−20
−66.7%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 24−27
+78.6%
|
14−16
−78.6%
|
| Metro Exodus | 26
+62.5%
|
16−18
−62.5%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 9−10
+80%
|
5−6
−80%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 18−20
+90%
|
10−11
−90%
|
This is how RX 480 and FirePro D700 compete in popular games:
- RX 480 is 78% faster in 1080p
- RX 480 is 63% faster in 1440p
- RX 480 is 81% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 22.31 | 13.86 |
| Recency | 29 June 2016 | 18 January 2014 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 6 GB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 274 Watt |
The Radeon RX 480 is our recommended choice as it beats the FirePro D700 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon RX 480 is a desktop card while FirePro D700 is a workstation 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.
