FirePro D500 vs Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000)
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) with FirePro D500, including specs and performance data.
D500 outperforms RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) by a whopping 137% 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 | 703 | 471 |
| Place by popularity | 46 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 21.09 | 2.74 |
| Architecture | Vega (2017−2020) | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) |
| GPU code name | Vega Raven Ridge | Tahiti |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 26 October 2017 (7 years ago) | 18 January 2014 (11 years ago) |
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 | 512 | 1536 |
| Core clock speed | 300 MHz | 725 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1200 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 9,800 million | 4,313 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 274 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 57.60 | 69.60 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.843 TFLOPS | 2.227 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 32 |
| TMUs | 32 | 96 |
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).
| Interface | IGP | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 279 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 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 | System Shared | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 3 GB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 384 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 1270 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 243.8 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 outputs | 6x mini-DisplayPort, 1x SDI |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (11_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2 | 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:
| Full HD | 18
−122%
| 40−45
+122%
|
| 4K | 10
−110%
| 21−24
+110%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
−122%
|
40−45
+122%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9
−133%
|
21−24
+133%
|
| God of War | 10−11
−110%
|
21−24
+110%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 24
−129%
|
55−60
+129%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
−122%
|
40−45
+122%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9
−133%
|
21−24
+133%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12
−125%
|
27−30
+125%
|
| Fortnite | 30
−133%
|
70−75
+133%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 26
−131%
|
60−65
+131%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 17
−135%
|
40−45
+135%
|
| God of War | 10−11
−110%
|
21−24
+110%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 17
−135%
|
40−45
+135%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
−136%
|
130−140
+136%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 22
−127%
|
50−55
+127%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
−122%
|
40−45
+122%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 42
−126%
|
95−100
+126%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6
−133%
|
14−16
+133%
|
| Dota 2 | 38
−137%
|
90−95
+137%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10
−110%
|
21−24
+110%
|
| Fortnite | 19
−137%
|
45−50
+137%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30
−133%
|
70−75
+133%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−12
−118%
|
24−27
+118%
|
| God of War | 10−11
−110%
|
21−24
+110%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 13
−131%
|
30−33
+131%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7
−129%
|
16−18
+129%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14
−114%
|
30−33
+114%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 13
−131%
|
30−33
+131%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
−136%
|
130−140
+136%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 23
−117%
|
50−55
+117%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5
−100%
|
10−11
+100%
|
| Dota 2 | 35
−129%
|
80−85
+129%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9
−133%
|
21−24
+133%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 23
−117%
|
50−55
+117%
|
| God of War | 10−11
−110%
|
21−24
+110%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14
−114%
|
30−33
+114%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8
−125%
|
18−20
+125%
|
| Valorant | 15
−133%
|
35−40
+133%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 10
−110%
|
21−24
+110%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−125%
|
18−20
+125%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 30−35
−134%
|
75−80
+134%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 4−5
−125%
|
9−10
+125%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
−133%
|
7−8
+133%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
−127%
|
75−80
+127%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
−122%
|
100−105
+122%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−133%
|
7−8
+133%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
−129%
|
16−18
+129%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
−110%
|
21−24
+110%
|
| God of War | 3−4
−133%
|
7−8
+133%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−100%
|
10−11
+100%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 8−9
−125%
|
18−20
+125%
|
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
−119%
|
35−40
+119%
|
| Valorant | 21−24
−114%
|
45−50
+114%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 6
−133%
|
14−16
+133%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Dota 2 | 15
−133%
|
35−40
+133%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
−133%
|
7−8
+133%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9
−133%
|
21−24
+133%
|
| God of War | 3−4
−133%
|
7−8
+133%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
−125%
|
9−10
+125%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 4−5
−125%
|
9−10
+125%
|
This is how RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) and FirePro D500 compete in popular games:
- FirePro D500 is 122% faster in 1080p
- FirePro D500 is 110% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 4.15 | 9.85 |
| Recency | 26 October 2017 | 18 January 2014 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 274 Watt |
RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) has an age advantage of 3 years, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 1726.7% lower power consumption.
FirePro D500, on the other hand, has a 137.3% higher aggregate performance score.
The FirePro D500 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) is a notebook graphics card while FirePro D500 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.
