FirePro S10000 vs Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000)
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) with FirePro S10000, including specs and performance data.
S10000 outperforms 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) by a substantial 31% 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 | 545 | 461 |
| Place by popularity | 28 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.24 |
| Power efficiency | 42.45 | 2.22 |
| Architecture | Vega (2017−2020) | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) |
| GPU code name | Vega | Tahiti |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 7 January 2020 (5 years ago) | 12 November 2012 (13 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $3,599 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
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 | 512 | 4096 ×2 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 825 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2100 MHz | 950 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 4,313 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 7 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 750 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 106.4 ×2 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 3.405 TFLOPS ×2 |
| ROPs | no data | 32 ×2 |
| TMUs | no data | 112 ×2 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 448 KB |
| L2 Cache | no data | 768 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 | no data | PCIe 3.0 |
| Interface | no data | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 305 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Form factor | no data | full height / full length |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 2x 8-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 | no data | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 6 GB ×2 |
| Memory bus width | no data | 384 Bit ×2 |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 1250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 480 GB/s ×2 |
| 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 data | 1x DVI, 4x mini-DisplayPort |
| Dual-link DVI support | - | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12_1 | 12 (11_1) |
| Shader Model | no data | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | - | 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 | 22
−22.7%
| 27−30
+22.7%
|
| 1440p | 16
−12.5%
| 18−21
+12.5%
|
| 4K | 10
−20%
| 12−14
+20%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 133.30 |
| 1440p | no data | 199.94 |
| 4K | no data | 299.92 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 63
−27%
|
80−85
+27%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18
−16.7%
|
21−24
+16.7%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 39
−28.2%
|
50−55
+28.2%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 43
−27.9%
|
55−60
+27.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 13
−23.1%
|
16−18
+23.1%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 30−35
−17.6%
|
40−45
+17.6%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21
−28.6%
|
27−30
+28.6%
|
| Fortnite | 47
−27.7%
|
60−65
+27.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
−21.6%
|
45−50
+21.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 33
−21.2%
|
40−45
+21.2%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−33
−16.7%
|
35−40
+16.7%
|
| Valorant | 85−90
−29.4%
|
110−120
+29.4%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 33
−21.2%
|
40−45
+21.2%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 19
−26.3%
|
24−27
+26.3%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 48
−25%
|
60−65
+25%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
| Dota 2 | 51
−27.5%
|
65−70
+27.5%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 30−35
−17.6%
|
40−45
+17.6%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 20
−20%
|
24−27
+20%
|
| Fortnite | 31
−29%
|
40−45
+29%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
−21.6%
|
45−50
+21.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 28
−25%
|
35−40
+25%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 18
−16.7%
|
21−24
+16.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 16
−12.5%
|
18−20
+12.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−33
−16.7%
|
35−40
+16.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21
−28.6%
|
27−30
+28.6%
|
| Valorant | 85−90
−29.4%
|
110−120
+29.4%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 30
−16.7%
|
35−40
+16.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
| Dota 2 | 48
−25%
|
60−65
+25%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 30−35
−17.6%
|
40−45
+17.6%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 19
−26.3%
|
24−27
+26.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
−21.6%
|
45−50
+21.6%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−33
−16.7%
|
35−40
+16.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14
−28.6%
|
18−20
+28.6%
|
| Valorant | 37
−21.6%
|
45−50
+21.6%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 18
−16.7%
|
21−24
+16.7%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
−12.5%
|
18−20
+12.5%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 21
−28.6%
|
27−30
+28.6%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 9
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10
−20%
|
12−14
+20%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 22
−22.7%
|
27−30
+22.7%
|
| Valorant | 90−95
−27.7%
|
120−130
+27.7%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 21
−28.6%
|
27−30
+28.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 16−18
−12.5%
|
18−20
+12.5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16
−12.5%
|
18−20
+12.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 20−22
−20%
|
24−27
+20%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
−16.7%
|
14−16
+16.7%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 16−18
−23.5%
|
21−24
+23.5%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 10
−20%
|
12−14
+20%
|
| Metro Exodus | 6
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
−25%
|
10−11
+25%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
−25%
|
55−60
+25%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 9−10
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 18
−16.7%
|
21−24
+16.7%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 7−8
−28.6%
|
9−10
+28.6%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8
−25%
|
10−11
+25%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
−28.6%
|
18−20
+28.6%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−25%
|
10−11
+25%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 8−9
−25%
|
10−11
+25%
|
This is how RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) and S10000 compete in popular games:
- S10000 is 23% faster in 1080p
- S10000 is 13% faster in 1440p
- S10000 is 20% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 8.26 | 10.80 |
| Recency | 7 January 2020 | 12 November 2012 |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 750 Watt |
RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) has an age advantage of 7 years, a 300% more advanced lithography process, and 4900% lower power consumption.
S10000, on the other hand, has a 30.8% higher aggregate performance score.
The FirePro S10000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is a notebook graphics card while FirePro S10000 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.
