AMD FirePro V8700: High-End Workstation Graphics
Table of contents
- 1. Introduction
- 2. FirePro V8700 Hardware Details: DisplayPort Times Two
- 3. Software: Driver Features
- 4. Test Configuration
- 5. Maya Benchmarks
AMD's RV770 graphics processor, so well-known for its use in gaming variants of the Radeon HD 4870, is now being used in the company's workstation graphics cards. At the same time, AMD has stepped away from its well-known FireGL brand; the most current professional graphics adapters now carry a FirePro label. Tom's Hardware has been lucky enough to score an early production model, the FirePro V8700, for comprehensive benchmarking.
The FirePro boards also mark a complete switchover by AMD from 80 to 55 nanometer manufacturing technology. Buyers should rejoice in that this means reduced power consumption, and correspondingly quieter cooling fans. But can a smaller die size and related technological advancements also improve performance?
Price is certainly a key factor here. At a price of $930 at Newegg, the V8700 is an astounding $284 cheaper than its predecessor, the FireGL V8600. Until this product hit the market, AMD's ATI division had always placed great emphasis on maintaining price-performance ratios across similar products of its own design.
Nvidia has historically been able to outperform similar ATI products at the highest end of its product offerings. These days, Nvidia buyers must be willing to settle for performance parity instead--for example, see our previous article, "Pro Graphics: Seven Cards Compared".
It's not completely clear to us why ATI has suddenly dropped the GL suffix from its Fire brand names, replacing that portion of that name with "Pro" instead. In discussions with product managers at ATI, we were repeatedly informed that "Pro" stands for "Professional" and thus better speaks to the goals of the workstation graphics group. Nevertheless, we believe that it can be risky to mess around with established brand names. Perhaps it makes more sense to see this move as a way of de-emphasizing differences between OpenGL and DirectX technologies? Either way, ATI has decided to switch its branding completely from FireGL to FirePro.
Market Overview
| Workstation Graphics Cards and their Mainstream Equivalents | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Workstation- Model | Chip- Basis | Fab | Mainstream- Equivalent | Graphics RAM | 3-Pin Stereo | Display Port |
| ATI FirePro V8700 | RV770 | 55 nm | Radeon HD 4870 | 1024 MB GDDR5 | yes | yes |
| ATI FireGL V8600 | R600 | 80 nm | Radeon HD 2900 XT | 1024 MB GDDR4 | yes | no |
| ATI FireGL V7700 | RV670 | 55 nm | Radeon HD 3850 | 512 MB GDDR4 | yes | yes |
| ATI FireGL V7600 | R600 | 80 nm | Radeon HD 2900 | 512 MB GDDR3 | yes | no |
| ATI FireGL V5600 | RV630 | 65 nm | Radeon HD 2600 XT | 512 MB GDDR4 | no | no |
| Nvidia Quadro FX 5600 | G80 | 90 nm | GeForce 8800 | 1536 MB GDDR3 | yes | no |
| Nvidia Quadro FX 4600 | G80 | 90 nm | GeForce 8800 | 768 MB GDDR3 | yes | no |
| Nvidia Quadro FX 1700 | G84 | 80 nm | GeForce 8600 | 512 MB DDR2 | yes | no |
| Workstation- Model | Memory Bandwidth | DirectX | OpenGL | Shader Model | Core Clock | Memory Clock | Pixel and Vertex Processing |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ATI FirePro V8700 | 115 GB/s | 10.1 | 2.1 | 4.0 | 750 MHz | 900 MHz | 800 SPUs |
| ATI FireGL V8600 | 111 GB/s | 10 | 2.1 | 4.0 | 675 MHz | 868 MHz | 320 SPUs |
| ATI FireGL V7700 | 72.0 GB/s | 10.1 | 2.1 | 4.0 | 775 MHz | 1125 MHz | 320 SPUs |
| ATI FireGL V7600 | 51.0 GB/s | 10 | 2.1 | 4.0 | 500 MHz | 510 MHz | 320 SPUs |
| ATI FireGL V5600 | 35.1 GB/s | 10 | 2.1 | 4.0 | 800 MHz | 1100 MHz | 120 SPUs |
| Nvidia Quadro FX 5600 | 76.8 GB/s | 10 | 2.1 | 4.0 | 600 MHz | 800 MHz | 112 SPUs |
| Nvidia Quadro FX 4600 | 67.2 GB/s | 10 | 2.1 | 4.0 | 500 MHz | 700 MHz | 112 SPUs |
| Nvidia Quadro FX 1700 | 12.8 GB/s | 10 | 2.1 | 4.0 | 460 MHz | 400 MHz | 32 SPUs |
Legend: SPUs = Stream Processing Units
In this context, we also think it's wise to describe a couple of interesting software initiatives. When it comes to Nvidia's CUDA (Computer Unified Device Architecture) we can offer a comprehensive article. On the other hand, the competition offers its own AMD Stream Computing. We dig into this more deeply on the next page, and do likewise for the ATI FirePro V8700 hardware details.
Latest Graphics Cards News
- 20/05 – Qualcomm Hires Former AMD CTO Demers
- 18/05 – Nvidia Responds to GeForce 600 Series V-Sync Stuttering Issue
- 18/05 – Behold: Here Are The First Unreal Engine 4 Screens
- 17/05 – Nvidia Debuts GK110-based 7.1 Billion Transistor Super GPU
- 17/05 – GE Announces Kepler Graphics Card for Military and Aviation
Latest Graphics Cards reviews
- 18/05 – Best Gaming CPUs For The Money: May 2012
- 10/05 – Best Graphics Cards For The Money: May 2012
- 10/05 – GeForce GTX 670 2 GB Review: Is It Already Time To Forget GTX...
- 09/05 – Video Teaser: Radeon HD 7800 Series Remains A Solid Value
- 08/05 – Benchmarking AMD's 768-Shader Pitcairn: Not For Public...
Here is something I've always wondered. How does a workstation graphics card handle everyday gaming?
I imagine that its much more effective to purchase multiple gaming GPU's for preformance, but I still wonder.
Om another question, can you load the FirePro drivers for the Radeon, and if so how does it perform with workstation graphics then ??
Having given up on racing for the latest and greatest card for gaming a couple of years ago due to many disappointments and a firm conspiracy theory that game manufacturers are in cohoots with the graphics card industry in order to extract as much cash as they can out of the gaming populace, I’m no surprised to read now that Gaming cards are inferior to professional workstation cards.
However, I do also remember reading somewhere, also a couple of years ago that workstation cards could not handle game graphics!
Why doesn’t somebody just create a decent all round card instead of all this smoke and mirrors?
Firstly, thank you very much for finally putting some hard figures to the difference between the Pro and gaming cards - very interesting. Are these improvements also seen in more specialist and less common application (for example I use EASE acoustic simulation software for work) or are the massive performance gains only for applications where targeted optimisation has occured?
Secondly, I also would be really interested to know how these Pro cards handle gaming.
Guys, the reason for the discrepancies between the mainstream and enterprise adaptors is DRIVERS. Not because a HD4870 (which incidentally is a quarter of the price) is magically "more shit" than the FirePro. And to answer the other query; The FirePro may very well SUCK at gaming. Why? Re-read first sentence. The FirePro drivers are specifically optimised for their intended purpose, and there would be no or minimal attempt to maintain compatibility with, much less optimise performance for, any gaming. It might work, it might work great, it might not, it might not work at all; the driver programmers don't really care as its just not their job.
You only pay extra for the Driver enhancements, there is very little difference between the gaming and workstation cards. Both nVidia and Ati handicap the gaming/desktop drivers so that they can sell the Workstation card at a higher price.
Just goes to show how much performance is being kept from consumers, you spend and spend and all you get is a purposely crippled hardware. Makes you wonder why they even bothering making new cards when they don't even give the full speed of the existing cards.
Therefore would it be possible to flash a HD4870 with the firmware from a FirePro V8700 since it is possible to do so for say a Nvidia 8800GTX too a 8800Ultra (all that changes are the frequencies it tries to run at and its product identity). Therefore the drivers could be fooled into thinking its a pro card
.
Anybody with a HD4870 they are prepared to loose?... (should be fixable if it doesnt work)
Therefore would it be possible to flash a HD4870 with the firmware from a FirePro V8700 since it is possible to do so for say a Nvidia 8800GTX too a 8800Ultra (all that changes are the frequencies it tries to run at and its product identity). Therefore the drivers could be fooled into thinking its a pro card
.
Anybody with a HD4870 they are prepared to loose?... (should be fixable if it doesnt work)
Why do people keep on comparing the "Workstation" to the "Gaming" cards?
How about calling them by their *real* names, the cards with proper OpenGL support, and the cards with just DirectX/3D support...
The *real* pity in all of this is that some games and applications actually use OpenGL so that they can be cross platform, and then get nerfed by ATI/nVidia's drivers (or to be correct, lack of correct OpenGL drivers) for the "Gaming" cards.