FirePro W7170M vs T400
FirePro W7170M
Popular choices:
T400
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - GPU
About G3D Mark
G3D Mark is a standard benchmark that measures graphics performance in real-world gaming scenarios. It simplifies comparing cards from different brands, where higher scores directly correlate with better fps and smoother gaming experiences.
Value Upgrade Path
This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (G3D Mark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money. The FirePro W7170M is positioned at rank 22 and the T400 is on rank 80, so the FirePro W7170M offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar FirePro W7170M
Performance Per Dollar T400
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The T400 is significantly newer (2021 vs 2015). The T400 likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The FirePro W7170M lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.
🚀 Performance Leadership
The T400 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 0.1% higher G3D Mark score. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the FirePro W7170M.
| Insight | FirePro W7170M | T400 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-0.1%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+0.1%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2015 / GCN 3.0 (2014−2019)) | Turing (2018−2022) (12nm) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+0%) |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | — | — |
💎 Value Proposition
While current pricing data is unavailable, the T400 remains the clear technical winner. Check real-time availability to determine if the performance gap justifies the market price.
Performance Check
Real-world benchmarks and performance projections based on comprehensive hardware analysis and comparative metrics. Values represent expected performance on High/Ultra settings at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. Modeled using a Ryzen 7 7800X3D reference profile to minimize specific CPU bottlenecks.
Note: Performance behavior can vary per game. Specific architectures may perform better or worse depending on game engine optimizations and API implementation.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of FirePro W7170M and T400
FirePro W7170M
The FirePro W7170M is manufactured by AMD. It was released in October 2 2015. It features the GCN 3.0 architecture. The core clock speed is 723 MHz. It has 2048 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 100W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 3,605 points.
T400
The T400 is manufactured by an unknown manufacturer. It was released in May 6 2021. It features the Turing architecture. The core clock ranges from 420 MHz to 1425 MHz. It has 384 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 30W. Manufactured using 12 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 3,609 points.
Graphics Performance
The FirePro W7170M scores 3,605 and the T400 reaches 3,609 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 0.1% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The FirePro W7170M is built on GCN 3.0 while the T400 uses Turing, both on 28 nm vs 12 nm. Shader units: 2,048 (FirePro W7170M) vs 384 (T400). Raw compute: 2.961 TFLOPS (FirePro W7170M) vs 1.094 TFLOPS (T400).
| Feature | FirePro W7170M | T400 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 3,605 | 3,609 |
| Architecture | GCN 3.0 | Turing |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 12 nm |
| Shading Units | 2048+433% | 384 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 2.961 TFLOPS+171% | 1.094 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32+100% | 16 |
| TMUs | 128+433% | 24 |
| L1 Cache | 512 KB+33% | 384 KB |
| L2 Cache | 0.5 MB | 1 MB+100% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | FirePro W7170M | T400 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | FSR 1.0 (Software) |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
Both cards feature 4 GB of GDDR5. Bus width: 64-bit vs 64-bit. L2 Cache: 0.5 MB (FirePro W7170M) vs 1 MB (T400) — the T400 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | FirePro W7170M | T400 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 0.5 MB | 1 MB+100% |
Power & Dimensions
The FirePro W7170M draws 100W versus the T400's 30W — a 107.7% difference. The T400 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (FirePro W7170M) vs 350W (T400). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered.
| Feature | FirePro W7170M | T400 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 100W | 30W-70% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 0mm | — |
| Height | 0mm | — |
| Slots | 1 | — |
| Temp (Load) | 85°C | — |
| Perf/Watt | 36.0 | 120.3+234% |
Value Analysis
The T400 is the newer GPU (2021 vs 2015).
| Feature | FirePro W7170M | T400 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | — | $180 |
| Avg Price (30d) | — | $179 |
| Codename | Amethyst | TU117 |
| Release | October 2 2015 | May 6 2021 |
| Ranking | #533 | #532 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on FirePro W7170M and T400
