FirePro W9000 vs Arc A380
FirePro W9000
Popular choices:
Arc A380
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. The FirePro W9000 is positioned at rank #317 in our cost-efficiency ranking, representing a Lower cost-benefit for your build. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar FirePro W9000
Performance Per Dollar Arc A380
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The Arc A380 is significantly newer (2022 vs 2012). The Arc A380 likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The FirePro W9000 lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.
🚀 Performance Leadership
The Arc A380 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 2.3% higher G3D Mark score. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the FirePro W9000.
| Insight | FirePro W9000 | Arc A380 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-2.3%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+2.3%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2012 / GCN 1.0 (2012−2020)) | Generation 12.7 (2022−2023) (6nm) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+0%) |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | Standard Size (279mm) | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly |
💎 Value Proposition
The Arc A380 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $119 versus $150 for the FirePro W9000, it costs 21% less. While it maintains competitive performance, this results in a 29% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | FirePro W9000 | Arc A380 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+29%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($150) | ✅More affordable ($119) |
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 W9000 and Arc A380
FirePro W9000
The FirePro W9000 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in June 14 2012. It features the GCN 1.0 architecture. The core clock speed is 975 MHz. It has 2048 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 274W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 6,157 points. Launch price was $3,999.
Arc A380
The Arc A380 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in June 14 2022. It features the Generation 12.7 architecture. The core clock ranges from 2000 MHz to 2050 MHz. It has 1024 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 75W. Manufactured using 6 nm process technology. It features 8 dedicated ray tracing cores for enhanced lighting effects. G3D Mark benchmark score: 6,301 points. Launch price was $149.
Graphics Performance
The FirePro W9000 scores 6,157 and the Arc A380 reaches 6,301 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 2.3% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The FirePro W9000 is built on GCN 1.0 while the Arc A380 uses Generation 12.7, both on 28 nm vs 6 nm. Shader units: 2,048 (FirePro W9000) vs 1,024 (Arc A380). Raw compute: 3.994 TFLOPS (FirePro W9000) vs 4.198 TFLOPS (Arc A380).
| Feature | FirePro W9000 | Arc A380 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 6,157 | 6,301+2% |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Generation 12.7 |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 6 nm |
| Shading Units | 2048+100% | 1024 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 3.994 TFLOPS | 4.198 TFLOPS+5% |
| ROPs | 32 | 32 |
| TMUs | 128+100% | 64 |
| L2 Cache | 0.75 MB | 4 MB+433% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | FirePro W9000 | Arc A380 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | XeSS |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | FSR 3 (Compatible) |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
Both cards feature 6 GB of GDDR6. Bus width: 256-bit vs 96-bit. L2 Cache: 0.75 MB (FirePro W9000) vs 4 MB (Arc A380) — the Arc A380 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | FirePro W9000 | Arc A380 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 6 GB | 6 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR6 |
| Bus Width | 256-bit+167% | 96-bit |
| L2 Cache | 0.75 MB | 4 MB+433% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (FirePro W9000) vs 12 Ultimate (Arc A380). Vulkan: 1.2 vs 1.3. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 6 vs 4.
| Feature | FirePro W9000 | Arc A380 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 | 12 Ultimate |
| Vulkan | 1.2 | 1.3+8% |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Max Displays | 6+50% | 4 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: VCE 1.0 (FirePro W9000) vs Xe Media Engine (Arc A380). Decoder: UVD 3.2 vs Xe Media Engine. Supported codecs: H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2 (FirePro W9000) vs AV1,H.265,H.264,VP9 (Arc A380).
| Feature | FirePro W9000 | Arc A380 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | VCE 1.0 | Xe Media Engine |
| Decoder | UVD 3.2 | Xe Media Engine |
| Codecs | H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2 | AV1,H.265,H.264,VP9 |
Power & Dimensions
The FirePro W9000 draws 274W versus the Arc A380's 75W — a 114% difference. The Arc A380 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (FirePro W9000) vs 300W (Arc A380). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs None. Card length: 279mm vs 190mm, occupying 2 vs 2 slots. Typical load temperature: 93°C vs 59.
| Feature | FirePro W9000 | Arc A380 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 274W | 75W-73% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 300W-14% |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | None |
| Length | 279mm | 190mm |
| Height | 111mm | 114mm |
| Slots | 2 | 2 |
| Temp (Load) | 93°C | 59-37% |
| Perf/Watt | 22.5 | 84.0+273% |
Value Analysis
The FirePro W9000 launched at $3999 MSRP and currently averages $150, while the Arc A380 launched at $149 and now averages $119. The Arc A380 costs 20.7% less ($31 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 41.0 (FirePro W9000) vs 52.9 (Arc A380) — the Arc A380 offers 29% better value. The Arc A380 is the newer GPU (2022 vs 2012).
| Feature | FirePro W9000 | Arc A380 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $3999 | $149-96% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $150 | $119-21% |
| Performance per Dollar | 41.0 | 52.9+29% |
| Codename | Tahiti | DG2-128 |
| Release | June 14 2012 | June 14 2022 |
| Ranking | #390 | #384 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on FirePro W9000 and Arc A380
