Radeon R9 255 vs FirePro V8700

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.

MSRP is the manufacturer's suggested retail price.•
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.

Performance Per Dollar

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Per Dollar FirePro V8700

#332

Tesla K20m

MSRP: $3199|Avg: $55

14343%

#347

FirePro V8700

MSRP: $1499|Avg: $170

100%

#348

Quadro FX 3800

MSRP: $799|Avg: $20

100%

#350

GRID K520

MSRP: $3599|Avg: $50

95%

#351

GRID P40-12Q

MSRP: $5699|Avg: $5699

94%

#352

FirePro 2270

MSRP: $149|Avg: $30

92%

#353

FirePro 2460

MSRP: $180|Avg: $10

91%

#355

FirePro 3D V5700

MSRP: $599|Avg: $25

88%

#356

Quadro FX 580

MSRP: $199|Avg: $500

88%

#357

GRID M60-1B

MSRP: $2500|Avg: $120

87%

#359

FireStream 9270

MSRP: $1499|Avg: $20

86%

#360

Quadro 400

MSRP: $169|Avg: $500

85%

#361

FirePro 2260

MSRP: $129|Avg: $15

85%

#362

Quadro FX 380 LP

MSRP: $169|Avg: $15

83%

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Comparison

About G3D Mark

🏆 Chipversus Verdict

🚀 Performance Leadership

The FirePro V8700 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 2.5% higher G3D Mark score and 100% more VRAM (4 GB vs 2 GB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Radeon R9 255.

Insight	Radeon R9 255	FirePro V8700
Performance	❌Lower raw frame rates (-2.5%)	✅Leading raw performance (+2.5%)
Longevity	🛑Obsolete Architecture (2014 / GCN 3.0 (2014−2019))	🛑Obsolete Architecture (2011 / TeraScale 3 (2010−2013))
Ecosystem	Supports FSR Upscaling	Supports FSR Upscaling
VRAM	❌ Less VRAM capacity	✅ More VRAM (+100%)
Efficiency	⚡ Higher Power Consumption	💡 Excellent Perf/Watt
Case Fit	—	Standard Size (254mm)

💎 Value Proposition

The Radeon R9 255 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. While both GPUs are considered legacy components by modern standards, the Radeon R9 255 holds the technical lead. Priced at $30 (vs $170), it costs 82% less, resulting in a 452.7% higher cost efficiency score.

Insight	Radeon R9 255	FirePro V8700
Cost Efficiency	✅Better overall value (+452.7%)	❌Lower cost efficiency
Upfront Cost	✅More affordable ($30)	⚠️Higher upfront cost ($170)

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.

Radeon R9 255 Benchmark Check

FirePro V8700 Benchmark Check

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Radeon R9 255 and FirePro V8700

Radeon R9 255

The Radeon R9 255 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in September 2 2014. It features the GCN 3.0 architecture. The core clock speed is 918 MHz. It has 1792 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 190W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 1,501 points. Launch price was $249.

FirePro V8700

The FirePro V8700 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in May 24 2011. It features the TeraScale 3 architecture. The core clock speed is 725 MHz. It has 1280 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 150W. Manufactured using 40 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 1,539 points.

⚡

Graphics Performance

The Radeon R9 255 scores 1,501 and the FirePro V8700 reaches 1,539 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 2.5% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Radeon R9 255 is built on GCN 3.0 while the FirePro V8700 uses TeraScale 3, both on 28 nm vs 40 nm. Shader units: 1,792 (Radeon R9 255) vs 1,280 (FirePro V8700). Raw compute: 3.29 TFLOPS (Radeon R9 255) vs 1.856 TFLOPS (FirePro V8700).

Feature	Radeon R9 255	FirePro V8700
G3D Mark Score	1,501	1,539+3%
Architecture	GCN 3.0	TeraScale 3
Process Node	28 nm	40 nm
Shading Units	1792+40%	1280
Compute (TFLOPS)	3.29 TFLOPS+77%	1.856 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	32
TMUs	112+40%	80
L1 Cache	448 KB+40%	320 KB
L2 Cache	512 KB	512 KB

✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

Feature	Radeon R9 255	FirePro V8700
Upscaling Tech	FSR 1.0 (Software)	FSR 1.0 (Software)
Frame Generation	Not Supported	Not Supported
Ray Reconstruction	No	No
Low Latency	AMD Anti-Lag	Standard

💾

Video Memory (VRAM)

The Radeon R9 255 comes with 2 GB of VRAM, while the FirePro V8700 has 4 GB. The FirePro V8700 offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 128-bit vs 64-bit.

Feature	Radeon R9 255	FirePro V8700
VRAM Capacity	2 GB	4 GB+100%
Memory Type	GDDR5	GDDR5
Bus Width	128-bit+100%	64-bit
L2 Cache	512 KB	512 KB

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The Radeon R9 255 draws 190W versus the FirePro V8700's 150W — a 23.5% difference. The FirePro V8700 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 400W (Radeon R9 255) vs 350W (FirePro V8700). Power connectors: 1x 6-pin vs PCIe-powered.

Feature	Radeon R9 255	FirePro V8700
TDP	190W	150W-21%
Recommended PSU	400W	350W-13%
Power Connector	1x 6-pin	PCIe-powered
Length	—	254mm
Height	—	111mm
Slots	—	2
Temp (Load)	—	60
Perf/Watt	7.9	10.3+30%

💰

Value Analysis

The Radeon R9 255 launched at $139 MSRP and currently averages $30, while the FirePro V8700 launched at $1499 and now averages $170. The Radeon R9 255 costs 82.4% less ($140 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 50.0 (Radeon R9 255) vs 9.1 (FirePro V8700) — the Radeon R9 255 offers 449.5% better value. The Radeon R9 255 is the newer GPU (2014 vs 2011).