Radeon R9 M275X / M375 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. The Radeon R9 M275X / M375 is positioned at rank 469 and the FirePro V8700 is on rank 347, so the FirePro V8700 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.

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

Performance Per Dollar Radeon R9 M275X / M375

#459

Radeon RX 550X (móvel)

MSRP: $35|Avg: $35

2068%

#461

GeForce GTX 1070 with Max-Q Design

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $150

1875%

#462

GeForce GTX 1060 with Max-Q Design

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $100

1870%

#466

GeForce GTX 1050 (Mobile)

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $50

1700%

#467

Radeon RX 6300

MSRP: $60|Avg: $40

1689%

#469

Radeon R9 M275X / M375

MSRP: $300|Avg: $300

100%

#470

Radeon HD 8650G + 8750M Dual

MSRP: $150|Avg: $30

100%

#471

Radeon R9 M370X

MSRP: $300|Avg: $100

100%

#472

Radeon HD 8280

MSRP: $50|Avg: $50

99%

#473

GeForce GTX 850A

MSRP: $150|Avg: $50

97%

#474

Radeon HD 8650G + HD 8600/8700M Dual

MSRP: $150|Avg: $150

97%

#475

Mobility Radeon HD 5730

MSRP: $100|Avg: $20

97%

#476

Radeon R7 A10-7700K

MSRP: $152|Avg: $118

97%

#477

Radeon HD 7660G + HD 8500M Dual

MSRP: $150|Avg: $30

96%

#479

Radeon HD 6990M Crossfire

MSRP: $699|Avg: $150

95%

#480

Radeon HD 8510G + 8500M Dual

MSRP: $120|Avg: $35

95%

#481

Radeon R5 M330

MSRP: $120|Avg: $20

95%

#482

Radeon HD 8650G + 7600M Dual

MSRP: $150|Avg: $40

94%

#483

GeForce GTX 760A

MSRP: $249|Avg: $40

94%

#484

Radeon R9 M270X

MSRP: $250|Avg: $40

92%

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 Radeon R9 M275X / M375 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 V8700.

Insight	Radeon R9 M275X / M375	FirePro V8700
Performance	✅Leading raw performance (+2.3%)	❌Lower raw frame rates (-2.3%)
Longevity	🛑Obsolete Architecture (2014 / GCN 1.0 (2012−2020))	🛑Obsolete Architecture (2011 / TeraScale 3 (2010−2013))
Ecosystem	Supports FSR Upscaling	Supports FSR Upscaling
VRAM	❌ Less VRAM capacity	✅ More VRAM (+0%)
Efficiency	💡 Excellent Perf/Watt	⚡ Higher Power Consumption
Case Fit	📏 Compact / SFF Friendly	Standard Size (254mm)

💎 Value Proposition

The FirePro V8700 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. While both GPUs are considered legacy components by modern standards, the FirePro V8700 holds the technical lead. Priced at $170 (vs $300), it costs 43% less, resulting in a 72.4% higher cost efficiency score.

Insight	Radeon R9 M275X / M375	FirePro V8700
Cost Efficiency	❌Lower cost efficiency	✅Better overall value (+72.4%)
Upfront Cost	⚠️Higher upfront cost ($300)	✅More affordable ($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 M275X / M375 Benchmark Check

FirePro V8700 Benchmark Check

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Radeon R9 M275X / M375 and FirePro V8700

Radeon R9 M275X / M375

The Radeon R9 M275X / M375 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in January 28 2014. It features the GCN 1.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 900 MHz to 925 MHz. It has 640 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 75W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 1,575 points.

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 M275X / M375 scores 1,575 and the FirePro V8700 reaches 1,539 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 2.3% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Radeon R9 M275X / M375 is built on GCN 1.0 while the FirePro V8700 uses TeraScale 3, both on 28 nm vs 40 nm. Shader units: 640 (Radeon R9 M275X / M375) vs 1,280 (FirePro V8700). Raw compute: 1.184 TFLOPS (Radeon R9 M275X / M375) vs 1.856 TFLOPS (FirePro V8700).

Feature	Radeon R9 M275X / M375	FirePro V8700
G3D Mark Score	1,575+2%	1,539
Architecture	GCN 1.0	TeraScale 3
Process Node	28 nm	40 nm
Shading Units	640	1280+100%
Compute (TFLOPS)	1.184 TFLOPS	1.856 TFLOPS+57%
ROPs	16	32+100%
TMUs	40	80+100%
L1 Cache	160 KB	320 KB+100%
L2 Cache	256 KB	512 KB+100%

✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

Feature	Radeon R9 M275X / M375	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)

Both cards feature 4 GB of GDDR5. Bus width: 128-bit vs 64-bit. L2 Cache: 256 KB (Radeon R9 M275X / M375) vs 512 KB (FirePro V8700) — the FirePro V8700 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

Feature	Radeon R9 M275X / M375	FirePro V8700
VRAM Capacity	4 GB	4 GB
Memory Type	GDDR5	GDDR5
Bus Width	128-bit+100%	64-bit
L2 Cache	256 KB	512 KB+100%

🖥️

Display & API Support

DirectX support: 12_0 (Radeon R9 M275X / M375) vs 10.1 (FirePro V8700). Maximum simultaneous displays: 0 vs 2.

Feature	Radeon R9 M275X / M375	FirePro V8700
DirectX	12_0+19%	10.1
Max Displays	0	2

🎬

Media & Encoding

Hardware encoder: VCE 2.0 (Radeon R9 M275X / M375) vs None (FirePro V8700). Decoder: UVD 4.2 vs UVD 2.0.

Feature	Radeon R9 M275X / M375	FirePro V8700
Encoder	VCE 2.0	None
Decoder	UVD 4.2	UVD 2.0
Codecs	—	H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The Radeon R9 M275X / M375 draws 75W versus the FirePro V8700's 150W — a 66.7% difference. The Radeon R9 M275X / M375 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Radeon R9 M275X / M375) vs 350W (FirePro V8700). Power connectors: Mobile vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 1mm vs 254mm, occupying 0 vs 2 slots.

Feature	Radeon R9 M275X / M375	FirePro V8700
TDP	75W-50%	150W
Recommended PSU	350W	350W
Power Connector	Mobile	PCIe-powered
Length	1mm	254mm
Height	—	111mm
Slots	0-100%	2
Temp (Load)	—	60
Perf/Watt	21.0+104%	10.3

💰

Value Analysis

The Radeon R9 M275X / M375 launched at $300 MSRP and currently averages $300, while the FirePro V8700 launched at $1499 and now averages $170. The FirePro V8700 costs 43.3% less ($130 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 5.3 (Radeon R9 M275X / M375) vs 9.1 (FirePro V8700) — the FirePro V8700 offers 71.7% better value. The Radeon R9 M275X / M375 is the newer GPU (2014 vs 2011).