Recommended System Requirements | ||
---|---|---|
Game | FirePro S9150 | Radeon R7 265 Crossfire |
Cyberpunk 2077 | 62% | 41% |
Hitman 3 | 111% | 84% |
Resident Evil 8 | 62% | 41% |
Assassins Creed: Valhalla | 48% | 29% |
FIFA 21 | 18% | 29% |
Grand Theft Auto VI | 128% | 99% |
Call of Duty: Black Ops Cold War | 44% | 25% |
Genshin Impact | 62% | 41% |
Far Cry 6 | 135% | 104% |
The Medium | 103% | 76% |
In terms of overall gaming performance, the graphical capabilities of the AMD Radeon R7 265 Crossfire are very slightly better than the AMD FirePro S9150.
The FirePro S9150 and the R7 265 have the same core clock speed of 900 MHz, but the FirePro S9150 has 48 more Texture Mapping Units than the R7 265. As a result, the FirePro S9150 exhibits a 43.2 GTexel/s better Texture Fill Rate than the R7 265. This still holds weight but shader performance is generally more relevant, particularly since both of these GPUs support at least DirectX 10.
The FirePro S9150 and the R7 265 have both the same core clock speed and the same Pixel Fill Rate. However, both GPUs support DirectX 9 or above, and pixeling performance is only really relevant when comparing older cards.
The FirePro S9150 was released less than a year after the R7 265, and so they are likely to have similar driver support for optimizing performance when running the latest games.
Both GPUs exhibit very powerful performance, so it probably isn't worth upgrading from one to the other, as both are capable of running even the most demanding games at the highest settings.
The FirePro S9150 has 12288 MB more video memory than the R7 265, so is likely to be much better at displaying game textures at higher resolutions. However, overall, the R7 265 has superior memory performance.
The R7 265 has 38.4 GB/sec greater memory bandwidth than the FirePro S9150, which means that the memory performance of the R7 265 is noticeably better than the FirePro S9150.
The FirePro S9150 has 2816 Shader Processing Units and the Radeon R7 265 Crossfire has 2048. However, the actual shader performance of the FirePro S9150 is 2534 and the actual shader performance of the R7 265 is 1231. The FirePro S9150 having 1303 better shader performance is not particularly notable, as altogether the R7 265 performs better when taking into account other relevant data.
The FirePro S9150 requires 235 Watts to run and the Radeon R7 265 Crossfire requires 300 Watts. We would recommend a PSU with at least 650 Watts for the R7 265, but we do not have a recommended PSU wattage for the FirePro S9150. The R7 265 requires 65 Watts more than the FirePro S9150 to run. The difference is significant enough that the R7 265 may have an adverse affect on your yearly electricity bills in comparison to the FirePro S9150.
Core Speed | 900 MHz | ![]() | vs | ![]() | 900 MHz |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Boost Clock | - | vs | ![]() | 925 MHz | |
Architecture | GCN 2.0 Hawaii XT GL | Pitcairn PRO | |||
OC Potential | Good |
![]() |
vs | Fair | |
Driver Support | - | vs | - | ||
Release Date | 01 Aug 2014 | ![]() | vs | 13 Feb 2014 | |
GPU Link | GD Link | GD Link | |||
Approved | ![]() | ![]() | |||
Comparison |
1366x768 | - | ![]() |
vs | ![]() |
- |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1600x900 | - | ![]() |
vs | ![]() |
- |
1920x1080 | - | vs | ![]() |
8.9
|
|
2560x1440 | - | ![]() |
vs | ![]() |
- |
3840x2160 | - | ![]() |
vs | ![]() |
- |
Memory | 16384 MB | ![]() | vs | 4096 MB | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Memory Speed | 1250 MHz | vs | ![]() | 1400 MHz | |
Memory Bus | 512 Bit | ![]() | vs | ![]() | 512 Bit |
Memory Type | GDDR5 | ![]() | vs | ![]() | GDDR5 |
Memory Bandwidth | 320GB/sec | vs | ![]() | 358.4GB/sec | |
L2 Cache | 1024 KB | ![]() |
vs | - | |
Delta Color Compression | no | vs | no | ||
Memory Performance | 0% | ![]() |
vs | ![]() |
0% |
Comparison |
Shader Processing Units | 2816 | ![]() | vs | 2048 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Actual Shader Performance | 100% | ![]() | vs | 59% | |
Technology | 28nm | ![]() | vs | ![]() | 28nm |
Texture Mapping Units | 176 | ![]() | vs | 128 | |
Texture Rate | 158.4 GTexel/s | ![]() | vs | 115.2 GTexel/s | |
Render Output Units | 64 | ![]() | vs | ![]() | 64 |
Pixel Rate | 57.6 GPixel/s | ![]() | vs | ![]() | 57.6 GPixel/s |
Comparison |
Max Digital Resolution (WxH) | 4096x2160 | ![]() | vs | ![]() | 4096x2160 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
VGA Connections | 0 | vs | 0 | ||
DVI Connections | 0 | vs | ![]() | 2 | |
HDMI Connections | 0 | vs | ![]() | 1 | |
DisplayPort Connections | - | vs | - | ||
Comparison |
Max Power | 235 Watts | ![]() | vs | 300 Watts | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Recommended PSU | - | 650 Watts & 24 Amps |
DirectX | 11.2 | ![]() | vs | ![]() | 11.2 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Shader Model | 5.0 | ![]() | vs | ![]() | 5.0 |
Open GL | 4.2 | vs | ![]() | 4.3 | |
Open CL | - | vs | - | ||
Notebook GPU | no | no | |||
SLI/Crossfire | yes | ![]() | vs | no | |
Dedicated | yes | ![]() | vs | ![]() | yes |
Comparison |
Recommended Processor | Intel Xeon E7-8890 v2 | vs | ![]() | Intel Core i5-4670K 3.4GHz | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Recommended RAM | 16 GB | vs | ![]() | 8 GB | |
Maximum Recommended Gaming Resolution | 5760x1600 | ![]() | vs | 1920x1080 |
Performance Value | ![]() |
---|
Mini Review | FirePro S9150 is a server GPU based on the 28nm GCN architecture. It's based on the Hawaii XT Core (same used on Radeon R9 290X) and therefore offers 2816 Shader Processing Units, 176 TMUs and 64 ROPs on a 512-bit interface of fast GDDR5. The central unit is clocked 900MHz while the memory clock operates at 1250MHZ. Compared to Radeon R9 290X, its central unit is slightly lower and overall its gaming performance is lower than Radeon R9 290X because the latter benefits from certified gaming drivers which unlock the GCN's architecture potential while FirePro S9150 is made for professional applications. Therefore, expect its performance to be between 10% and 15% worse than Radeon R9 290X. | Radeon R7 265 Crossfire is a solution of two Radeon R7 265 put together using AMD'S Crossfire technology. Check the page of Radeon R7 265 to know more about its chip. Crossfire relies a lot on proper driver support and may suffer from micro-stuttering in lower frame rates (below 30). Benchmarks indicate the performance is overall, is up to 50% better than a single Radeon R7 265 performing by itself but at times (depending whether or not the 3D game supports crossfire or in the graphics driver) it performed worse than a single Radeon R7 265. Expect this combination to draw up to 300 Watt though the average power consumption should be slightly lower. Even the most demanding games will run at the highest settings. |
---|
Recommended CPU | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Possible GPU Upgrades | - | - | |||
GPU Variants | - | - |