
FirePro W7000
Popular choices:

Radeon R9 270
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.
Head-to-Head Verdict, Benchmarks, Value & Long-Term Outlook
This comparison brings together gaming FPS, raw graphics performance, VRAM, feature set, power efficiency, pricing context, and long-term value so you can see which GPU actually makes more sense.
FirePro W7000
2012Why buy it
- ✅100% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (4 GB vs 2 GB).
Trade-offs
- ❌Very weak future-proofing: 2012-era hardware with 4 GB of VRAM is already obsolete for modern gaming and is hard to recommend today.
- ❌402.2% HIGHER MSRP$899 MSRPvs$179 MSRP
- ❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 4.8 vs 24.1 G3D/$ ($899 MSRP vs $179 MSRP).
Radeon R9 270
2013Why buy it
- ✅Costs $720 less on MSRP ($179 MSRP vs $899 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 402.5% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 24.1 vs 4.8 G3D/$ ($179 MSRP vs $899 MSRP).
Trade-offs
- ❌Less VRAM, with 2 GB vs 4 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
- ❌Very weak future-proofing: 2013-era hardware with 2 GB of VRAM is already obsolete for modern gaming and is hard to recommend today.
FirePro W7000
2012Radeon R9 270
2013Why buy it
- ✅100% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (4 GB vs 2 GB).
Why buy it
- ✅Costs $720 less on MSRP ($179 MSRP vs $899 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 402.5% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 24.1 vs 4.8 G3D/$ ($179 MSRP vs $899 MSRP).
Trade-offs
- ❌Very weak future-proofing: 2012-era hardware with 4 GB of VRAM is already obsolete for modern gaming and is hard to recommend today.
- ❌402.2% HIGHER MSRP$899 MSRPvs$179 MSRP
- ❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 4.8 vs 24.1 G3D/$ ($899 MSRP vs $179 MSRP).
Trade-offs
- ❌Less VRAM, with 2 GB vs 4 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
- ❌Very weak future-proofing: 2013-era hardware with 2 GB of VRAM is already obsolete for modern gaming and is hard to recommend today.
Quick Answers
So, is Radeon R9 270 better than FirePro W7000?
Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?
Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper card?
When does FirePro W7000 make more sense than Radeon R9 270?
Games Benchmarks
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 9800X3D 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.

Path of Exile 2
| Preset | FirePro W7000 | Radeon R9 270 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 103 FPS | 77 FPS |
| medium | 88 FPS | 62 FPS |
| high | 71 FPS | 49 FPS |
| ultra | 42 FPS | 32 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 90 FPS | 65 FPS |
| medium | 77 FPS | 53 FPS |
| high | 56 FPS | 37 FPS |
| ultra | 32 FPS | 23 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 28 FPS | 23 FPS |
| medium | 27 FPS | 22 FPS |
| high | 18 FPS | 14 FPS |
| ultra | 15 FPS | 12 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | FirePro W7000 | Radeon R9 270 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 134 FPS | 116 FPS |
| medium | 101 FPS | 86 FPS |
| high | 80 FPS | 66 FPS |
| ultra | 51 FPS | 41 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 77 FPS | 65 FPS |
| medium | 52 FPS | 44 FPS |
| high | 38 FPS | 32 FPS |
| ultra | 27 FPS | 21 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 28 FPS | 23 FPS |
| medium | 19 FPS | 16 FPS |
| high | 15 FPS | 13 FPS |
| ultra | 11 FPS | 9 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | FirePro W7000 | Radeon R9 270 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 194 FPS | 194 FPS |
| medium | 155 FPS | 155 FPS |
| high | 129 FPS | 129 FPS |
| ultra | 97 FPS | 97 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 145 FPS | 145 FPS |
| medium | 116 FPS | 116 FPS |
| high | 97 FPS | 97 FPS |
| ultra | 73 FPS | 73 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 97 FPS | 97 FPS |
| medium | 77 FPS | 78 FPS |
| high | 65 FPS | 65 FPS |
| ultra | 48 FPS | 48 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | FirePro W7000 | Radeon R9 270 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 181 FPS | 136 FPS |
| medium | 146 FPS | 111 FPS |
| high | 128 FPS | 96 FPS |
| ultra | 97 FPS | 82 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 127 FPS | 100 FPS |
| medium | 104 FPS | 82 FPS |
| high | 92 FPS | 71 FPS |
| ultra | 67 FPS | 56 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 73 FPS | 59 FPS |
| medium | 57 FPS | 46 FPS |
| high | 45 FPS | 36 FPS |
| ultra | 31 FPS | 26 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of FirePro W7000 and Radeon R9 270

FirePro W7000
FirePro W7000
The FirePro W7000 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in June 13 2012. It features the GCN 1.0 architecture. The core clock speed is 950 MHz. It has 1280 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 150W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 4,304 points. Launch price was $899.

Radeon R9 270
Radeon R9 270
The Radeon R9 270 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in November 13 2013. It features the GCN 1.0 architecture. The boost clock speed is 925 MHz. It has 1280 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 150W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 4,306 points. Launch price was $179.
Graphics Performance
The FirePro W7000 scores 4,304 and the Radeon R9 270 reaches 4,306 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 0% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The FirePro W7000 is built on GCN 1.0 while the Radeon R9 270 uses GCN 1.0, both on a 28 nm process. Shader units: 1,280 (FirePro W7000) vs 1,280 (Radeon R9 270). Raw compute: 2.432 TFLOPS (FirePro W7000) vs 2.368 TFLOPS (Radeon R9 270).
| Feature | FirePro W7000 | Radeon R9 270 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 4,304 | 4,306 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | GCN 1.0 |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 1280 | 1280 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 2.432 TFLOPS+3% | 2.368 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 32 |
| TMUs | 80 | 80 |
| L1 Cache | 320 KB | 320 KB |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB | 512 KB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | FirePro W7000 | Radeon R9 270 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | Upscaling support | FSR Upscaling / FSR 4 |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | AMD Anti-Lag |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The FirePro W7000 comes with 4 GB of VRAM, while the Radeon R9 270 has 2 GB. The FirePro W7000 offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 64-bit vs 256-bit.
| Feature | FirePro W7000 | Radeon R9 270 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB+100% | 2 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 256-bit+300% |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB | 512 KB |
Power & Dimensions
The FirePro W7000 draws 150W versus the Radeon R9 270's 150W — a 0% difference. The Radeon R9 270 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (FirePro W7000) vs 500W (Radeon R9 270). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs 1x 6-pin.
| Feature | FirePro W7000 | Radeon R9 270 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 150W | 150W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W-30% | 500W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | 1x 6-pin |
| Length | 242mm | — |
| Height | 111mm | — |
| Slots | 1 | — |
| Temp (Load) | 90°C | — |
| Perf/Watt | 28.7 | 28.7 |
Value Analysis
The FirePro W7000 launched at $899 MSRP, while the Radeon R9 270 launched at $179. The Radeon R9 270 costs 80.1% less ($720 savings) on MSRP. Performance per dollar on MSRP (G3D Mark / MSRP): 4.8 (FirePro W7000) vs 24.1 (Radeon R9 270) — the Radeon R9 270 offers 402.1% better value. The Radeon R9 270 is the newer GPU (2013 vs 2012).
| Feature | FirePro W7000 | Radeon R9 270 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $899 | $179-80% |
| Performance per Dollar | 4.8 | 24.1+402% |
| Codename | Pitcairn | Curacao |
| Release | June 13 2012 | November 13 2013 |
| Ranking | #477 | #476 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.












