Radeon Vega 7 vs ATI FireGL X3-256

VS

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the rankingnot rated532
Place by popularitynot in top-10019
Power efficiencyno data11.39
ArchitectureR400 (2004−2008)GCN 5.1 (2018−2022)
GPU code nameR420Cezanne
Market segmentWorkstationLaptop
Release date3 August 2004 (20 years ago)13 April 2021 (3 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$1,099 no data

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA coresno data448
Core clock speed491 MHz300 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1900 MHz
Number of transistors160 million9,800 million
Manufacturing process technology130 nm7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)57 Watt45 Watt
Texture fill rate5.89253.20
Floating-point processing powerno data1.702 TFLOPS
ROPs128
TMUs1228

Form factor & compatibility

Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).

InterfaceAGP 8xIGP
Width1-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1x MolexNone

VRAM capacity and type

Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.

Memory typeGDDR3System Shared
Maximum RAM amount256 MBSystem Shared
Memory bus width256 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed454 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth29.06 GB/sno data
Shared memory-+

Connectivity and outputs

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display Connectors2x DVI, 1x S-VideoNo outputs

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX9.0b (9_2)12 (12_1)
Shader Modelno data6.4
OpenGL2.04.6
OpenCLN/A2.1
VulkanN/A1.2

Pros & cons summary


Recency 3 August 2004 13 April 2021
Chip lithography 130 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 57 Watt 45 Watt

Vega 7 has an age advantage of 16 years, a 1757.1% more advanced lithography process, and 26.7% lower power consumption.

We couldn't decide between FireGL X3-256 and Radeon Vega 7. We've got no test results to judge.

Be aware that FireGL X3-256 is a workstation card while Radeon Vega 7 is a notebook one.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


ATI FireGL X3-256
FireGL X3-256
AMD Radeon Vega 7
Radeon Vega 7

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


5 1 vote

Rate FireGL X3-256 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 2071 vote

Rate Radeon Vega 7 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.