AMD FirePro D300 vs AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive victory for the AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700 in every shared benchmark. In Geekbench OpenCL, the R9700 scores 118,202 against the FirePro D300's 19,515, a delta of 505.7%. This is not a marginal improvement; it is a generational leap that places the newer card in a completely different performance class. The Vulkan result tells a similar story, with the R9700 posting 63,550 against 19,759, a 221.6% advantage. These are the only two tests where both cards appear in the database, so the head-to-head record stands at 2 wins for the R9700 and 0 for the D300.

The magnitude of these deltas is worth pausing on. A 505.7% lead in OpenCL suggests the R9700 is not merely faster per clock or per core, but that the entire execution paradigm has shifted. The FirePro D300, built on GCN 1.0, was designed for a workstation landscape where compute workloads were far less demanding. The R9700, by contrast, is a modern AI-focused accelerator, and the OpenCL score reflects that specialization. The Vulkan gap, while smaller in percentage terms, still represents a 3.2x raw score improvement, which would translate into dramatically higher frame rates or compute throughput in any Vulkan-based application.

Context from the nearest rivals reinforces the gulf. The R9700's average benchmark score is 23,315, placing it just 0.2% ahead of the AMD Radeon R9 M290X and the AMD Radeon RX 6600M, and 0.3% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 16 and the NVIDIA P106-100. That clustering suggests the R9700 sits in a competitive mid-pack when averaged across all its recorded tests, but its OpenCL and Vulkan peaks are far above that average. The D300, meanwhile, averages 19,637, landing within 0.2% of the NVIDIA Quadro K5200 and within 1.2% of the AMD Radeon RX 7900 XTX, an odd grouping that reflects the D300's narrow benchmark footprint. Only two scores exist for the D300, so its average is heavily weighted by those specific workloads.

Architecture Differences

The underlying silicon tells a story of two very different design philosophies. The R9700 uses the Navi 48 chip on RDNA 4.0 architecture, fabricated on a 4 nm process at TSMC. The D300 uses the Pitcairn chip on GCN 1.0, built on a 28 nm process, also at TSMC. The process node difference alone, 4 nm versus 28 nm, explains a substantial portion of the performance gap, as smaller transistors switch faster and consume less power per operation. Transistor counts reinforce this: the R9700 packs 53,900 million transistors on a 357 mm² die, yielding a density of 151.0 million per square millimeter. The D300 has just 2,800 million transistors on a 212 mm² die, a density of 13.2 million per square millimeter. That is an 11.4x density advantage for the R9700, which directly enables its massive compute resources.

The execution units differ just as sharply. The R9700 carries 4,096 shading units, 256 texture mapping units, 128 render output units, and 64 ray tracing cores. The D300 has 1,280 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, with no ray tracing hardware at all. The R9700's pixel rate is 373.8 GPixel/s versus 27.20 GPixel/s for the D300, a 13.7x difference. Texture rate is 747.5 GTexel/s versus 68.00 GTexel/s, an 11x gap. FP32 compute is 47.84 TFLOPS versus 2.176 TFLOPS, a 22x difference. The R9700 also lists FP16 at 47.84 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, while the D300 has no recorded FP16 figure, meaning it likely lacks dedicated half-precision throughput or implements it at a fraction of FP32 rates.

Memory architecture further separates the two. The R9700 comes with 32 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 644.6 GB/s of bandwidth. The D300 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on the same 256-bit bus, but only 162.6 GB/s. The memory clock difference is stark: the R9700 runs at 2518 MHz, or 20.1 Gbps effective, while the D300 runs at 1270 MHz, or 5.1 Gbps effective. That 16 GB capacity advantage and nearly 4x bandwidth advantage matter enormously for AI inference, large dataset processing, and high-resolution rendering. The R9700 also supports PCIe 5.0 x16, while the D300 is limited to PCIe 3.0 x16, halving the available host interface bandwidth for data transfers. Display outputs differ as well: the R9700 offers 1x HDMI 2.1b and 3x DisplayPort 2.1a, while the D300 provides 4x DisplayPort 1.2. The API support reflects the newer architecture, with the R9700 hitting DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), Vulkan 1.4, and OpenGL 4.6. The D300 reaches DirectX 12 (11_1), Vulkan 1.2.170, and OpenGL 4.6, so the older card misses the latest rendering features like mesh shaders and variable rate shading.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous for compute-heavy workloads. The R9700 leads by 505.7% in OpenCL and 221.6% in Vulkan, and it offers 32 GB of memory, 64 ray tracing cores, and a 4 nm process. The D300, with its 2 GB frame buffer, GCN 1.0 architecture, and 28 nm node, is a legacy product that the benchmark results show as completely outclassed. Any user choosing the D300 for modern AI, rendering, or compute tasks would be leaving enormous performance on the table. The R9700 also holds a higher percentile rank, sitting at the 69th percentile among all GPUs in the database, versus the D300's 64th percentile. That gap is modest in percentile terms, but the raw score difference is massive, indicating that the percentile metric compresses the upper range of performance.

For legacy compatibility, the D300 does have one advantage: it is a single-slot card with a 150 W TDP, versus the R9700's dual-slot design at 300 W. The D300 also has no external power connector listed, while the R9700 requires a 16-pin connector and a 700 W suggested PSU. The D300's suggested PSU is 450 W. If a system has strict power or space constraints and only needs basic display output or very light compute, the D300 could still function. But the benchmark data shows no scenario where the D300 wins on performance. The R9700 is the clear choice for anyone who needs actual compute throughput, and the D300 should only be considered for legacy systems where its form factor and power draw are non-negotiable constraints.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700 in OpenCL?

A: The R9700 scores 118,202 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 19,515 for the FirePro D300, a 505.7% advantage.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The R9700 has 32 GB of GDDR6, while the D300 has 2 GB of GDDR5. The R9700 also delivers 644.6 GB/s bandwidth versus 162.6 GB/s.

Q: Do both cards support ray tracing?

A: No. The R9700 has 64 ray tracing cores, while the D300 has no ray tracing hardware listed.

Q: Which card has a smaller process node?

A: The R9700 is built on a 4 nm process at TSMC, while the D300 uses a 28 nm process, also at TSMC.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each?

A: The R9700 averages 23,315 across all its recorded tests, while the D300 averages 19,637.

Q: Is the D300 still in production?

A: No, the D300 is listed as end-of-life, while the R9700 is listed as active production.

Where Each One Wins

The R9700 wins in every measured category. In OpenCL, it is 505.7% ahead, making it the obvious pick for GPGPU workloads, machine learning inference, and any OpenCL-based rendering engine. In Vulkan, it leads by 221.6%, which matters for modern game engines, real-time ray tracing, and Vulkan-based compute APIs. The 32 GB memory capacity and 644.6 GB/s bandwidth make it suitable for large model training or rendering scenes that exceed 2 GB, which is the D300's entire frame buffer. The 64 ray tracing cores provide hardware acceleration that the D300 lacks entirely, so any ray-traced workload is simply impossible on the older card at comparable quality. The PCIe 5.0 interface also gives the R9700 a host transfer advantage, reducing bottlenecks when streaming data from system memory.

The D300 does have niche advantages in the recorded data. Its single-slot design and 150 W TDP make it easier to fit into dense workstations or servers with limited physical space and power budgets. Its 4x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs exceed the R9700's 3x DisplayPort 2.1a outputs, so it can drive more simultaneous displays, albeit at lower resolutions and refresh rates. The absence of a power connector entry and a 450 W suggested PSU means it can be dropped into older systems without upgrading the power supply. For users who only need a basic display adapter for coding, document work, or legacy software that predates modern APIs, the D300 remains functional. But for any compute benchmark in the database, the R9700 is the only rational choice.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every recorded field. The process node is 4 nm for the R9700 versus 28 nm for the D300. Transistor count is 53,900 million versus 2,800 million, and die size is 357 mm² versus 212 mm². Transistor density is 151.0M per mm² versus 13.2M per mm². The R9700 has 4,096 shading units, 256 TMUs, 128 ROPs, and 64 RT cores; the D300 has 1,280 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, with no RT cores. Pixel rate is 373.8 GPixel/s versus 27.20 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 747.5 GTexel/s versus 68.00 GTexel/s. FP32 is 47.84 TFLOPS versus 2.176 TFLOPS, with FP16 only listed for the R9700 at 47.84 TFLOPS.

Memory differences are equally pronounced: 32 GB GDDR6 versus 2 GB GDDR5, both on a 256-bit bus, but with bandwidth of 644.6 GB/s versus 162.6 GB/s. The memory clock is 2518 MHz (20.1 Gbps effective) versus 1270 MHz (5.1 Gbps effective). TDP is 300 W versus 150 W, and the slot width is dual-slot versus single-slot. The R9700 uses a 16-pin power connector; the D300 has no power connector listed. Suggested PSU is 700 W versus 450 W. Bus interface is PCIe 5.0 x16 versus PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs are 1x HDMI 2.1b plus 3x DisplayPort 2.1a versus 4x DisplayPort 1.2. DirectX support is 12 Ultimate (12_2) versus 12 (11_1), and Vulkan is 1.4 versus 1.2.170. The R9700 is 267 mm long, 111 mm tall, and 40 mm wide; the D300 is 242 mm long with no recorded height or width. Production status is Active versus End-of-life, and the R9700's release date is 2025-07-22, while the D300's is 2014-01-17. The R9700's predecessor is the Radeon Pro Vega, and the D300's predecessor is the FirePro Terascale. The D300's successor is the Radeon Instinct; the R9700 has no successor listed. The launch MSRP for the R9700 is 1,299 USD; the D300 has no recorded launch MSRP.