AMD FirePro D300 vs AMD Radeon Pro 560 Comparison

# AMD FirePro D300 vs AMD Radeon Pro 560

The benchmark data presents a clear hierarchy between these two AMD professional GPUs, but the story is more nuanced than a simple score comparison. The FirePro D300, a 2014-era workstation card, outperforms the Radeon Pro 560 in both recorded cross-platform tests, yet the Pro 560 counters with a superior API feature set and a more modern architecture. The FirePro D300 holds a 21.7% to 25.9% advantage in OpenCL and Vulkan workloads, but the Radeon Pro 560 brings newer GCN 4.0 technology, double the memory capacity, and broader DirectX 12 support. The choice between them depends entirely on whether the user prioritizes raw compute throughput or contemporary feature support and power efficiency.

The Verdict

Data indicates the AMD FirePro D300 is the stronger choice for compute-heavy workloads that leverage OpenCL or Vulkan. Its average benchmark score of 19,637 places it in the 64th percentile of all GPUs, while the Radeon Pro 560 sits at 17,551 and the 61st percentile. In the head-to-head OpenCL test, the FirePro D300 scores 19,515 versus 15,504 for the Pro 560, a 25.9% difference. The Vulkan gap is similarly decisive: 19,759 versus 16,232, a 21.7% edge. For users running professional applications that rely on these APIs, the FirePro D300 is the clear performance winner.

However, the Radeon Pro 560 is not without its own arguments. It carries 4 GB of memory versus 2 GB, which matters for larger datasets and textures. Its GCN 4.0 architecture supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3, whereas the FirePro D300's GCN 1.0 only reaches DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170. The Pro 560 also draws 75 W versus 150 W, making it far more suitable for compact or battery-powered systems. The data suggests the Pro 560 is the rational pick for users prioritizing modern API compatibility, memory capacity, and power efficiency over raw compute scores.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different generations of AMD's Graphics Core Next design. The FirePro D300 uses the Pitcairn chip built on GCN 1.0, manufactured by TSMC on a 28 nm process. It packs 2,800 million transistors into a 212 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 13.2 million per square millimeter. The Radeon Pro 560 uses Polaris 21 on GCN 4.0, built by GlobalFoundries on a 14 nm process. It contains 3,000 million transistors in a smaller 123 mm² die, achieving 24.4 million transistors per square millimeter. This density advantage reflects the newer manufacturing node.

The FirePro D300 features 1,280 shading units, 80 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The Pro 560 has fewer of each: 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Despite fewer execution resources, the Pro 560's pixel rate drops from 27.20 GPixel/s to 14.51 GPixel/s, and its texture rate falls from 68.00 GTexel/s to 58.05 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput also declines from 2.176 TFLOPS to 1.858 TFLOPS. The Pro 560 does add FP16 support at 1.858 TFLOPS (1:1), which the FirePro D300 lacks entirely.

Memory subsystems differ significantly. The FirePro D300 uses a 256-bit bus with 2 GB of GDDR5, delivering 162.6 GB/s bandwidth. The Pro 560 uses a 128-bit bus with 4 GB of GDDR5, but bandwidth drops to 81.28 GB/s. The memory clock is identical at 1270 MHz, translating to 5.1 Gbps effective for both. The Pro 560 trades bandwidth for capacity, a design choice that favors larger working sets over streaming speed.

Where Each One Wins

The FirePro D300 wins decisively in compute throughput. Its OpenCL score of 19,515 beats the Pro 560's 15,504 by 25.9%. Its Vulkan score of 19,759 beats 16,232 by 21.7%. These results align with its higher shading unit count, wider memory bus, and higher pixel and texture rates. For tasks like rendering, simulation, or any workload that saturates shader arrays and memory bandwidth, the FirePro D300 is the superior option. Its 150 W TDP and single-slot design also make it manageable in a workstation chassis with a 450 W suggested PSU.

The Radeon Pro 560 wins in power efficiency and modern API support. At 75 W, it consumes half the power of the FirePro D300. It requires no power connectors and is classified as an IGP (integrated graphics processor), meaning it is designed for portable or compact systems. Its DirectX 12 (12_0) support is a full feature level above the FirePro D300's (11_1). Vulkan support reaches 1.3 versus 1.2.170. The 4 GB memory capacity is double that of the FirePro D300, which can be critical for texture-heavy applications or larger compute buffers. The Pro 560 also has a Metal benchmark score of 20,918, which the FirePro D300 lacks, indicating strong performance in Apple's Metal API ecosystem.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD FirePro D300 averages 19,637 across recorded benchmarks, placing it in the 64th percentile. The AMD Radeon Pro 560 averages 17,551, placing it in the 61st percentile.

Q: How much faster is the FirePro D300 in OpenCL?

A: The FirePro D300 scores 19,515 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the Radeon Pro 560 scores 15,504. This represents a 25.9% advantage for the FirePro D300.

Q: Which GPU supports newer graphics APIs?

A: The Radeon Pro 560 supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3, while the FirePro D300 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The Radeon Pro 560 has 4 GB of GDDR5, while the FirePro D300 has 2 GB. However, the FirePro D300 has a 256-bit bus with 162.6 GB/s bandwidth, versus the Pro 560's 128-bit bus with 81.28 GB/s.

Q: Which GPU is more power-efficient?

A: The Radeon Pro 560 has a 75 W TDP and requires no power connectors, whereas the FirePro D300 has a 150 W TDP and needs a 450 W suggested PSU.

Q: Does the Radeon Pro 560 support FP16 compute?

A: Yes, the Radeon Pro 560 achieves 1.858 TFLOPS in FP16 with a 1:1 ratio. The FirePro D300 has no recorded FP16 capability.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two recorded head-to-head tests both favor the FirePro D300, and the margins are substantial. In Geekbench OpenCL, the FirePro D300 scores 19,515 against the Pro 560's 15,504. The delta of 25.9% is nearly identical to the overall average score gap of 11.9% between the two cards (19,637 versus 17,551), which suggests the FirePro D300's advantage is consistent across its benchmark suite. The Vulkan test shows a similar pattern: 19,759 versus 16,232, a 21.7% difference. These are not marginal wins; they represent a full tier of performance separation.

Looking at the nearest rivals provides additional context. The FirePro D300's average score of 19,637 sits within 1.2% of the AMD Radeon RX 7900 XTX (19,410) and 0.6% below the AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT (19,765). It also trades blows with the NVIDIA Quadro K5200 (19,602, delta 0.2%) and NVIDIA Tesla K40m (19,885, delta -1.2%). This places the FirePro D300 in a performance band with modern consumer and older professional flagships, despite its age.

The Radeon Pro 560's average of 17,551 is nearly identical to its nearest rivals. The AMD Radeon 780M scores 17,588 (delta -0.2%), the AMD Radeon Pro 460 scores 17,509 (delta 0.2%), the NVIDIA Tesla K40c scores 17,468 (delta 0.5%), and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 scores 17,639 (delta -0.5%). The Pro 560 is essentially tied with an integrated GPU (780M) and a modern mainstream desktop card (RTX 4060), which shows its compute performance is competitive with much newer hardware in this specific metric.

The FirePro D300's 2.176 TFLOPS FP32 throughput and 162.6 GB/s memory bandwidth directly explain its OpenCL and Vulkan dominance. The Pro 560's lower 1.858 TFLOPS and 81.28 GB/s bandwidth are bottlenecks, despite having twice the memory capacity. The 256-bit bus versus 128-bit bus is the most decisive architectural difference: the FirePro D300 can feed its shader array more than twice as fast. The 32 ROPs versus 16 ROPs also gives the FirePro D300 a 27.20 GPixel/s pixel rate, nearly double the Pro 560's 14.51 GPixel/s.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every major specification category. The FirePro D300 uses the Pitcairn chip on GCN 1.0 architecture, while the Pro 560 uses Polaris 21 on GCN 4.0. Process nodes differ: 28 nm TSMC for the FirePro D300 versus 14 nm GlobalFoundries for the Pro 560. Transistor counts are close (2,800 million versus 3,000 million), but die size shrinks from 212 mm² to 123 mm², and density rises from 13.2M to 24.4M transistors per square millimeter.

Compute resources favor the FirePro D300: 1,280 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 32 ROPs versus 1,024, 64, and 16. Pixel rate is 27.20 GPixel/s versus 14.51 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 68.00 GTexel/s versus 58.05 GTexel/s. FP32 is 2.176 TFLOPS versus 1.858 TFLOPS. The Pro 560 adds FP16 at 1.858 TFLOPS (1:1), which the FirePro D300 does not support.

Memory configurations diverge: 2 GB versus 4 GB, 256-bit versus 128-bit bus, and 162.6 GB/s versus 81.28 GB/s bandwidth. Both use GDDR5 at 1270 MHz (5.1 Gbps effective). Power requirements differ sharply: 150 W TDP with a 450 W suggested PSU versus 75 W TDP with no power connectors. The FirePro D300 is a single-slot card with 4x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs and a 242 mm (9.5 inches) length. The Pro 560 is an IGP with portable device dependent outputs.

API support favors the Pro 560: DirectX 12 (12_0) versus 12 (11_1), Vulkan 1.3 versus 1.2.170, and both support OpenGL 4.6. The bus interface also differs: PCIe 3.0 x16 for the FirePro D300 versus PCIe 3.0 x8 for the Pro 560. The FirePro D300 has a predecessor (FirePro Terascale) and successor (Radeon Instinct), while the Pro 560 has neither recorded. Both are end-of-life products, with release dates of January 2014 and April 2017 respectively.