AMD FirePro D300 vs AMD Radeon PRO W7500 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a decisive picture: the AMD Radeon PRO W7500 wins both recorded head-to-head tests, leaving the AMD FirePro D300 without a single victory in the comparison. The most striking result comes from the Geekbench Vulkan test, where the W7500 scores 68,634 against the D300's 19,759. That is a 71.2% advantage, a margin so large it suggests not just generational progress but a fundamental shift in capability. The OpenCL test tells a similar story, with the W7500 scoring 58,213 versus 19,515 for the D300, a 66.5% gap. Both deltas are recorded from the perspective of the older card, meaning the D300 trails by roughly two-thirds in compute workloads.

Context from the nearest rivals sharpens this further. The D300's average benchmark score of 19,637 places it within 0.2% of the NVIDIA Quadro K5200 (19,602) and within 1.2% of the AMD Radeon RX 7900 XTX (19,410). That last comparison is curious: the RX 7900 XTX, a flagship gaming card, scores slightly lower in this database's average than the 2014 FirePro D300. Meanwhile, the W7500's average score of 16,415 sits almost exactly level with the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell (16,408, a 0% delta) and the AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT (16,361, a 0.3% delta). The W7500 is 0.5% behind the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 D V2 (16,504). So while the W7500 dominates the D300 in direct comparison, the W7500's standing among its own peers is one of near parity, not supremacy.

The percentile data adds a layer of nuance. The D300 sits at the 64th percentile among all GPUs, higher than the W7500's 59th percentile. This seems contradictory at first, but it reflects the different pools each card competes against. The D300, an end-of-life workstation part, benefits from a database population that still includes many lower-performing older cards. The W7500, active and modern, faces a field crowded with faster contemporary parts. The practical meaning: the W7500 is dramatically faster than the D300, yet the D300 ranks higher relative to all GPUs because its contemporaries were slower on average.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two cards is vast, spanning three generations of AMD GPU design. The FirePro D300 uses the Pitcairn chip built on GCN 1.0 architecture, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The Radeon PRO W7500 uses Navi 33, built on RDNA 3.0, also at TSMC but on a 6 nm node. The process shrink is enormous: 28 nm to 6 nm. Transistor counts reflect this. The D300 packs 2,800 million transistors on a 212 mm² die, yielding a density of 13.2 million transistors per square millimeter. The W7500 crams 13,300 million transistors into a slightly smaller 204 mm² die, achieving 65.2 million per square millimeter. That is roughly a fivefold increase in density.

The memory subsystem differs as much as the silicon. The D300 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256 bit bus, producing 162.6 GB/s of bandwidth. The W7500 has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128 bit bus, yet achieves 256.0 GB/s. A narrower bus with faster memory (16 Gbps effective versus 5.1 Gbps effective) delivers 57% more bandwidth. The D300's memory clock is listed at 1270 MHz; the W7500's at 2000 MHz. For capacity, the W7500 offers four times the memory, a critical difference for modern workloads that exceed 2 GB.

Compute resources scale up substantially. The D300 has 1,280 shading units, 80 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The W7500 has 1,792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The W7500 also introduces 28 ray tracing cores, a feature entirely absent from the D300. Pixel throughput jumps from 27.20 GPixel/s to 108.8 GPixel/s, a fourfold increase. Texture rate goes from 68.00 GTexel/s to 190.4 GTexel/s, nearly triple. FP32 compute rises from 2.176 TFLOPS to 12.19 TFLOPS, about 5.6 times higher. The W7500 adds FP16 capability at 24.37 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio); the D300 lists no FP16 figure at all.

Power and interface differences are equally pronounced. The D300 draws 150 W TDP and requires a 450 W suggested PSU. The W7500 draws only 70 W, with a 250 W suggested PSU, and needs no power connectors. The D300 runs on PCIe 3.0 x16; the W7500 uses PCIe 4.0 x8. Both are single-slot cards. The D300 is longer at 242 mm (9.5 inches) versus 216 mm (8.5 inches) for the W7500, which adds height and width dimensions (115 mm by 20 mm) not recorded for the D300. Display outputs differ: the D300 offers four DisplayPort 1.2 ports, the W7500 four DisplayPort 2.1 ports.

API support reflects the architectural leap. The D300 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The W7500 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The W7500's ray tracing cores and newer API tier indicate feature support that the D300 cannot match, regardless of raw scores.

The Verdict

The data points to one conclusion: the Radeon PRO W7500 is the superior card in nearly every measurable way. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks by margins exceeding 66%. It offers four times the memory, 5.6 times the FP32 compute, twice the ROPs, and a dramatically more efficient power envelope at less than half the TDP. The D300 was released in 2014, the W7500 in 2023, and the nine years between them show in every specification and score.

The D300's only statistical advantages are its higher percentile rank (64th versus 59th) and its average benchmark score of 19,637, which actually exceeds the W7500's 16,415 average. This is a quirk of the database: the D300's two recorded benchmarks are both Geekbench compute tests, while the W7500's average includes several PassMark scores (DirectX 9, 10, 11, 12, G2D, G3D, and compute) that pull its average down. The D300's percentile reflects a favorable comparison against older GPUs, not superior performance.

For a buyer choosing between these two today, the W7500 is the rational pick. It is an active product, while the D300 is end-of-life. It provides modern API support, ray tracing hardware, and 8 GB of memory. The D300's 2 GB capacity is a hard limitation for current software. The only scenario where the D300 makes sense is one where legacy software requires GCN 1.0 behavior or PCIe 3.0 x16 connectivity, and even then, the performance gap is so large that those niche cases would need to be very specific.

FAQ

Q: Which card wins in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7500 wins decisively, scoring 58,213 versus the FirePro D300's 19,515, a 66.5% advantage.

Q: How much faster is the W7500 in Vulkan?

A: The W7500 scores 68,634 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the D300 scores 19,759. The W7500 leads by 71.2%.

Q: Why does the D300 have a higher percentile rank?

A: The D300 sits at the 64th percentile among all GPUs, above the W7500's 59th percentile. This occurs because the D300's average score of 19,637 comes from only two Geekbench tests, and it is compared against a population of GPUs that includes many slower older parts. The W7500's average of 16,415 is dragged down by additional PassMark scores, and it competes against a modern field with many faster cards.

Q: What are the memory capacities and types?

A: The D300 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256 bit bus with 162.6 GB/s bandwidth. The W7500 has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128 bit bus with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Does the W7500 support ray tracing?

A: Yes, the W7500 includes 28 ray tracing cores. The D300 has no ray tracing cores listed.

Q: What is the power draw difference?

A: The D300 has a 150 W TDP with a 450 W suggested PSU. The W7500 has a 70 W TDP with a 250 W suggested PSU and requires no power connectors.

Where Each One Wins

The W7500 wins in compute-heavy professional workloads. Its FP32 throughput of 12.19 TFLOPS versus 2.176 TFLOPS means tasks like rendering, simulation, and machine learning inference will complete several times faster. Its 256.0 GB/s memory bandwidth and 8 GB capacity handle larger datasets without spilling to system memory. The ray tracing cores open up hardware-accelerated ray tracing for applications that support it, something the D300 cannot do at all. The Vulkan score of 68,634 indicates strong performance in modern graphics APIs.

The W7500 also wins on efficiency. At 70 W TDP, it draws less than half the power of the D300's 150 W. It needs no external power connectors and suggests a 250 W PSU versus 450 W. For dense workstation builds or multi-GPU configurations, this lower power draw is a major practical advantage. The PCIe 4.0 x8 interface, while narrower than the D300's PCIe 3.0 x16, offers higher bandwidth per lane and is a newer standard.

The D300 wins in only narrow, legacy contexts. Its 256 bit memory bus, while paired with slower GDDR5, provides a wider path that some older workloads may favor. Its PCIe 3.0 x16 interface is fully compatible with older motherboards that lack PCIe 4.0 support. The D300's 64th percentile rank suggests that within its own generation, it was a solid performer. For a system built in 2014 era hardware, the D300 remains a functional choice, but only if software does not require more than 2 GB of memory or modern API features.

The W7500's PassMark results show a balanced profile: DirectX 9 at 200, DirectX 10 at 65, DirectX 11 at 125, DirectX 12 at 46, G2D at 1174, G3D at 13368, and compute at 5910. The DirectX 12 score of 46 is notably low, but this likely reflects the test's age and the RDNA 3 architecture's driver maturity in that specific legacy benchmark, not a real-world weakness. The D300 has no PassMark scores recorded, so no comparison is possible there.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every specification category. The D300 uses the Pitcairn chip on GCN 1.0 architecture, while the W7500 uses Navi 33 on RDNA 3.0 with the codename Hotpink Bonefish. The process node drops from 28 nm to 6 nm, both at TSMC. Transistors increase from 2,800 million to 13,300 million, while die size shrinks from 212 mm² to 204 mm². Transistor density rises from 13.2M to 65.2M per square millimeter.

Clock speeds: the D300 has no base or boost clock listed, only a memory clock of 1270 MHz (5.1 Gbps effective). The W7500 has a base clock of 1500 MHz and a boost clock of 1700 MHz, with memory at 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective). Memory capacity goes from 2 GB GDDR5 to 8 GB GDDR6. Bus width drops from 256 bit to 128 bit, but bandwidth rises from 162.6 GB/s to 256.0 GB/s.

Compute units scale: shading units from 1,280 to 1,792, TMUs from 80 to 112, ROPs from 32 to 64. The W7500 adds 28 ray tracing cores; the D300 has none. Pixel rate jumps from 27.20 to 108.8 GPixel/s, texture rate from 68.00 to 190.4 GTexel/s, FP32 from 2.176 to 12.19 TFLOPS. The W7500 lists FP16 at 24.37 TFLOPS (2:1); the D300 lists no FP16.

Power: TDP drops from 150 W to 70 W, suggested PSU from 450 W to 250 W. The D300 has no power connector info; the W7500 requires none. Bus interface changes from PCIe 3.0 x16 to PCIe 4.0 x8. Display outputs move from 4x DisplayPort 1.2 to 4x DisplayPort 2.1. DirectX support advances from 12 (11_1) to 12 Ultimate (12_2). Vulkan advances from 1.2.170 to 1.4. OpenGL remains 4.6 for both.

Physical dimensions: the D300 is 242 mm (9.5 inches) long with no height or width recorded. The W7500 is 216 mm (8.5 inches) long, 115 mm (4.5 inches) high, and 20 mm (0.8 inches) wide. Both are single-slot. Production status differs: the D300 is end-of-life, the W7500 is active. Release dates are 2014-01-17 for the D300 and 2023-08-02 for the W7500. The D300's predecessor is FirePro Terascale and successor is Radeon Instinct; the W7500's predecessor is Radeon Pro Vega with no successor listed. The W7500 has a launch MSRP of 429 USD.