AMD FirePro D300 vs AMD Radeon R9 M390X Comparison

AMD Radeon R9 M390X and AMD FirePro D300 are both end-of-life AMD graphics cards built on a 28 nm TSMC process, but they target different segments and deliver measurably different results in the benchmark data. The R9 M390X is a mobile-oriented part with a GCN 3.0 architecture, while the FirePro D300 is a professional workstation card based on the older GCN 1.0 design. Their only shared benchmark is GeekBench Vulkan, where the FirePro D300 wins decisively, scoring 19,759 against the R9 M390X’s 16,951, a 14.2% advantage. However, the R9 M390X holds a higher average benchmark score of 20,662 across its tested workloads, compared to the FirePro D300’s 19,637, indicating that the comparison is not one-sided.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single direct comparison available comes from GeekBench Vulkan, and the data shows a clear victory for the AMD FirePro D300. The FirePro D300 scores 19,759 points, while the AMD Radeon R9 M390X manages only 16,951 points, resulting in a delta of -14.2% for the R9 M390X. This is a substantial margin in a modern graphics API workload, suggesting that the older GCN 1.0 architecture in the FirePro D300 is not necessarily a disadvantage in this specific test. The FirePro D300’s higher memory clock of 1270 MHz (5.1 Gbps effective) versus the R9 M390X’s 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective) contributes to a slightly higher memory bandwidth of 162.6 GB/s versus 160.0 GB/s, which may factor into the Vulkan result.

Beyond the head-to-head, the average benchmark scores tell a different story. The R9 M390X posts an average score of 20,662, which places it in the 66th percentile of all GPUs, while the FirePro D300 averages 19,637, sitting in the 64th percentile. The R9 M390X’s average is 1,025 points higher, roughly 5.2% above the FirePro D300’s average. This gap reflects the R9 M390X’s performance in GeekBench Metal, where it scores 24,373—a figure not directly compared but clearly lifting its overall average. The FirePro D300 counters with a GeekBench OpenCL score of 19,515, which is not available for the R9 M390X, so the two cards effectively excel in different API environments.

Looking at rival comparisons, the R9 M390X’s average score of 20,662 sits within a tight cluster of competitors. It is 0.2% behind the AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT (20,713), 0.4% ahead of the Intel Arc A750 (20,582), 0.5% ahead of the Intel Arc B570 (20,556), and 0.6% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile (20,534). These deltas are all within a single percentage point, indicating the R9 M390X performs at a level consistent with modern mid-range parts. The FirePro D300’s average of 19,637 similarly matches its rivals closely: it is 0.2% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro K5200 (19,602), 0.6% behind the AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT (19,765), 1.2% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 7900 XTX (19,410), and 1.2% behind the NVIDIA Tesla K40m (19,885). The FirePro D300’s performance is therefore competitive within its professional peer group, despite being an older design.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon R9 M390X wins in aggregate performance, as evidenced by its higher average benchmark score of 20,662 versus the FirePro D300’s 19,637. This advantage likely stems from its GeekBench Metal score of 24,373, which is its strongest result and indicates a clear edge in Metal-based workloads—an API commonly used in macOS environments. The R9 M390X also benefits from a larger memory pool of 4 GB compared to the FirePro D300’s 2 GB, which can be decisive in texture-heavy applications or higher-resolution scenarios, though the benchmark data does not directly test this.

The AMD FirePro D300 wins in the Vulkan benchmark, scoring 19,759 against the R9 M390X’s 16,951. This 14.2% lead in a cross-platform API suggests the FirePro D300 is better optimized for Vulkan compute and graphics tasks, possibly due to its professional driver stack. The FirePro D300 also has a higher pixel rate of 27.20 GPixel/s versus the R9 M390X’s 23.14 GPixel/s, which indicates faster fill-rate performance for pixel-heavy operations. Additionally, the FirePro D300 features four DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, making it more suitable for multi-display workstation setups, whereas the R9 M390X’s outputs are listed as portable-device dependent.

For compute workloads, the R9 M390X offers higher raw throughput: its FP32 performance is 2.961 TFLOPS, compared to the FirePro D300’s 2.176 TFLOPS, a 36% advantage. The R9 M390X also has more shading units (2048 versus 1280), more texture mapping units (128 versus 80), and a higher texture rate of 92.54 GTexel/s versus 68.00 GTexel/s. These numbers suggest the R9 M390X is the stronger choice for general compute and texture-heavy tasks, while the FirePro D300’s Vulkan win and higher pixel rate point to specific strengths in rasterization and API-specific workloads.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures. The AMD Radeon R9 M390X uses GCN 3.0, a third-generation Graphics Core Next design, and is based on the Amethyst chip. The AMD FirePro D300 relies on the original GCN 1.0 architecture, using the Pitcairn chip. Both are manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC, but the transistor counts differ significantly: the R9 M390X packs 5,000 million transistors on a 366 mm² die, while the FirePro D300 has 2,800 million transistors on a 212 mm² die. This results in a transistor density of 13.7 million per mm² for the R9 M390X, slightly higher than the FirePro D300’s 13.2 million per mm².

The memory subsystems differ in capacity but are similar in bus width. The R9 M390X has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory, while the FirePro D300 has 2 GB, both on a 256-bit bus. Memory clocks are close: the R9 M390X runs at 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective), and the FirePro D300 at 1270 MHz (5.1 Gbps effective), yielding bandwidths of 160.0 GB/s and 162.6 GB/s, respectively. The FirePro D300’s slightly higher bandwidth is a marginal advantage, but the R9 M390X’s double memory capacity is a more substantial difference for working sets.

Feature sets also diverge. The R9 M390X supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the FirePro D300 only supports DirectX 12 (11_1), meaning the R9 M390X is more future-proof for modern games and applications. Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.170, but the R9 M390X also supports FP16 compute at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, whereas the FirePro D300 has no FP16 data listed. The R9 M390X has a TDP of 75 W and uses an MXM module form factor, while the FirePro D300 is a single-slot card with a 150 W TDP and requires a 450 W power supply. The FirePro D300 is also a full-length card at 242 mm (9.5 inches), whereas the R9 M390X’s dimensions are not specified.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R9 M390X has a higher average score of 20,662, compared to the AMD FirePro D300’s 19,637, a difference of 1,025 points.

Q: How much faster is the FirePro D300 in the Vulkan benchmark?

A: The FirePro D300 scores 19,759 in GeekBench Vulkan, which is 14.2% higher than the R9 M390X’s 16,951.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference between the two cards?

A: The R9 M390X has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory, while the FirePro D300 has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory, with both using a 256-bit bus.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The R9 M390X has 2048 shading units, while the FirePro D300 has 1280 shading units.

Q: What are the TDP ratings for each GPU?

A: The R9 M390X has a TDP of 75 W, while the FirePro D300 has a TDP of 150 W.

Q: Do both cards support the same DirectX version?

A: No, the R9 M390X supports DirectX 12 (12_0), whereas the FirePro D300 supports DirectX 12 (11_1).

Specification Differences

• Architecture: R9 M390X is GCN 3.0; FirePro D300 is GCN 1.0
• Chip: R9 M390X uses Amethyst; FirePro D300 uses Pitcairn
• Transistors: R9 M390X has 5,000 million; FirePro D300 has 2,800 million
• Die Size: R9 M390X is 366 mm²; FirePro D300 is 212 mm²
• Transistor Density: R9 M390X is 13.7M / mm²; FirePro D300 is 13.2M / mm²
• Memory Clock: R9 M390X is 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective); FirePro D300 is 1270 MHz (5.1 Gbps effective)
• Memory Size: R9 M390X has 4 GB; FirePro D300 has 2 GB
• Memory Bandwidth: R9 M390X is 160.0 GB/s; FirePro D300 is 162.6 GB/s
• Shading Units: R9 M390X has 2048; FirePro D300 has 1280
• TMUs: R9 M390X has 128; FirePro D300 has 80
• Pixel Rate: R9 M390X is 23.14 GPixel/s; FirePro D300 is 27.20 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: R9 M390X is 92.54 GTexel/s; FirePro D300 is 68.00 GTexel/s
• FP32 Performance: R9 M390X is 2.961 TFLOPS; FirePro D300 is 2.176 TFLOPS
• FP16 Performance: R9 M390X is 2.961 TFLOPS (1:1); FirePro D300 has no data
• TDP: R9 M390X is 75 W; FirePro D300 is 150 W
• Slot Width: R9 M390X is MXM Module; FirePro D300 is Single-slot
• Power Connectors: R9 M390X has none; FirePro D300 has no data
• Suggested PSU: R9 M390X has no data; FirePro D300 is 450 W
• Display Outputs: R9 M390X is Portable Device Dependent; FirePro D300 is 4x DisplayPort 1.2
• DirectX Support: R9 M390X is 12 (12_0); FirePro D300 is 12 (11_1)
• Length: R9 M390X has no data; FirePro D300 is 242 mm (9.5 inches)
• Release Date: R9 M390X is 2015-05-04; FirePro D300 is 2014-01-17
• Predecessor: R9 M390X is Solar System; FirePro D300 is FirePro Terascale
• Successor: R9 M390X is Polaris Mobile; FirePro D300 is Radeon Instinct
• Generation: R9 M390X is Gem System (R9 M300); FirePro D300 is FirePro Data Center (Dx00)

The Verdict

The data supports a split decision based on workload. For users prioritizing raw compute throughput and higher average performance, the AMD Radeon R9 M390X is the stronger option. Its average benchmark score of 20,662 is 5.2% higher than the FirePro D300’s 19,637, and it delivers 36% more FP32 performance (2.961 TFLOPS versus 2.176 TFLOPS). The R9 M390X also offers double the memory (4 GB versus 2 GB), a more modern GCN 3.0 architecture, and support for DirectX 12 (12_0), making it better suited for gaming or general-purpose compute in modern APIs. Its lower TDP of 75 W also makes it more power-efficient.

For users focused on Vulkan-specific workloads or professional multi-display setups, the AMD FirePro D300 is the better choice. It wins the only head-to-head benchmark by 14.2% (19,759 versus 16,951 in GeekBench Vulkan), has a higher pixel rate (27.20 GPixel/s versus 23.14 GPixel/s), and provides four DisplayPort 1.2 outputs for multi-monitor configurations. Its professional FirePro lineage, indicated by its generation and successor (Radeon Instinct), suggests it was designed for workstation tasks, and the data confirms its Vulkan advantage. However, its 150 W TDP and 450 W power supply requirement make it less efficient, and its older GCN 1.0 architecture limits its DirectX 12 support to 11_1. Ultimately, choose the R9 M390X for general performance and compute density; choose the FirePro D300 for Vulkan-heavy and multi-display professional work.