AMD FirePro D300 vs AMD Radeon RX 460 Comparison

The AMD FirePro D300 and AMD Radeon RX 460 are both end-of-life graphics cards from AMD, but they target very different eras and use cases. The FirePro D300 is a workstation-oriented card from the FirePro Data Center (Dx00) generation, built on the older GCN 1.0 architecture and a 28 nm process. The Radeon RX 460 is a consumer gaming card from the Arctic Islands (RX 400) generation, using the newer GCN 4.0 architecture and a 14 nm process. The benchmark data reveals a fascinating split: the FirePro D300 wins in OpenCL compute, while the RX 460 wins in Vulkan. This page analyzes their specifications, architectures, and benchmark results to determine where each card excels.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD FirePro D300 has a higher average benchmark score of 19637, compared to the AMD Radeon RX 460's average score of 18373. This places the FirePro D300 in the 64th percentile of all GPUs, while the RX 460 sits in the 62nd percentile.

Q: How do the two cards compare in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The AMD FirePro D300 wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 19515, while the AMD Radeon RX 460 scores 17855. This gives the FirePro D300 a 9.3% advantage in this specific workload.

Q: What about the Geekbench Vulkan test?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 460 wins the Geekbench Vulkan test, scoring 20198 compared to the AMD FirePro D300's 19759. The RX 460's lead is 2.2% in this test.

Q: What are the key differences in memory bus width?

A: The AMD FirePro D300 has a 256-bit memory bus, while the AMD Radeon RX 460 has a 128-bit bus. Consequently, the FirePro D300 offers 162.6 GB/s of memory bandwidth, whereas the RX 460 provides 112.0 GB/s.

Q: Which card has a higher transistor density?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 460 has a significantly higher transistor density at 24.4 million transistors per mm², thanks to its 14 nm process. The AMD FirePro D300, built on 28 nm, has a density of 13.2 million transistors per mm².

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The AMD FirePro D300 has a TDP of 150 W and suggests a 450 W power supply. The AMD Radeon RX 460, in contrast, has a much lower TDP of 75 W and only suggests a 250 W power supply, requiring no external power connectors.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data shows a clear division of labor between these two cards. The AMD FirePro D300 is the winner in compute-heavy OpenCL workloads, which often align with professional applications like rendering and scientific simulation. Its 9.3% lead in Geekbench OpenCL is substantial, indicating that its architecture and memory subsystem are better tuned for raw compute throughput. The card's higher pixel rate of 27.20 GPixel/s and texture rate of 68.00 GTexel/s, combined with its larger 256-bit memory bus, suggest it can handle data-intensive tasks more efficiently.

On the other hand, the AMD Radeon RX 460 takes the crown in the Vulkan API, a modern graphics and compute interface. Its 2.2% victory in Geekbench Vulkan, with a score of 20198, points to better driver optimization for contemporary graphics workloads. The RX 460's newer GCN 4.0 architecture supports Vulkan 1.3, whereas the FirePro D300 is limited to Vulkan 1.2.170. This makes the RX 460 a more suitable choice for modern gaming or applications that leverage the latest graphics APIs.

In terms of overall performance, the FirePro D300 holds a 6.9% advantage in average benchmark score (19637 vs 18373). However, this margin is not overwhelming, and the specific workload matters more than the aggregate score. The RX 460 counters with a much lower power draw, making it a more efficient option for users who prioritize energy consumption.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two cards is significant, spanning two generations of AMD's Graphics Core Next (GCN) design. The AMD FirePro D300 is built on GCN 1.0, an early implementation of the architecture that debuted with the Pitcairn chip. This architecture was designed for a mix of compute and graphics, but its compute capabilities were less refined than later iterations. The chip is fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC, with a die size of 212 mm² and 2,800 million transistors.

The AMD Radeon RX 460 uses GCN 4.0, a major revision that brought improvements in both efficiency and feature support. Its Baffin chip is manufactured on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries, allowing for a much smaller die size of 123 mm² while packing 3,000 million transistors. This smaller, denser chip reflects the manufacturing advancements between 2014 and 2016. The RX 460 also supports FP16 compute at a 1:1 ratio, a feature the FirePro D300 lacks, which can be beneficial for certain machine learning and media workloads.

The API support reflects the architectural evolution. The FirePro D300 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), while the RX 460 supports DirectX 12 (12_0). Similarly, Vulkan support improves from 1.2.170 on the FirePro to 1.3 on the RX 460. Both cards support OpenGL 4.6, showing that this API remained stable across the generations.

Specification Differences

The specification sheet reveals stark contrasts between the two cards, reflecting their different design goals. The AMD FirePro D300 features 1280 shading units, 80 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 32 raster operations units (ROPs). In contrast, the AMD Radeon RX 460 has fewer of each: 896 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Despite having fewer cores, the RX 460 achieves a comparable FP32 performance of 2.150 TFLOPS, nearly matching the FirePro D300's 2.176 TFLOPS, thanks to its higher clock speeds.

Clock speeds are a major differentiator. The FirePro D300's base and boost clocks are not specified in the data, but its memory clock is 1270 MHz, translating to 5.1 Gbps effective. The RX 460 has explicit base and boost clocks of 1090 MHz and 1200 MHz, respectively, with a memory clock of 1750 MHz (7 Gbps effective). The RX 460's higher memory clock partially compensates for its narrower 128-bit bus, but the FirePro D300 still achieves higher bandwidth due to its 256-bit bus.

Memory configurations are similar in capacity (both 2 GB GDDR5), but the bus width and bandwidth differ significantly. The FirePro D300 offers 162.6 GB/s, while the RX 460 provides 112.0 GB/s. The physical design also diverges: the FirePro D300 is a single-slot card with four DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, while the RX 460 is dual-slot with a mix of DVI, HDMI 2.0b, and DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The RX 460 requires no power connectors and has a lower TDP of 75 W, versus the FirePro D300's 150 W.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark results are remarkably balanced, with each card winning one test. In Geekbench OpenCL, the AMD FirePro D300 scores 19515 against the AMD Radeon RX 460's 17855. This 9.3% margin is the largest performance gap between the two cards in any test. The FirePro D300's advantage likely stems from its wider memory bus and higher bandwidth, which are critical for OpenCL compute tasks that involve large datasets.

The Geekbench Vulkan test tells a different story. Here, the AMD Radeon RX 460 edges out the FirePro D300 with a score of 20198 versus 19759. The RX 460's 2.2% lead, while smaller, is notable because it demonstrates the newer architecture's better optimization for modern APIs. Vulkan is designed to reduce overhead and provide more direct control to developers, and the RX 460's GCN 4.0 architecture appears to handle this more efficiently.

Looking at the broader benchmark context, the FirePro D300's average score of 19637 places it near rivals like the NVIDIA Quadro K5200 (19602, 0.2% difference) and the AMD Radeon RX 7900 XTX (19410, 1.2% difference). The RX 460's average score of 18373 is closely matched with the Intel Arc A770M (18383, -0.1% difference) and the AMD FirePro D500 (18533, -0.9% difference). These rival comparisons show that the FirePro D300 performs at a higher tier overall, but the RX 460 is not far behind in specific workloads.

The Verdict

The data paints a clear picture: the AMD FirePro D300 is the better card for OpenCL compute tasks, while the AMD Radeon RX 460 is superior for Vulkan-based workloads. Users who prioritize raw compute performance in professional applications should favor the FirePro D300, as its 9.3% OpenCL lead and higher average benchmark score (19637 vs 18373) indicate stronger overall throughput. Its wider 256-bit memory bus and higher bandwidth make it well-suited for data-heavy tasks.

However, the AMD Radeon RX 460 offers compelling advantages for those focused on modern graphics APIs and efficiency. Its Vulkan score of 20198 surpasses the FirePro D300, and its support for Vulkan 1.3 and DirectX 12 (12_0) ensures better compatibility with current software. The RX 460's dramatically lower power consumption (75 W vs 150 W) and lack of external power connectors make it an easier fit for compact or low-power systems.

For a professional workstation environment where compute stability and bandwidth are paramount, the FirePro D300 is the logical choice. For a consumer building a system around the latest gaming APIs or seeking an efficient secondary card, the RX 460 is more appropriate. The 2.2% Vulkan win for the RX 460 is small, but the architectural and efficiency improvements are decisive for modern use cases. Ultimately, the choice hinges on whether the user's workloads lean toward OpenCL compute or Vulkan graphics.