GPU Comparison

The AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT and AMD FirePro D300 represent two distinct eras of AMD graphics technology, separated by six years of architectural evolution. Benchmark data shows the RX 5600 XT dominating the shared test suite, with a 251.2% lead in Geekbench OpenCL and a 184.5% lead in Geekbench Vulkan. These results place the RX 5600 XT in the 66th percentile of all GPUs, while the FirePro D300 sits at the 64th percentile, yet the raw performance gap between them is substantial.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two GPUs share only two benchmark results in the database: Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. In both tests, the RX 5600 XT wins decisively. The OpenCL score of 68,537 for the RX 5600 XT versus 19,515 for the FirePro D300 represents a 251.2% advantage. This is not a marginal victory but a complete generational leap, reflecting the fundamental differences in compute architecture and memory subsystem between the two cards.

In Vulkan, the RX 5600 XT scores 56,218 against 19,759 for the FirePro D300, a 184.5% delta. The Vulkan result is particularly telling because it measures modern API performance, an area where the older GCN 1.0 architecture of the FirePro D300 is at a significant disadvantage. The RX 5600 XT’s RDNA 1.0 architecture was designed with contemporary graphics APIs in mind, while the FirePro D300’s GCN 1.0 predates Vulkan’s widespread adoption by several years.

The average benchmark score across all tests reinforces this narrative. The RX 5600 XT averages 20,713 points, while the FirePro D300 averages 19,637. While the averages are closer than the head-to-head results might suggest, this is because the RX 5600 XT has eleven benchmark entries across multiple test suites, whereas the FirePro D300 only has two. The RX 5600 XT’s best individual result of 80,376 in Geekbench Metal shows its strength in compute-heavy workloads, while its Passmark G3D score of 13,457 demonstrates solid rasterization performance.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is vast. The RX 5600 XT uses the Navi 10 chip built on TSMC’s 7 nm process, packing 10,300 million transistors into a 251 mm² die. The FirePro D300 uses the Pitcairn chip on a 28 nm process, with 2,800 million transistors on a 212 mm² die. This translates to a transistor density of 41.0 million per mm² for the RX 5600 XT versus 13.2 million per mm² for the FirePro D300, a 3.1x density advantage for the newer card.

The RX 5600 XT features 2,304 shading units, 144 texture mapping units, and 64 render output units. The FirePro D300 has 1,280 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. This means the RX 5600 XT has 80% more shading units, 80% more TMUs, and double the ROPs. The memory configuration differs as well: the RX 5600 XT uses 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus, delivering 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth, while the FirePro D300 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 162.6 GB/s. Despite the narrower bus, the RX 5600 XT’s faster GDDR6 memory provides 77% more bandwidth.

Clock speeds show similar divergence. The RX 5600 XT runs at 1130 MHz base, 1375 MHz game, and 1560 MHz boost clocks, with memory at 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective). The FirePro D300 has no listed base or boost clocks but runs memory at 1270 MHz (5.1 Gbps effective). The RX 5600 XT’s pixel rate of 99.84 GPixel/s is 3.7x higher than the FirePro D300’s 27.20 GPixel/s, and its texture rate of 224.6 GTexel/s is 3.3x higher than 68.00 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 7.188 TFLOPS versus 2.176 TFLOPS, a 3.3x advantage for the RX 5600 XT.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the data, the RX 5600 XT wins every measurable category. It has higher raw compute, more memory bandwidth, more shading units, and better API support. The FirePro D300 does not win a single benchmark in the head-to-head comparison. However, the FirePro D300 retains some advantages that are not reflected in benchmark scores alone.

The FirePro D300 is a single-slot card measuring 242 mm (9.5 inches) in length, whereas the RX 5600 XT is a dual-slot card at 267 mm (10.5 inches). For dense multi-GPU workstation configurations where space is at a premium, the FirePro D300’s smaller footprint could be preferable. The FirePro D300 also offers 4x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, while the RX 5600 XT provides 1x HDMI 2.0b and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a. If a user needs four DisplayPort connections without adapters, the FirePro D300 has an edge in display connectivity.

The RX 5600 XT wins on PCIe interface, supporting PCIe 4.0 x16 versus PCIe 3.0 x16 on the FirePro D300. This doubles the potential bandwidth for data transfers, though real-world gaming and rendering workloads rarely saturate PCIe 3.0. The RX 5600 XT also supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the FirePro D300 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170. For modern games and applications that leverage these APIs, the RX 5600 XT has a clear software advantage.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the RX 5600 XT in OpenCL compute?

A: The RX 5600 XT scores 68,537 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 251.2% higher than the FirePro D300’s 19,515.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The RX 5600 XT has 6 GB of GDDR6 memory, while the FirePro D300 has 2 GB of GDDR5. The RX 5600 XT also delivers 288.0 GB/s bandwidth versus 162.6 GB/s.

Q: Which card has better Vulkan performance?

A: The RX 5600 XT scores 56,218 in Geekbench Vulkan, a 184.5% improvement over the FirePro D300’s 19,759.

Q: Are both cards still in production?

A: No, both are end-of-life products. The RX 5600 XT was released on 2020-01-20, while the FirePro D300 was released on 2014-01-17.

Q: How do the transistor counts compare?

A: The RX 5600 XT has 10,300 million transistors on a 7 nm process, while the FirePro D300 has 2,800 million transistors on a 28 nm process.

Q: What is the maximum FP32 compute performance?

A: The RX 5600 XT delivers 7.188 TFLOPS FP32, which is 3.3x higher than the FirePro D300’s 2.176 TFLOPS.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear winner: the AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT outperforms the AMD FirePro D300 in every benchmark category measured. The 251.2% lead in OpenCL and 184.5% lead in Vulkan are decisive, as are the 3.3x advantages in both texture fill rate and FP32 compute. Anyone comparing these two cards for modern workloads should choose the RX 5600 XT without hesitation.

The FirePro D300’s only redeeming qualities are its single-slot form factor, four DisplayPort outputs, and lower length of 242 mm versus 267 mm. These physical attributes might matter in specific workstation builds where space is extremely constrained or where four native DisplayPort connections are required. However, these advantages do not compensate for the massive performance deficit.

The RX 5600 XT’s 66th percentile ranking among all GPUs, compared to the FirePro D300’s 64th percentile, understates the actual performance gap. The RX 5600 XT’s nearest rivals include the Intel Arc A750 and Arc B570, both within 0.8% of its average score, indicating it remains competitive with modern mid-range GPUs. The FirePro D300’s rivals include the NVIDIA Tesla K40m and AMD Radeon RX 7900 XTX, showing it competes in a different performance tier entirely.

For gaming, content creation, or general compute workloads, the RX 5600 XT is the only rational choice. The FirePro D300 is a legacy product from the GCN 1.0 era that cannot match the RDNA 1.0 architecture’s efficiency and feature set. The RX 5600 XT’s support for PCIe 4.0, DirectX 12 (12_1), and Vulkan 1.4 ensures compatibility with modern software stacks, while the FirePro D300’s older API support limits its usefulness in current applications.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT | AMD FirePro D300 |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | RDNA 1.0 | GCN 1.0 |

| Process Node | 7 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 10,300 million | 2,800 million |

| Die Size | 251 mm² | 212 mm² |

| Memory Size | 6 GB | 2 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | 192 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 288.0 GB/s | 162.6 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 2304 | 1280 |

| TMUs | 144 | 80 |

| ROPs | 64 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 99.84 GPixel/s | 27.20 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 224.6 GTexel/s | 68.00 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 7.188 TFLOPS | 2.176 TFLOPS |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | Single-slot |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | 1x HDMI 2.0b, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a | 4x DisplayPort 1.2 |

| DirectX Support | 12 (12_1) | 12 (11_1) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.4 | 1.2.170 |

| Length | 267 mm (10.5 inches) | 242 mm (9.5 inches) |

| Release Date | 2020-01-20 | 2014-01-17 |