AMD FirePro D300 vs AMD Radeon RX 6600M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database shows a decisive victory for the AMD Radeon RX 6600M across the two shared benchmark tests. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RX 6600M scores 67,765 against the FirePro D300’s 19,515. That is a 247.2% advantage. In Geekbench Vulkan, the margin widens further: the RX 6600M posts 73,740 versus 19,759, a 273.2% lead. Both results are unambiguous, with the RX 6600M winning every head-to-head comparison in the dataset.

These are not close calls. The RX 6600M is over three and a half times faster in the Vulkan workload, and roughly three and a half times faster in OpenCL. For any workload that leans on compute throughput or graphics API performance, the RX 6600M is the clear choice. The FirePro D300’s scores place it in a completely different performance tier, closer to professional workstation parts from its own era than to modern mobile graphics.

Looking at average benchmark scores across all recorded tests, the RX 6600M lands at 23,273, while the FirePro D300 averages 19,637. That is a 3,636-point gap, roughly an 18.5% overall advantage for the RX 6600M in aggregate performance. The RX 6600M also sits at the 68th percentile among all GPUs in the database, while the FirePro D300 sits at the 64th percentile. Neither is a flagship, but the RX 6600M is clearly the stronger performer in this pairing.

The nearest rivals for the RX 6600M in the database include the AMD Radeon R9 M290X (average score 23,276, delta 0%), the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 16 (23,250, +0.1%), and the NVIDIA P106-100 (23,249, +0.1%). The AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700 is slightly behind at 23,315, a -0.2% delta. For the FirePro D300, the nearest neighbors are the NVIDIA Quadro K5200 (19,602, +0.2%), the AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT (19,765, -0.6%), the AMD Radeon RX 7900 XTX (19,410, +1.2%), and the NVIDIA Tesla K40m (19,885, -1.2%). The RX 6600M’s average score is roughly 18% higher than the FirePro D300’s, and that gap is consistent with the head-to-head results.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different eras and completely different architectural families. The AMD Radeon RX 6600M uses the Navi 23 chip built on RDNA 2.0 architecture, fabricated on a 7 nm process at TSMC. The AMD FirePro D300 uses the Pitcairn chip with GCN 1.0 architecture, on a 28 nm process, also from TSMC. The process node difference alone, 7 nm versus 28 nm, explains much of the efficiency and transistor density gap.

The RX 6600M packs 11,060 million transistors into a 237 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 46.7 million per mm². The FirePro D300 has 2,800 million transistors on a 212 mm² die, for a density of 13.2 million per mm². That is a 3.5x density advantage for the RX 6600M, which directly translates into more compute resources in a similar physical footprint.

The RX 6600M features 1,792 shading units, 112 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs. It also includes 28 ray tracing cores, which the FirePro D300 lacks entirely. The FirePro D300 has 1,280 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. In raw throughput terms, the RX 6600M delivers 8.659 TFLOPS FP32, while the FirePro D300 manages 2.176 TFLOPS. The RX 6600M also supports FP16 at 17.32 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), while the FirePro D300 has no recorded FP16 capability.

Memory architecture differs substantially. The RX 6600M uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, with 224.0 GB/s bandwidth. The FirePro D300 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, but only achieves 162.6 GB/s. The RX 6600M’s memory clock is listed at 1750 MHz with 14 Gbps effective; the FirePro D300’s memory runs at 1270 MHz with 5.1 Gbps effective. Despite the narrower bus, the RX 6600M’s higher memory clock and newer memory type give it more bandwidth.

The bus interface also differs: the RX 6600M uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while the FirePro D300 uses PCIe 3.0 x16. Both are end-of-life products. The RX 6600M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The FirePro D300 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. That is a meaningful API feature gap, particularly for modern games that use DirectX 12 Ultimate features like ray tracing.

Where Each One Wins

Based strictly on the recorded data, the RX 6600M wins every benchmark where both are tested. There is no test in the database where the FirePro D300 beats the RX 6600M. The wins total 2 for the RX 6600M, 0 for the FirePro D300.

The RX 6600M is the clear winner for any compute-heavy task, such as OpenCL workloads or Vulkan-based rendering. Its 247.2% lead in OpenCL and 273.2% lead in Vulkan mean it is not just faster, it is in a different performance class. For gaming, content creation, or any modern graphics workload, the RX 6600M is the only sensible choice from this pairing.

The FirePro D300 does have one practical advantage: its form factor. It is a single-slot card, 242 mm long (9.5 inches), with four DisplayPort 1.2 outputs. It also carries a suggested PSU of 450 W. The RX 6600M is listed as an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no power connectors and portable-device-dependent display outputs. That means the FirePro D300 is a drop-in workstation card for a desktop chassis, while the RX 6600M is designed for laptops or compact mobile systems.

The FirePro D300 also has a higher TDP at 150 W, versus 100 W for the RX 6600M. That is counterintuitive given the performance gap, but it reflects the older, less efficient 28 nm process. The RX 6600M delivers far more performance at lower power draw. The FirePro D300’s only real win is in physical integration: it is a standard PCIe card that can be installed in a workstation, while the RX 6600M is not a discrete card at all.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon RX 6600M | AMD FirePro D300 |

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

| Architecture | RDNA 2.0 | GCN 1.0 |

| Process node | 7 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 11,060 million | 2,800 million |

| Die size | 237 mm² | 212 mm² |

| Transistor density | 46.7M / mm² | 13.2M / mm² |

| Shading units | 1,792 | 1,280 |

| TMUs | 112 | 80 |

| ROPs | 64 | 32 |

| Ray tracing cores | 28 | None |

| FP32 performance | 8.659 TFLOPS | 2.176 TFLOPS |

| FP16 performance | 17.32 TFLOPS (2:1) | Not recorded |

| Memory size | 8 GB GDDR6 | 2 GB GDDR5 |

| Memory bus width | 128 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory bandwidth | 224.0 GB/s | 162.6 GB/s |

| Memory clock | 1750 MHz, 14 Gbps effective | 1270 MHz, 5.1 Gbps effective |

| TDP | 100 W | 150 W |

| Slot width | IGP | Single-slot |

| Power connectors | None | Not recorded |

| Suggested PSU | Not recorded | 450 W |

| Bus interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| Display outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 4x DisplayPort 1.2 |

| DirectX support | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (11_1) |

| Vulkan support | 1.4 | 1.2.170 |

The table shows the key differences. The RX 6600M is newer, denser, faster, and more feature-rich. The FirePro D300 has a wider memory bus and a standard desktop slot, but that is where its advantages end.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6600M scores 67,765 versus 19,515 for the FirePro D300, a 247.2% advantage.

Q: Does the FirePro D300 support ray tracing?

A: No. The FirePro D300 has no ray tracing cores. The RX 6600M has 28 ray tracing cores.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The RX 6600M has 8 GB of GDDR6, while the FirePro D300 has 2 GB of GDDR5. The RX 6600M also has higher bandwidth at 224.0 GB/s versus 162.6 GB/s.

Q: Which card has a higher TDP?

A: The FirePro D300 has a 150 W TDP, while the RX 6600M is rated at 100 W. The RX 6600M delivers more performance at lower power.

Q: Can the FirePro D300 be installed in a desktop workstation?

A: Yes. It is a single-slot card, 242 mm long, with 4x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs and a suggested PSU of 450 W. The RX 6600M is an IGP with portable-device-dependent outputs.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each GPU?

A: The RX 6600M averages 23,273, while the FirePro D300 averages 19,637. The RX 6600M sits at the 68th percentile, the FirePro D300 at the 64th.

The Verdict

The data is one-sided. The AMD Radeon RX 6600M wins every recorded benchmark, with margins between 247.2% and 273.2%. It has more shading units, more ROPs, more memory, higher bandwidth, newer architecture, and better API support. It also consumes 50 W less power. If you are choosing between these two for any compute, rendering, or gaming workload, the RX 6600M is the only rational pick.

The FirePro D300 is not without a niche. It is a single-slot, 242 mm desktop card with four DisplayPort outputs and a 450 W PSU suggestion. That makes it a straightforward drop-in for a legacy workstation that needs a known, stable GPU. Its 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus is still workable for basic display tasks or older software that does not demand much VRAM. But its performance ceiling is low: 2.176 TFLOPS FP32 and no ray tracing, no FP16, and no modern DirectX 12 Ultimate support.

For anyone building or upgrading a system today, the RX 6600M is the superior part in almost every measurable way. The only reason to pick the FirePro D300 is if you specifically need a desktop single-slot card with DisplayPort outputs and you cannot use an IGP. Otherwise, the benchmark results speak clearly: the RX 6600M is roughly 3.5x faster in the tests where both are measured, and its average score is about 18.5% higher overall. Choose the RX 6600M for performance, choose the FirePro D300 only for its physical form factor.