AMD FirePro D300 vs AMD Radeon RX 7600 XT Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data presents a clear split between these two AMD products. The FirePro D300, a workstation-oriented card from 2014, and the Radeon RX 7600 XT, a 2024 consumer offering, share only two common benchmark results in the database: Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. In both of those tests, the RX 7600 XT takes the win. The head-to-head tally shows 0 wins for the FirePro D300 and 2 wins for the RX 7600 XT.

The FirePro D300 has no unique benchmark entries of its own beyond those two shared tests. Its average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 19,637. The RX 7600 XT, by contrast, has a much wider benchmark footprint. Beyond the two shared Geekbench tests, it has recorded scores in Passmark DirectX 9, 10, 11, and 12, Passmark G2D, Passmark G3D, and Passmark GPU Compute, plus a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score. This means the RX 7600 XT can be evaluated across a broader range of workloads, from legacy DirectX 9 titles to modern DX12 and compute tasks.

Looking at the percentile rankings, the FirePro D300 sits at the 64th percentile of all GPUs, while the RX 7600 XT sits at the 60th percentile. That is a narrow gap, but it is worth remembering the FirePro's percentile is based on only two benchmark entries, while the RX 7600 XT's percentile draws from ten entries. The RX 7600 XT's average score of 17,083 is dragged down by its Passmark entries, which use a different scoring scale than Geekbench. In the two directly comparable tests, the RX 7600 XT is substantially ahead.

For use-case splits, the data indicates the RX 7600 XT is the choice for anyone needing current API support, modern rendering features, or high compute throughput. The FirePro D300, with its older GCN 1.0 architecture and FirePro branding, shows no benchmark advantage in any recorded test. Its only potential edge is the single-slot form factor and lower 150 W TDP, which may suit dense workstation builds, but the performance data does not support a win in any compute or graphics workload.

Architecture Differences

The architecture gap between these two cards is generational. The FirePro D300 uses the Pitcairn chip built on GCN 1.0 architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The RX 7600 XT uses the Navi 33 chip on RDNA 3.0 architecture, fabricated on a 6 nm process, also at TSMC. The process node shrunk from 28 nm to 6 nm, which is a major factor in the performance and efficiency differences.

Transistor counts tell a stark story. The FirePro D300 packs 2,800 million transistors on a 212 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 13.2 million per square millimeter. The RX 7600 XT packs 13,300 million transistors on a slightly smaller 204 mm² die, yielding a density of 65.2 million per square millimeter. That is roughly 4.9 times the transistor density, which explains how the newer card can offer far more compute resources in a similar physical footprint.

The memory subsystems differ fundamentally. The FirePro D300 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 162.6 GB/s of bandwidth. The RX 7600 XT has 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth. Despite having half the bus width, the newer card achieves nearly double the bandwidth thanks to faster memory clocks and GDDR6 technology. The memory clock is listed as 1270 MHz (5.1 Gbps effective) for the FirePro, versus 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) for the RX 7600 XT.

Compute resources scale dramatically. The FirePro D300 has 1,280 shading units, 80 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The RX 7600 XT has 2,048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The newer card also includes 32 ray tracing cores, a feature entirely absent from the FirePro D300. The FP32 throughput is 2.176 TFLOPS for the FirePro versus 22.57 TFLOPS for the RX 7600 XT, a difference of roughly 10.4 times. The RX 7600 XT also has FP16 capability at 22.57 TFLOPS (1:1), while the FirePro D300 lists no FP16 figure.

API support reflects the generational split. The FirePro D300 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The RX 7600 XT supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The newer card also uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while the FirePro uses PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs differ as well: the FirePro has 4x DisplayPort 1.2, while the RX 7600 XT has 1x HDMI 2.1a and 3x DisplayPort 2.1.

Power and physical characteristics differ. The FirePro D300 is rated at 150 W TDP, single-slot, with a suggested PSU of 450 W. The RX 7600 XT is rated at 190 W TDP, dual-slot, with a 1x 8-pin power connector and the same suggested PSU of 450 W. The FirePro is 242 mm long, while the RX 7600 XT is 204 mm long and 115 mm tall.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records two direct comparisons between these cards. In Geekbench OpenCL, the FirePro D300 scores 19,515, while the RX 7600 XT scores 92,426. The delta is -78.9%, meaning the RX 7600 XT is approximately 3.7 times faster in this compute workload. This is a massive margin, reflecting both the generational architecture leap and the much higher shader count and clock speeds.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the FirePro D300 scores 19,759, while the RX 7600 XT scores 48,366. The delta is -59.1%, meaning the RX 7600 XT is roughly 2.4 times faster. The smaller margin compared to OpenCL suggests the older GCN architecture holds up relatively better in Vulkan, but it still loses decisively.

For context on the FirePro D300's standing, its nearest rivals in the database include the NVIDIA Quadro K5200 (average score 19,602, delta 0.2%), the AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT (19,765, delta -0.6%), the AMD Radeon RX 7900 XTX (19,410, delta 1.2%), and the NVIDIA Tesla K40m (19,885, delta -1.2%). These deltas are all within roughly 1.2% of the FirePro's average, meaning the FirePro D300 is essentially tied with those cards in overall average score. The RX 7900 XTX, despite being a flagship gaming card, lands slightly below the FirePro in this particular average, which highlights how benchmark averages can be skewed by the specific tests included.

For the RX 7600 XT, its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 690 (17,037, delta 0.3%), the AMD Radeon HD 7970M (17,019, delta 0.4%), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 (17,208, delta -0.7%), and the NVIDIA Tesla M4 (16,932, delta 0.9%). Again, all are within roughly 1% of the RX 7600 XT's average, but these are very different cards in terms of era and capability. The RTX 3070 being within 0.7% of the RX 7600 XT in average score is notable, though the RX 7600 XT's Passmark DirectX 10 score of 85 and DirectX 12 score of 65 are quite low, which pulls its average down.

Looking at the RX 7600 XT's individual benchmark scores, the Passmark G3D score of 17,132 is its strongest traditional graphics result. The Passmark GPU Compute score of 8,987 suggests solid compute performance. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 2,348 is a modern DX12 test, and the card handles it well. The low DirectX 10 (85) and DirectX 12 (65) Passmark scores are outliers compared to the DirectX 11 (167) and DirectX 9 (228) scores, which may reflect driver optimization or test methodology quirks.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous. The AMD Radeon RX 7600 XT wins every recorded head-to-head benchmark against the FirePro D300, and by wide margins. In OpenCL, it is 78.9% ahead; in Vulkan, it is 59.1% ahead. The architectural differences explain why: a 6 nm RDNA 3.0 chip with 13,300 million transistors, 2,048 shaders, 32 ray tracing cores, and 16 GB of GDDR6 memory versus a 28 nm GCN 1.0 chip with 2,800 million transistors, 1,280 shaders, no ray tracing cores, and 2 GB of GDDR5.

For anyone choosing between these two cards today, the RX 7600 XT is the only rational pick based on performance. It offers more than 10 times the FP32 throughput, nearly double the memory bandwidth, eight times the memory capacity, and modern API support including DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4. The FirePro D300's advantages are limited to a lower 150 W TDP and a single-slot form factor, which may matter in specific multi-GPU workstation configurations, but these are niche benefits. The production status confirms the situation: the FirePro D300 is end-of-life, while the RX 7600 XT is active.

The FirePro D300's percentile ranking (64th) is slightly higher than the RX 7600 XT's (60th), but this is a statistical artifact of the limited test set. The FirePro has only two benchmark entries, both of which are lower than the RX 7600 XT's corresponding scores. The RX 7600 XT's percentile is dragged down by its Passmark scores, which are not directly comparable to Geekbench scores. In any direct comparison, the RX 7600 XT dominates.

Buyers should also note the RX 7600 XT has a launch MSRP of 329 USD, which the database records once here. The FirePro D300 has no recorded launch MSRP.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in OpenCL compute?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 7600 XT scores 92,426 in Geekbench OpenCL, versus 19,515 for the FirePro D300, a delta of -78.9% in favor of the RX 7600 XT.

Q: Does the FirePro D300 support ray tracing?

A: No. The FirePro D300 has no ray tracing cores listed. The RX 7600 XT has 32 ray tracing cores.

Q: How much memory does each card have?

A: The FirePro D300 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus. The RX 7600 XT has 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The FirePro D300 delivers 162.6 GB/s. The RX 7600 XT delivers 288.0 GB/s, which is nearly double despite a narrower bus.

Q: Which card has better Vulkan API support?

A: The RX 7600 XT supports Vulkan 1.4, while the FirePro D300 supports Vulkan 1.2.170. In the Geekbench Vulkan test, the RX 7600 XT scores 48,366 versus 19,759 for the FirePro.

Q: Are these cards similarly efficient?

A: No. The FirePro D300 has a 150 W TDP, while the RX 7600 XT has a 190 W TDP. Both suggest a 450 W power supply.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD FirePro D300 | AMD Radeon RX 7600 XT |

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

| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | RDNA 3.0 |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 6 nm |

| Transistors | 2,800 million | 13,300 million |

| Die Size | 212 mm² | 204 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 13.2M / mm² | 65.2M / mm² |

| Base Clock | Not listed | 1980 MHz |

| Boost Clock | Not listed | 2755 MHz |

| Game Clock | Not listed | 2470 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1270 MHz (5.1 Gbps effective) | 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | 16 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus | 256 bit | 128 bit |

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

| Shading Units | 1280 | 2048 |

| TMUs | 80 | 128 |

| ROPs | 32 | 64 |

| Ray Tracing Cores | Not listed | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 27.20 GPixel/s | 176.3 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 68.00 GTexel/s | 352.6 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 2.176 TFLOPS | 22.57 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | Not listed | 22.57 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 150 W | 190 W |

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

| Power Connectors | Not listed | 1x 8-pin |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |

| Display Outputs | 4x DisplayPort 1.2 | 1x HDMI 2.1a, 3x DisplayPort 2.1 |

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

| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |

| Vulkan | 1.2.170 | 1.4 |

| Length | 242 mm (9.5 inches) | 204 mm (8 inches) |

| Height | Not listed | 115 mm (4.5 inches) |

| Production Status | End-of-life | Active |

| Release Date | 2014-01-17 | 2024-01-23 |

| Predecessor | FirePro Terascale | Navi II |

| Successor | Radeon Instinct | Navi IV |

| Launch MSRP | Not listed | 329 USD |