AMD FirePro D300 vs AMD Radeon RX 7600S Comparison

The AMD FirePro D300 and the AMD Radeon RX 7600S are two GPUs from entirely different eras and market segments, and the recorded data makes the gap between them unusually stark for a same-manufacturer comparison. The FirePro D300 is an end-of-life professional card built on the Pitcairn chip with GCN 1.0 architecture, released in January 2014, while the RX 7600S is an active mobile part from the Radeon RX 7000 series, built on the Navi 33 chip with RDNA 3.0 architecture and released in January 2023. In the two head-to-head benchmark tests recorded in the database, Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan, the RX 7600S wins both, by margins exceeding seventy percent. The FirePro D300 records zero wins in the direct comparison. What follows is a step-by-step walk through the data, covering where each card holds ground, how their architectures differ, and who should pick which based strictly on the measurements.

Where Each One Wins

The honest answer from the database is that the RX 7600S wins everywhere the two cards were directly compared. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RX 7600S scored 68012 against the FirePro D300's 19515, roughly three and a half times the score. In Geekbench Vulkan, the gap is even wider: 73868 versus 19759. There is no recorded benchmark in which the FirePro D300 comes out ahead.

Where the FirePro D300 retains relevance is in qualitative capabilities the RX 7600S cannot match in the same way. It offers four DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, which suits multi-monitor professional workstations, whereas the RX 7600S lists its display outputs as portable-device dependent since it is an integrated mobile solution. The FirePro D300 also belongs to the FirePro Data Center generation, positioned for professional graphics rather than consumer gaming. So while the RX 7600S dominates every performance measurement on record, the FirePro D300's fixed four-port output configuration and workstation-class positioning remain its only distinguishing strengths in the data.

Within the broader database context, both cards sit in similar overall territory: the FirePro D300 ranks at the 64th percentile versus all GPUs, and the RX 7600S sits at the 60th percentile. The FirePro D300's average benchmark score of 19637 places it within a fraction of a percent of the NVIDIA Quadro K5200 (19602 average, a 0.2 percent gap), slightly ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 7900 XTX (19410, a 1.2 percent gap), and slightly behind the AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT (19765, a 0.6 percent gap) and the NVIDIA Tesla K40m (19885, a 1.2 percent gap). The RX 7600S, with an average score of 16696, sits between the NVIDIA T400 at 16508 (1.1 percent gap) and the NVIDIA T400 4 GB at 16792 (0.6 percent gap), with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 D V2 at 16504 and the NVIDIA Tesla M4 at 16932 nearby. Note that these percentile and average-score figures reflect the full test suites available for each card, not the direct head-to-head tests, which is why the RX 7600S can be both the dominant head-to-head winner and sit at a lower average score across its larger benchmark set.

Architecture Differences

The architectural distance between these two parts spans nearly a decade. The FirePro D300 uses the Pitcairn chip on TSMC's 28 nm process, packing 2,800 million transistors into a 212 mm² die, a density of 13.2 million transistors per square millimeter. The RX 7600S uses the Navi 33 chip, codenamed Hotpink Bonefish, on TSMC's 6 nm process, with 13,300 million transistors in a 204 mm² die, a density of 65.2 million transistors per square millimeter. The dies are nearly the same physical size, but the RX 7600S carries almost five times the transistor count, which is the clearest single illustration of the process-node leap from 28 nm to 6 nm.

The core counts tell the same story. The FirePro D300 has 1280 shading units, 80 texture mapping units, and 32 render output units. The RX 7600S has 1792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, plus 28 RT cores for hardware ray tracing, a feature category entirely absent from the FirePro D300's specification. Neither card lists tensor cores.

Clock behavior also differs substantially. The FirePro D300's base, boost, and game clocks are not recorded in the database, though its memory runs at 1270 MHz, 5.1 Gbps effective. The RX 7600S records a 1500 MHz base clock, a 2200 MHz boost clock, a 1865 MHz game clock, and memory at 2000 MHz, 16 Gbps effective.

Memory is another clear divide. The FirePro D300 carries 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 162.6 GB/s of bandwidth. The RX 7600S carries 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus but at much higher effective speed, delivering 256.0 GB/s. So the older card has the wider bus while the newer card has quadruple the capacity and roughly fifty-seven percent more bandwidth.

The theoretical throughput numbers quantify the generational gap. The FirePro D300 produces 27.20 GPixel/s of pixel fill, 68.00 GTexel/s of texture fill, and 2.176 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, with no FP16 figure recorded. The RX 7600S produces 140.8 GPixel/s, 246.4 GTexel/s, and 15.77 TFLOPS FP32, plus 31.54 TFLOPS of FP16 at a 2:1 rate. That is more than five times the FP32 compute, more than five times the pixel rate, and more than three and a half times the texture rate.

Power and packaging diverge as well. The FirePro D300 is a single-slot discrete card with a 150 W TDP, a 450 W suggested power supply, and a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface. The RX 7600S is an integrated mobile solution with a 75 W TDP, no power connectors, and a PCIe 4.0 x16 interface. The modern mobile part delivers far more performance at half the rated power. Software support also favors the RX 7600S: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4 versus DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170, with both supporting OpenGL 4.6. The FirePro D300 measures 242 mm long, while the RX 7600S has no discrete card dimensions since it is integrated into portable devices.

The Verdict

For anyone choosing based on performance, the data is unambiguous: the RX 7600S wins both shared benchmarks by wide margins, offers hardware ray tracing, four times the memory, higher bandwidth, and vastly higher theoretical throughput, all at half the TDP. It is also an active product with modern API support, whereas the FirePro D300 is end-of-life, meaning it should only be considered in legacy workstation contexts.

The FirePro D300's case rests entirely on factors outside raw performance. Its four fixed DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, single-slot form factor with a documented 242 mm length and 450 W suggested PSU, and FirePro Data Center lineage make it a fit for older professional systems that need a specific physical and output configuration. But no benchmark in the database supports choosing it over the RX 7600S on speed. Anyone with a working D300-based system should treat it as a legacy part; anyone building or buying today, particularly in a mobile context, is better served by the RX 7600S on every measurement recorded.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in the head-to-head benchmarks? A: The RX 7600S won both shared tests, Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan, while the FirePro D300 recorded zero wins.

Q: How large is the performance gap? A: The RX 7600S scored 68012 versus 19515 in Geekbench OpenCL and 73868 versus 19759 in Geekbench Vulkan, a gap of more than seventy percent in both.

Q: Which card supports ray tracing? A: The RX 7600S has 28 RT cores; the FirePro D300 has none listed.

Q: How do their memory configurations compare? A: The FirePro D300 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus at 162.6 GB/s; the RX 7600S has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus at 256.0 GB/s.

Q: Are both cards still in production? A: No. The FirePro D300 is end-of-life; the RX 7600S is active.

Q: Which uses less power? A: The RX 7600S at 75 W, compared to the FirePro D300 at 150 W.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Only two tests exist in the database for both cards, and both are decisive.

First, Geekbench OpenCL. The FirePro D300 posted 19515. The RX 7600S posted 68012. That is roughly three and a half times the score, a gap of about 71 percent, and it reflects the raw compute disparity between 2.176 TFLOPS and 15.77 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput recorded in the specifications. OpenCL results tend to track compute throughput closely, and the specification sheet predicts this outcome almost exactly.

Second, Geekbench Vulkan. The FirePro D300 managed 19759, marginally above its OpenCL result, showing that its GCN 1.0 front end holds up consistently across the two APIs. The RX 7600S scored 73868, its best shared-test result, extending the margin to roughly 73 percent. Part of that lead comes from the RX 7600S's Vulkan 1.4 support and RDNA 3.0 driver stack compared to the FirePro D300's Vulkan 1.2.170 support.

There are no shared gaming benchmarks, but the RX 7600S's individual results fill in the picture: 1888 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, 15408 in PassMark G3D, 6520 in PassMark GPU Compute, and PassMark DirectX results spanning 65 in DirectX 12 to 211 in DirectX 9, plus 140 in DirectX 11, 776 in G2D, and 74 in DirectX 10. The FirePro D300 has no recorded results in any of these tests, so no cross-comparison beyond the two Geekbench runs is possible.

Specification Differences

• Chip: Pitcairn (FirePro D300) versus Navi 33, codename Hotpink Bonefish (RX 7600S)
• Architecture: GCN 1.0 versus RDNA 3.0
• Generation: FirePro Data Center (Dx00) versus Navi Mobile (RX 7000M)
• Process node: 28 nm versus 6 nm, both TSMC
• Transistors: 2,800 million versus 13,300 million
• Die size and density: 212 mm² at 13.2M per mm² versus 204 mm² at 65.2M per mm²
• Clocks: unrecorded base/boost for the FirePro D300; 1500 MHz base, 2200 MHz boost, 1865 MHz game for the RX 7600S
• Memory: 2 GB GDDR5, 256-bit, 162.6 GB/s versus 8 GB GDDR6, 128-bit, 256.0 GB/s
• Shading units, TMUs, ROPs: 1280 / 80 / 32 versus 1792 / 112 / 64
• RT cores: none versus 28
• FP32 / FP16: 2.176 TFLOPS and unrecorded versus 15.77 TFLOPS and 31.54 TFLOPS
• Pixel and texture rates: 27.20 GPixel/s and 68.00 GTexel/s versus 140.8 GPixel/s and 246.4 GTexel/s
• TDP: 150 W versus 75 W
• Form factor: single-slot card, 242 mm long, 450 W suggested PSU versus integrated mobile solution with no power connectors
• Bus: PCIe 3.0 x16 versus PCIe 4.0 x16
• Outputs: 4x DisplayPort 1.2 versus portable-device dependent
• APIs: DirectX 12 (11_1), Vulkan 1.2.170 versus DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), Vulkan 1.4; both OpenGL 4.6
• Status: end-of-life versus active; release dates of January 2014 versus January 2023
• Succession: FirePro Terascale predecessor and Radeon Instinct successor for the D300; Polaris Mobile predecessor for the RX 7600S