AMD FirePro D300 vs Intel Arc B570 Comparison

The Intel Arc B570 and AMD FirePro D300 occupy different eras of GPU design, and the benchmark data reflects a generational chasm. The Arc B570, a 2025 product, posts an average benchmark score of 20,556, placing it in the 65th percentile of all GPUs. The FirePro D300, a 2014 workstation card, averages 19,637, sitting in the 64th percentile. While their percentile rankings are close, the underlying scores and architectural approaches could not be more different. The data shows a clear performance hierarchy, but the FirePro D300’s legacy features and single-slot form factor may still hold relevance for specific legacy workflows.

Where Each One Wins

The head-to-head benchmark results are unambiguous: the Intel Arc B570 wins both available tests. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Arc B570 scores 83,514 against the FirePro D300’s 19,515, a delta of 327.9%. In Geekbench Vulkan, the Arc B570 scores 96,844 against 19,759, a delta of 390.1%. These are not marginal victories; the Arc B570 is over four times faster in Vulkan and over four times faster in OpenCL.

The FirePro D300’s only comparative advantage lies in its physical design and interface. It is a single-slot card, whereas the Arc B570 requires dual slots. The FirePro D300 also uses a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, while the Arc B570 uses PCIe 4.0 x8. For systems with limited slot width or older platforms lacking PCIe 4.0, the FirePro D300’s compatibility profile is distinct. However, in raw compute, the Arc B570 wins every measurable category, including pixel rate (200.0 GPixel/s vs 27.20 GPixel/s), texture rate (360.0 GTexel/s vs 68.00 GTexel/s), and FP32 throughput (11.52 TFLOPS vs 2.176 TFLOPS).

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap is generational. The Arc B570 uses the BMG-G21 chip built on TSMC’s 5 nm process, packing 19,600 million transistors into a 272 mm² die. The FirePro D300 uses the Pitcairn chip on TSMC’s 28 nm process, with just 2,800 million transistors on a 212 mm² die. Transistor density tells the story: the Arc B570 achieves 72.1M transistors per mm², while the FirePro D300 manages only 13.2M per mm².

The Arc B570 belongs to the Xe2-HPG architecture, part of the Battlemage generation. It features 2304 shading units, 144 TMUs, 80 ROPs, and 18 dedicated ray tracing cores. The FirePro D300, based on GCN 1.0, has 1280 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, with no ray tracing cores. Memory subsystems differ as well: the Arc B570 has 10 GB of GDDR6 on a 160-bit bus, yielding 380.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the FirePro D300 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, yielding 162.6 GB/s bandwidth. The Arc B570’s memory clock runs at 2375 MHz (19 Gbps effective), versus 1270 MHz (5.1 Gbps effective) for the FirePro D300.

API support also diverges. The Arc B570 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), Vulkan 1.4, and OpenGL 4.6. The FirePro D300 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), Vulkan 1.2.170, and OpenGL 4.6. The Arc B570’s display outputs include HDMI 2.1a and three DisplayPort 2.1 connectors; the FirePro D300 offers four DisplayPort 1.2 outputs. The production status differs: the Arc B570 is active, while the FirePro D300 is end-of-life.

The Verdict

The data supports a straightforward conclusion for most users: the Intel Arc B570 is the superior performer. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks by margins exceeding 300%. Its FP32 throughput is 5.3 times higher, its texture rate is 5.3 times higher, and its pixel rate is 7.4 times higher. Memory bandwidth is 2.3 times greater. The Arc B570 also offers modern features like ray tracing cores, DirectX 12 Ultimate, and Vulkan 1.4, none of which the FirePro D300 provides.

The FirePro D300’s case rests on legacy compatibility. It is single-slot, which matters for chassis with tight spacing. It uses PCIe 3.0 x16, which may be the only available slot on older motherboards. Its 4x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs could suit multi-monitor setups that predate DisplayPort 2.1. For a system built around 2014-era hardware, the FirePro D300 is a drop-in option. For anything else, the Arc B570’s benchmark results are decisive: it is not merely faster, it is in a different performance class. The Arc B570’s nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile (0.1% delta) and Intel Arc A750 (-0.1% delta), placing it in modern mid-range territory. The FirePro D300’s nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Quadro K5200 (0.2% delta) and AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT (-0.6% delta), but its 2 GB memory limit will bottleneck any modern workload.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The Intel Arc B570 delivers 11.52 TFLOPS FP32, compared to the AMD FirePro D300’s 2.176 TFLOPS. This is a 5.3x advantage for the Arc B570.

Q: Does the AMD FirePro D300 support ray tracing?

A: No. The FirePro D300 has no ray tracing cores, while the Intel Arc B570 includes 18 dedicated ray tracing cores.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The Intel Arc B570 has 10 GB of GDDR6, while the AMD FirePro D300 has 2 GB of GDDR5. The Arc B570 also provides 380.0 GB/s bandwidth versus 162.6 GB/s.

Q: Which card is more suitable for a single-slot chassis?

A: The AMD FirePro D300 is single-slot, whereas the Intel Arc B570 is dual-slot. The FirePro D300 also uses a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, which may be required for older systems.

Q: How do the two cards compare in Geekbench Vulkan?

A: The Intel Arc B570 scores 96,844, which is 390.1% higher than the AMD FirePro D300’s 19,759.

Q: Is the AMD FirePro D300 still in production?

A: No, the FirePro D300 is end-of-life. The Intel Arc B570 is listed as active production.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two available head-to-head tests show a dominant performance gap. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Intel Arc B570 scores 83,514 against the AMD FirePro D300’s 19,515. That is a delta of 327.9% in favor of the Arc B570. In Geekbench Vulkan, the Arc B570 scores 96,844, while the FirePro D300 scores 19,759, a delta of 390.1%. Both tests are compute-oriented, but they exercise different APIs, and the Arc B570 wins both by a wide margin.

Beyond the direct head-to-head tests, the Arc B570’s other benchmark scores reinforce its positioning. It scores 14,195 in Passmark G3D, 7,281 in Passmark GPU Compute, and 2,649 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12. The FirePro D300 has no scores in these tests, so direct comparison is unavailable. However, the Arc B570’s average benchmark score of 20,556 is only 4.7% higher than the FirePro D300’s 19,637, which seems counterintuitive given the head-to-head deltas. This is because the Arc B570’s average includes several Passmark tests where it scores relatively low (e.g., 65 in Passmark DirectX 10, 118 in DirectX 11, 72 in DirectX 12, 164 in DirectX 9), pulling its average down. The FirePro D300’s average is based solely on its two Geekbench scores, which are both above 19,500.

This discrepancy highlights the importance of test selection. In pure compute workloads like Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan, the Arc B570 is overwhelmingly faster. In legacy DirectX 9/10/11 tests, the Arc B570’s scores are modest, but still present—the FirePro D300 has no data for those tests. The nearest rival data confirms the Arc B570’s modern positioning: it trades blows with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile (0.1% delta) and Intel Arc A750 (-0.1% delta). The FirePro D300 sits near the NVIDIA Quadro K5200 (0.2% delta) and AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT (-0.6% delta), which are older or lower-tier parts.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Arc B570 | AMD FirePro D300 |

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

| Process Node | 5 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 19,600 million | 2,800 million |

| Die Size | 272 mm² | 212 mm² |

| Shading Units | 2304 | 1280 |

| TMUs | 144 | 80 |

| ROPs | 80 | 32 |

| Ray Tracing Cores | 18 | None |

| Memory Size | 10 GB GDDR6 | 2 GB GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | 160 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 380.0 GB/s | 162.6 GB/s |

| FP32 Performance | 11.52 TFLOPS | 2.176 TFLOPS |

| Pixel Rate | 200.0 GPixel/s | 27.20 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 360.0 GTexel/s | 68.00 GTexel/s |

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

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

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

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

| Vulkan Support | 1.4 | 1.2.170 |

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