AMD FirePro D300 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 690 Comparison

The Verdict

The data presents a clear overall winner in raw compute benchmarks: the AMD FirePro D300. Across both recorded tests, the FirePro D300 takes the win, outperforming the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 690 by 12.2% in Geekbench OpenCL and by 18.5% in Geekbench Vulkan. If your priority is compute performance in these specific workloads, the FirePro D300 is the card to choose.

However, the GTX 690 is not without merit. It is a dual-GPU flagship from NVIDIA's GeForce 600 generation, built for a different purpose entirely. The FirePro D300 is a single-slot professional workstation card with a 150 W TDP, while the GTX 690 is a dual-slot, 300 W power-hungry behemoth that requires two 8-pin power connectors and a 700 W power supply. The GTX 690 also carries a launch MSRP of 999 USD.

In practical terms: the FirePro D300 is for compute-focused professional workloads where stability, low power draw, and a compact single-slot footprint matter. The GTX 690 is for a builder who wants maximum raw throughput from a 2012-era flagship and is willing to accommodate its power and space requirements. The benchmark data, however, does not favor the GTX 690 in either test. If your application relies on the measured OpenCL or Vulkan scores, the FirePro D300 is the statistically superior choice by a meaningful margin.

Architecture Differences

Both cards are built on a 28 nm process at TSMC, but their underlying architectures diverge significantly. The AMD FirePro D300 uses the Pitcairn chip based on GCN 1.0 architecture. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 690 uses the GK104 chip based on Kepler architecture.

The transistor counts differ substantially. The GTX 690 packs 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, while the FirePro D300 uses 2,800 million transistors on a smaller 212 mm² die. This means the FirePro D300 has a higher transistor density at 13.2M / mm² compared to the GTX 690's 12.0M / mm².

The FirePro D300 belongs to the FirePro Data Center (Dx00) generation, while the GTX 690 is part of the GeForce 600 series. The FirePro D300's predecessor is FirePro Terascale, and its successor is Radeon Instinct. The GTX 690's predecessor is GeForce 500, and its successor is GeForce 700.

In terms of API support, both cards support DirectX 12 and OpenGL 4.6. The Vulkan versions differ slightly: the FirePro D300 supports Vulkan 1.2.170, while the GTX 690 supports Vulkan 1.2.175. The DirectX feature levels also differ, with the FirePro D300 supporting DirectX 12 (11_1) and the GTX 690 supporting DirectX 12 (11_0).

Both cards use 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus. The memory clock differs: the FirePro D300 runs at 1270 MHz (5.1 Gbps effective), while the GTX 690 runs at 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective). Despite the GTX 690's higher memory clock, the FirePro D300's memory bandwidth is 162.6 GB/s, while the GTX 690 achieves 192.3 GB/s, a 29.7 GB/s advantage for the NVIDIA card.

The FirePro D300 has 1280 shading units, 80 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 32 raster output units (ROPs). The GTX 690 has 1536 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. This gives the GTX 690 a clear advantage in raw shading and texture hardware, which is reflected in its higher texture rate of 130.4 GTexel/s versus the FirePro D300's 68.00 GTexel/s. The pixel rates also favor NVIDIA: 32.61 GPixel/s versus 27.20 GPixel/s. The GTX 690's FP32 throughput is 3.130 TFLOPS, while the FirePro D300 delivers 2.176 TFLOPS.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded head-to-head results show the FirePro D300 winning both tests. In Geekbench OpenCL, the FirePro D300 scores 19515, while the GTX 690 scores 17399. This is a 12.2% delta in favor of AMD. In Geekbench Vulkan, the FirePro D300 scores 19759, and the GTX 690 scores 16675. The delta here is even larger at 18.5%.

These results are counterintuitive when you look at the raw specifications. The GTX 690 has more shading units (1536 vs 1280), more TMUs (128 vs 80), a higher texture rate (130.4 GTexel/s vs 68.00 GTexel/s), and higher FP32 throughput (3.130 TFLOPS vs 2.176 TFLOPS). Yet in the measured compute benchmarks, the FirePro D300 comes out ahead. This suggests that the dual-GPU configuration of the GTX 690 may not scale efficiently in these particular workloads, or that the GCN architecture is better optimized for the OpenCL and Vulkan compute paths being tested.

The FirePro D300's average benchmark score across both tests is 19637, placing it in the 64th percentile of all GPUs in the database. The GTX 690 has an average benchmark score of 17037, placing it in the 60th percentile. The FirePro D300's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Quadro K5200 (avg score 19602, delta 0.2%), the AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT (avg score 19765, delta -0.6%), the AMD Radeon RX 7900 XTX (avg score 19410, delta 1.2%), and the NVIDIA Tesla K40m (avg score 19885, delta -1.2%). The GTX 690's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon HD 7970M (avg score 17019, delta 0.1%), the AMD Radeon RX 7600 XT (avg score 17083, delta -0.3%), the NVIDIA Tesla M4 (avg score 16932, delta 0.6%), and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 (avg score 17208, delta -1%).

The data shows the FirePro D300 sitting in a performance tier alongside much newer GPUs like the RX 6650 XT and RX 7900 XTX, despite being an end-of-life professional card from 2014. The GTX 690, meanwhile, sits in a tier with the RTX 3070, a much newer consumer card, though the GTX 690 trails it by 1%.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD FirePro D300 has an average benchmark score of 19637, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 690 has an average score of 17037. The FirePro D300 leads by roughly 2600 points.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The FirePro D300 has a TDP of 150 W and requires a suggested PSU of 450 W. The GTX 690 has a TDP of 300 W and requires a suggested PSU of 700 W. The GTX 690 also demands two 8-pin power connectors, while the FirePro D300's power connectors are not specified in the data.

Q: Which card supports a newer Vulkan version?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 690 supports Vulkan 1.2.175, which is newer than the AMD FirePro D300's Vulkan 1.2.170. Both cards support DirectX 12 and OpenGL 4.6.

Q: How do the cards compare in memory bandwidth?

A: The GTX 690 has higher memory bandwidth at 192.3 GB/s, compared to the FirePro D300's 162.6 GB/s. Both use 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, but the GTX 690's memory runs at 6 Gbps effective versus the FirePro D300's 5.1 Gbps effective.

Q: Which card has a higher FP32 throughput?

A: The GTX 690 has a significantly higher FP32 throughput at 3.130 TFLOPS, compared to the FirePro D300's 2.176 TFLOPS. The GTX 690 also has more shading units (1536 vs 1280) and more TMUs (128 vs 80).

Q: What are the physical size differences?

A: The FirePro D300 is a single-slot card measuring 242 mm (9.5 inches) in length. The GTX 690 is a dual-slot card measuring 279 mm (11 inches) in length, 111 mm (4.4 inches) in height, and 38 mm (1.5 inches) in width.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD FirePro D300 wins decisively in the compute benchmarks recorded in the database. It leads by 12.2% in Geekbench OpenCL and by 18.5% in Geekbench Vulkan. This makes it the clear choice for applications that rely on these compute paths, particularly Vulkan-based workloads where the margin is largest. The FirePro D300 also wins on efficiency: its 150 W TDP is half that of the GTX 690, and it requires a 450 W PSU versus the GTX 690's 700 W recommendation. Its single-slot design makes it suitable for dense workstation builds where space is at a premium. The FirePro D300's display outputs are four DisplayPort 1.2 connections, which is typical for professional multi-monitor setups.

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 690 wins on raw specification sheets. It has more shading units (1536 vs 1280), more TMUs (128 vs 80), a higher texture rate (130.4 GTexel/s vs 68.00 GTexel/s), a higher pixel rate (32.61 GPixel/s vs 27.20 GPixel/s), higher FP32 throughput (3.130 TFLOPS vs 2.176 TFLOPS), and higher memory bandwidth (192.3 GB/s vs 162.6 GB/s). It also has a higher base clock of 915 MHz and boost clock of 1019 MHz, whereas the FirePro D300's base and boost clocks are not listed in the data. The GTX 690's display outputs include three DVI ports and one mini-DisplayPort 1.2, which may be more suitable for legacy display connections.

However, none of the GTX 690's specification advantages translate into wins in the measured benchmarks. In the database, the GTX 690 wins zero tests, while the FirePro D300 wins two. The GTX 690's dual-GPU architecture appears to be a liability in these compute workloads, likely due to scaling inefficiencies. If your workload is purely about the numbers in the OpenCL and Vulkan tests, the GTX 690's specification advantages are irrelevant. The FirePro D300 simply delivers better measured performance.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two cards:

• Manufacturer: AMD vs NVIDIA
• Chip: Pitcairn vs GK104
• Architecture: GCN 1.0 vs Kepler
• Generation: FirePro Data Center (Dx00) vs GeForce 600
• Transistors: 2,800 million vs 3,540 million
• Die Size: 212 mm² vs 294 mm²
• Transistor Density: 13.2M / mm² vs 12.0M / mm²
• Memory Clock: 1270 MHz (5.1 Gbps effective) vs 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective)
• Memory Bandwidth: 162.6 GB/s vs 192.3 GB/s
• Shading Units: 1280 vs 1536
• TMUs: 80 vs 128
• Pixel Rate: 27.20 GPixel/s vs 32.61 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 68.00 GTexel/s vs 130.4 GTexel/s
• FP32: 2.176 TFLOPS vs 3.130 TFLOPS
• TDP: 150 W vs 300 W
• Slot Width: Single-slot vs Dual-slot
• Power Connectors: Not specified vs 2x 8-pin
• Suggested PSU: 450 W vs 700 W
• Display Outputs: 4x DisplayPort 1.2 vs 3x DVI, 1x mini-DisplayPort 1.2
• Vulkan Version: 1.2.170 vs 1.2.175
• DirectX Version: 12 (11_1) vs 12 (11_0)
• Dimensions: 242 mm length vs 279 mm length, 111 mm height, 38 mm width
• Release Date: 2014-01-17 vs 2012-05-02
• Predecessor: FirePro Terascale vs GeForce 500
• Successor: Radeon Instinct vs GeForce 700
• Launch MSRP: Not specified vs 999 USD
• Geekbench OpenCL Score: 19515 vs 17399
• Geekbench Vulkan Score: 19759 vs 16675
• Average Benchmark Score: 19637 vs 17037
• Percentile vs All GPUs: 64th vs 60th
• Base Clock: Not specified vs 915 MHz
• Boost Clock: Not specified vs 1019 MHz