AMD FirePro D300 vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Comparison

The AMD FirePro D300 and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 sit in entirely different eras of GPU design, and the recorded data reflects that gap. The RTX 3070 wins every shared benchmark in the database, taking both head-to-head comparisons with margins ranging from a modest single-digit advantage to an overwhelming lead. The FirePro D300, a 2014 professional card built on the Pitcairn chip, cannot match the Ampere-based RTX 3070 in raw throughput, but it holds a distinctive position: its percentile placement against all GPUs in the database is actually higher, at the 64th percentile versus 61 for the RTX 3070. That single detail frames this comparison in an interesting light, and the analysis below unpacks why both figures can be true at once.

Where Each One Wins

Strictly on shared benchmark results, the RTX 3070 wins everything. In Geekbench OpenCL it scores 112821 against 19515 for the FirePro D300, an 82.7 percent gap in NVIDIA's favor. In Geekbench Vulkan the margin narrows considerably, 21022 versus 19759, a 6 percent RTX 3070 win. The FirePro D300 records zero wins in the head-to-head set, so there is no benchmark category in the database where it comes out ahead.

Where the FirePro D300 does hold an edge is in its aggregate standing. Its average benchmark score of 19637 places it against rivals such as the NVIDIA Quadro K5200 (average score 19602, a 0.2 percent gap), the AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT (19765, 0.6 percent ahead of the D300), the AMD Radeon RX 7900 XTX (19410, 1.2 percent behind), and the NVIDIA Tesla K40m (19885, 1.2 percent ahead). In other words, the D300's recorded results cluster tightly with a mixed field of professional and modern gaming cards. The RTX 3070's average of 17208 sits near the AMD Radeon RX 7600 XT (17083, 0.7 percent behind the RTX card), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 690 (17037, 1 percent behind), the AMD Radeon HD 7970M (17019, 1.1 percent behind), and the NVIDIA Tesla K40c (17468, 1.5 percent ahead).

The practical split, then, is straightforward: for any workload measured by these benchmarks, the RTX 3070 is the stronger performer. The FirePro D300's case rests on its professional orientation, with four DisplayPort 1.2 outputs and single-slot construction, rather than on benchmark victories.

Architecture Differences

The generational distance between these two cards is enormous. The FirePro D300 uses AMD's GCN 1.0 architecture on the Pitcairn chip, manufactured on TSMC's 28 nm process, packing 2,800 million transistors into a 212 mm² die for a density of 13.2M per mm². The RTX 3070 uses NVIDIA's Ampere architecture on the GA104 chip, built by Samsung on an 8 nm process, with 17,400 million transistors across a 392 mm² die at 44.4M per mm². That is more than six times the transistor count and roughly three and a half times the density.

Compute resources scale accordingly. The FirePro D300 has 1280 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, producing 2.176 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, a pixel rate of 27.20 GPixel/s, and a texture rate of 68.00 GTexel/s. The RTX 3070 has 5888 shading units, 184 TMUs, and 96 ROPs, delivering 20.31 TFLOPS FP32, 165.6 GPixel/s, and 317.4 GTexel/s. The RTX 3070 also includes hardware the D300 simply lacks: 46 RT cores for ray tracing and 184 tensor cores, plus FP16 throughput at 20.31 TFLOPS (1:1 with FP32). The FirePro D300 records no RT cores, no tensor cores, and no FP16 figure.

Memory is another dividing line. The D300 carries 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus at 162.6 GB/s, with memory running at 1270 MHz (5.1 Gbps effective). The RTX 3070 pairs 8 GB of GDDR6 with the same 256-bit bus but delivers 448.0 GB/s, with memory at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective). Clock data also differs in completeness: the D300 lists no base or boost clock, while the RTX 3070 records a 1500 MHz base and 1725 MHz boost.

Platform and API support follow the same pattern. The D300 uses PCIe 3.0 x16 with DirectX 12 (11_1), Vulkan 1.2.170, and OpenGL 4.6. The RTX 3070 uses PCIe 4.0 x16 with DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), Vulkan 1.4, and the same OpenGL 4.6. Physically, both cards measure 242 mm (9.5 inches) in length, but the D300 is a single-slot, 150 W part with a 450 W suggested PSU and no listed power connector, whereas the RTX 3070 is dual-slot, 220 W, draws from one 12-pin connector, and calls for a 550 W PSU. The RTX 3070 also lists a height of 112 mm (4.4 inches), a figure absent for the D300.

Lineage differs too. The D300 descends from the FirePro Terascale line and was succeeded by Radeon Instinct. The RTX 3070 follows GeForce 20 and was succeeded by GeForce 40. Both are now end-of-life, the D300 released on January 17, 2014, and the RTX 3070 on August 31, 2020.

FAQ

Q: Does the FirePro D300 win any benchmark against the RTX 3070?

A: No. The database records two shared tests and the RTX 3070 wins both: Geekbench OpenCL by 82.7 percent (112821 versus 19515) and Geekbench Vulkan by 6 percent (21022 versus 19759).

Q: How can the FirePro D300 rank in a higher percentile than the RTX 3070 if it loses every head-to-head test?

A: The percentile figures compare each card against all GPUs in the database using different result pools. The D300 sits at the 64th percentile with an average score of 19637, while the RTX 3070 sits at the 61st percentile with an average of 17208. The RTX 3070 has many more recorded tests, including several Passmark results that pull its average down, so the two metrics measure different things.

Q: Which card has more memory bandwidth?

A: The RTX 3070, by a wide margin: 448.0 GB/s versus 162.6 GB/s for the FirePro D300, despite both using a 256-bit bus. The RTX 3070 also has 8 GB of GDDR6 against 2 GB of GDDR5.

Q: Which card is more power efficient based on the data?

A: The FirePro D300 has the lower TDP at 150 W against 220 W for the RTX 3070, and a lower suggested PSU requirement of 450 W versus 550 W. However, the database does not record performance-per-watt, so the D300's lower absolute power draw does not translate into a measured efficiency claim.

Q: Do both cards support ray tracing?

A: Only the RTX 3070. It has 46 RT cores and 184 tensor cores. The FirePro D300 lists neither, which is expected for a GCN 1.0-era design.

Q: Are either of these cards still in production?

A: No. Both are marked end-of-life in the database. The FirePro D300 dates to January 2014 and the RTX 3070 to August 2020.

Specification Differences

• Architecture: GCN 1.0 (D300) versus Ampere (RTX 3070)
• Chip: Pitcairn versus GA104
• Process node: 28 nm TSMC versus 8 nm Samsung
• Transistors: 2,800 million versus 17,400 million
• Die size: 212 mm² versus 392 mm²
• Transistor density: 13.2M per mm² versus 44.4M per mm²
• Memory: 2 GB GDDR5 at 162.6 GB/s versus 8 GB GDDR6 at 448.0 GB/s; both 256-bit
• Memory speed: 1270 MHz (5.1 Gbps effective) versus 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective)
• Shading units: 1280 versus 5888
• TMUs: 80 versus 184
• ROPs: 32 versus 96
• FP32 compute: 2.176 TFLOPS versus 20.31 TFLOPS
• FP16: not recorded versus 20.31 TFLOPS (1:1)
• RT cores: none recorded versus 46
• Tensor cores: none recorded versus 184
• Pixel rate: 27.20 GPixel/s versus 165.6 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 68.00 GTexel/s versus 317.4 GTexel/s
• Clocks: no base or boost recorded versus 1500 MHz base, 1725 MHz boost
• TDP: 150 W versus 220 W
• Suggested PSU: 450 W versus 550 W
• Slot width: single-slot versus dual-slot
• Power connector: none listed versus 1x 12-pin
• Bus: PCIe 3.0 x16 versus PCIe 4.0 x16
• Outputs: 4x DisplayPort 1.2 versus 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a
• DirectX: 12 (11_1) versus 12 Ultimate (12_2)
• Vulkan: 1.2.170 versus 1.4
• Release date: January 17, 2014 versus August 31, 2020
• Launch MSRP: not recorded for the D300; 499 USD for the RTX 3070
• Height: not recorded versus 112 mm (4.4 inches); length identical at 242 mm (9.5 inches)

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Only two tests overlap in the database, and the RTX 3070 takes both.

Geekbench OpenCL is the landslide. The RTX 3070 posts 112821 against the D300's 19515, an 82.7 percent gap. This aligns with the raw compute disparity: 20.31 TFLOPS of FP32 versus 2.176 TFLOPS, roughly a ninefold theoretical advantage that the OpenCL result more than fully reflects. The RTX 3070's 11195 Passmark GPU compute score further corroborates its strength in general-purpose workloads, a test the D300 does not record.

Geekbench Vulkan is far closer. The RTX 3070 scores 21022 and the D300 scores 19759, a 6 percent difference. That the aging GCN 1.0 part stays within single digits here is the one genuinely competitive result in the pairing, and it helps explain why the D300's average score (19637) actually exceeds the RTX 3070's average (17208) across their respective recorded test sets.

Context from each card's rival circle reinforces the picture. The D300 trades blows within one percent of the Quadro K5200, RX 6650 XT, and Tesla K40m, and sits 1.2 percent clear of the RX 7900 XTX in average score. The RTX 3070's neighborhood includes the RX 7600 XT, GTX 690, HD 7970M, and Tesla K40c, all within 1.5 percent of its average.

The Verdict

The data points one way for performance. The RTX 3070 wins every shared benchmark, delivers roughly nine times the FP32 compute, quadruple the memory capacity, nearly triple the memory bandwidth, and adds ray tracing and tensor hardware the FirePro D300 lacks entirely. Anyone selecting between these two for gaming, compute, or modern API workloads should choose the RTX 3070 on the recorded evidence alone.

The FirePro D300's remaining case is narrow but real: a single-slot, 150 W professional card with four DisplayPort 1.2 outputs and a 450 W PSU requirement, holding a 64th percentile standing against all GPUs in the database and a competitive Vulkan result within 6 percent of the RTX 3070. For multi-display professional setups where slot space and power draw matter more than throughput, those recorded traits are its argument. For everything else the database measures, the RTX 3070 is the clear choice.