AMD FirePro D300 vs NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 Comparison

The Verdict

The benchmark database shows a clear and decisive outcome in this head-to-head comparison. The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 wins both recorded head-to-head tests, leaving the AMD FirePro D300 without a single victory. The data indicates that the Quadro RTX 4000 is the substantially stronger performer, with its results in Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan far exceeding those of the older AMD workstation card. The Quadro RTX 4000, with its 61st percentile ranking among all GPUs, sits close to cards like the GeForce RTX 4060 and Radeon 780M in overall average score, while the FirePro D300, ranked at the 64th percentile, is positioned near the Quadro K5200 and Radeon RX 6650 XT. The verdict from the data is that the Quadro RTX 4000 is the superior choice for any workload represented by these benchmarks, particularly those leveraging compute or graphics APIs. The FirePro D300, being from an earlier generation, appears limited to legacy or lighter tasks where its lower scores would not bottleneck the system.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different architectural eras and manufacturers. The AMD FirePro D300 is built on the GCN 1.0 architecture, specifically using the Pitcairn chip, and was manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It contains 2,800 million transistors on a 212 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 13.2 million per square millimeter. In contrast, the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 uses the Turing architecture with the TU104 chip, fabricated on a more advanced 12 nm process, also at TSMC. This newer chip houses 13,600 million transistors on a 545 mm² die, achieving a density of 25.0 million per square millimeter. The architectural leap is reflected in the specifications. The FirePro D300 has 1280 shading units, 80 texture mapping units, and 32 raster output pipelines. The Quadro RTX 4000 boosts these counts significantly to 2304 shading units, 144 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. Crucially, the Quadro RTX 4000 introduces dedicated hardware that the FirePro D300 lacks entirely: 36 ray tracing cores and 288 tensor cores. This feature set difference is fundamental. The FirePro D300 also lacks a listed FP16 performance figure, while the Quadro RTX 4000 provides 14.24 TFLOPS of FP16 compute (at a 2:1 ratio), in addition to its higher FP32 rate of 7.119 TFLOPS versus 2.176 TFLOPS for the AMD card. The process node shrink and massive transistor count increase give the Quadro RTX 4000 a decisive structural advantage, which the benchmark scores confirm.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains two direct comparisons between the AMD FirePro D300 and the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the FirePro D300 scores 19,515, while the Quadro RTX 4000 achieves a score of 74,540. This represents a delta of -73.8% for the AMD card, meaning the Quadro RTX 4000 is roughly 3.8 times faster in this compute-oriented workload. The result is stark. In the Geekbench Vulkan test, the gap is proportionally similar. The FirePro D300 scores 19,759, while the Quadro RTX 4000 reaches 78,844, a delta of -74.9%. Again, the NVIDIA card dominates. These two wins account for the entire head-to-head record, giving the Quadro RTX 4000 a 2-0 victory count. The magnitude of these deltas suggests that the architectural differences are not merely incremental but represent a generational leap in compute capability. The OpenCL and Vulkan APIs are both general-purpose compute interfaces, so these results imply that any GPU-accelerated task, from rendering to simulation, will see a massive performance uplift with the Quadro RTX 4000. The FirePro D300, despite its 64th percentile ranking, cannot compete with the raw throughput of the newer card. The data does not include any test where the FirePro D300 leads, reinforcing its status as the weaker option in this pairing.

Specification Differences

The two cards diverge across nearly every core specification. The AMD FirePro D300 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, providing 162.6 GB/s of bandwidth. The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 comes with 8 GB of GDDR6 memory, also on a 256-bit bus, but its bandwidth jumps to 416.0 GB/s. The memory clock differs as well: the FirePro D300 lists 1270 MHz (5.1 Gbps effective), while the Quadro RTX 4000 runs at 1625 MHz (13 Gbps effective). Clock speeds for the GPU core are only provided for the NVIDIA card, with a base of 1005 MHz and a boost of 1545 MHz; the FirePro D300's base and boost clocks are not recorded in the database. Pixel and texture fill rates reflect the performance gap. The FirePro D300 offers 27.20 GPixel/s and 68.00 GTexel/s, whereas the Quadro RTX 4000 outputs 98.88 GPixel/s and 222.5 GTexel/s. Power consumption is relatively close, with the FirePro D300 rated at 150 W and the Quadro RTX 4000 at 160 W, both suggesting a 450 W power supply. The NVIDIA card requires a single 8-pin power connector, while the FirePro D300's connector is not specified. Both are single-slot cards with similar lengths, around 242 mm and 241 mm respectively. Display outputs differ: the FirePro D300 has 4x DisplayPort 1.2, while the Quadro RTX 4000 offers 3x DisplayPort 1.4a and 1x USB Type-C. The API support also separates them. The FirePro D300 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The Quadro RTX 4000 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and a newer Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA card also has a recorded launch MSRP of 899 USD, which is noted here once. The FirePro D300's release date is listed as 2014, while the Quadro RTX 4000 came later in 2018, and both are now marked as end-of-life products.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD FirePro D300 has an average benchmark score of 19,637, which is higher than the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000's average of 17,789. This is despite the Quadro RTX 4000 winning the direct head-to-head tests.

Q: Why does the AMD card have a higher percentile rank if it loses the head-to-head?

A: The FirePro D300 sits at the 64th percentile among all GPUs, while the Quadro RTX 4000 is at the 61st percentile. The database indicates that the FirePro D300's average score is closer to its nearest rivals, which include the Quadro K5200 (delta of 0.2%) and the Radeon RX 7900 XTX (delta of 1.2%). The Quadro RTX 4000's nearest rivals are lower-scoring cards like the Radeon HD 7790 and GeForce RTX 4060, which pulls its percentile down.

Q: What is the difference in memory bandwidth?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 provides 416.0 GB/s of bandwidth, while the AMD FirePro D300 offers 162.6 GB/s. The NVIDIA card also has four times the memory capacity, with 8 GB versus 2 GB.

Q: Does the AMD FirePro D300 support ray tracing?

A: No, the database lists no ray tracing cores for the AMD FirePro D300. The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 includes 36 dedicated ray tracing cores and 288 tensor cores.

Q: In which API tests does the NVIDIA card win?

A: The Quadro RTX 4000 wins both recorded head-to-head tests: Geekbench OpenCL with a score of 74,540 versus 19,515, and Geekbench Vulkan with a score of 78,844 versus 19,759.

Q: What is the manufacturing process difference?

A: The AMD FirePro D300 is built on a 28 nm process, while the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 uses a 12 nm process. Both are fabricated by TSMC.

Where Each One Wins

The data shows no benchmark victories for the AMD FirePro D300 against the Quadro RTX 4000. Therefore, based strictly on the recorded head-to-head results, the AMD card wins no measured workload. Its only statistical advantage lies in its average benchmark score and percentile rank, but these are aggregate figures that do not translate into a direct test win. For users focused on the specific OpenCL or Vulkan workloads in the database, the Quadro RTX 4000 is the only rational choice. The NVIDIA card wins both applicable tests by margins exceeding 70%. Its massive lead in FP32 compute (7.119 TFLOPS versus 2.176 TFLOPS) and its exclusive support for FP16 and ray tracing cores make it suitable for modern, compute-heavy professional tasks. The Quadro RTX 4000 also benefits from a larger memory pool (8 GB versus 2 GB) and significantly higher bandwidth, which would aid in large dataset handling. The FirePro D300, with its lower scores and older GCN architecture, would only be appropriate for legacy environments or applications that do not stress the GPU, where its 150 W power draw and single-slot form factor could be sufficient. However, the database provides no evidence that the AMD card outperforms the NVIDIA card in any scenario. The conclusion is unambiguous: the Quadro RTX 4000 is the superior part for any workload represented by the benchmark suite, and the FirePro D300's role is limited to that of a lower-performance alternative.