AMD FirePro D300 vs NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation Comparison

The AMD FirePro D300 and NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation represent two distinct eras of workstation graphics. The data shows a generational chasm in raw compute, but the older card still holds a place in legacy systems. This analysis uses only the provided benchmark and specification data to compare the two.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data is limited to two synthetic tests, and the results are not close. In Geekbench OpenCL, the NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation scores 78,074, while the AMD FirePro D300 scores 19,515. This represents a delta of -75% for the AMD card, meaning the RTX 2000 Ada is four times faster in this compute workload. The gap is even wider in Geekbench Vulkan, where the RTX 2000 Ada scores 83,360 against the FirePro D300's 19,759, a delta of -76.3%. The NVIDIA card wins both head-to-head tests decisively.

Looking at the broader average benchmark score, the FirePro D300 actually posts a higher average (19,637) than the RTX 2000 Ada (18,954). This is because the RTX 2000 Ada's average is pulled down by its Passmark scores, which are low for DirectX 9 (216), DirectX 10 (82), DirectX 11 (138), and DirectX 12 (71). The FirePro D300's average is based solely on its two strong Geekbench results. The RTX 2000 Ada's Passmark G3D score of 16,927 and GPU Compute score of 7,834 are far higher than anything the FirePro D300 can produce, but the inclusion of the legacy DirectX tests skews its aggregate average downward. In the data, the RTX 2000 Ada wins 2 out of 2 head-to-head tests.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation is the superior performer in every direct benchmark comparison. Its Geekbench OpenCL score is exactly 300% higher than the FirePro D300's, and its Vulkan score is over four times higher. If your workload relies on modern compute APIs or Vulkan rendering, the RTX 2000 Ada is the only choice supported by these numbers. The FirePro D300, with its 64th percentile ranking versus the RTX 2000 Ada's 63rd, sits in a similar overall percentile band, but that is due to the RTX 2000 Ada's mixed Passmark results dragging down its average. In the two benchmarks where they directly compete, the NVIDIA card is overwhelmingly faster. The RTX 2000 Ada also has a substantial memory advantage—16 GB versus 2 GB—which the data shows is a critical spec difference for modern workloads. The FirePro D300 should only be considered for legacy application compatibility, as its performance is not competitive with the RTX 2000 Ada in any measured test.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation scores 78,074, which is 75% higher than the AMD FirePro D300's score of 19,515.

Q: How much faster is the RTX 2000 Ada in Geekbench Vulkan?

A: The RTX 2000 Ada scores 83,360, while the FirePro D300 scores 19,759. The NVIDIA card is 76.3% faster in this test.

Q: Does the FirePro D300 win any benchmark?

A: Based on the head-to-head data, the FirePro D300 wins zero tests. The RTX 2000 Ada wins 2 out of 2 direct comparisons.

Q: What is the difference in memory capacity?

A: The FirePro D300 has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory, while the RTX 2000 Ada has 16 GB of GDDR6 memory, an eight-fold difference.

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The FirePro D300 has an average score of 19,637, which is higher than the RTX 2000 Ada's average of 18,954. This is due to the RTX 2000 Ada's low Passmark DirectX 9/10/11/12 scores lowering its aggregate average.

Q: How do their overall GPU percentiles compare?

A: The FirePro D300 is in the 64th percentile of all GPUs, while the RTX 2000 Ada is in the 63rd percentile.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every measurable specification. The FirePro D300 has a 2 GB GDDR5 memory pool on a 256-bit bus, yielding 162.6 GB/s of bandwidth. The RTX 2000 Ada has 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, but achieves 256.0 GB/s bandwidth due to faster memory clocks (16 Gbps effective versus 5.1 Gbps effective). The RTX 2000 Ada has 2,816 shading units, 88 texture mapping units, and 48 ROPs, compared to the FirePro D300's 1,280 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The pixel rate of the RTX 2000 Ada is 102.2 GPixel/s versus 27.20 GPixel/s, and its texture rate is 187.4 GTexel/s versus 68.00 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 12.00 TFLOPS for the NVIDIA card versus 2.176 TFLOPS for the AMD card. The RTX 2000 Ada has a base clock of 1620 MHz and a boost clock of 2130 MHz, while the FirePro D300's base and boost clocks are not listed in the data. The FirePro D300 has a 150 W TDP and requires a 450 W power supply, while the RTX 2000 Ada has a 70 W TDP and requires a 250 W PSU. The FirePro D300 is a single-slot card at 242 mm (9.5 inches) long, while the RTX 2000 Ada is dual-slot and 168 mm (6.6 inches) long with a height of 69 mm (2.7 inches). The bus interfaces differ: PCIe 3.0 x16 for the AMD card versus PCIe 4.0 x8 for the NVIDIA card. Display outputs are 4x DisplayPort 1.2 on the FirePro D300 versus 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a on the RTX 2000 Ada.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap is massive. The FirePro D300 uses the Pitcairn chip on GCN 1.0 architecture, built on a 28 nm process at TSMC with 2,800 million transistors on a 212 mm² die. The RTX 2000 Ada uses the AD107 chip on Ada Lovelace architecture, built on a 5 nm process at TSMC with 18,900 million transistors on a 159 mm² die. The transistor density tells the story: 118.9M per mm² for the RTX 2000 Ada versus 13.2M per mm² for the FirePro D300. The RTX 2000 Ada has dedicated 22 RT cores and 88 tensor cores, features entirely absent from the FirePro D300. The API support differs as well: the FirePro D300 supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170, while the RTX 2000 Ada supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4. The RTX 2000 Ada also has 1:1 FP16 performance at 12.00 TFLOPS, while the FirePro D300 has no listed FP16 capability. The FirePro D300 is marked end-of-life, released in January 2014, with a successor of Radeon Instinct. The RTX 2000 Ada is active, released in February 2024, with a successor of Blackwell PRO W. Its launch MSRP is 649 USD.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation wins in every benchmark category where a direct comparison exists. In Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan, it is decisively ahead, with 75% and 76.3% higher scores respectively. The RTX 2000 Ada also wins on memory bandwidth (256.0 GB/s versus 162.6 GB/s), memory capacity (16 GB versus 2 GB), and pixel/texture throughput (102.2 GPixel/s versus 27.20 GPixel/s; 187.4 GTexel/s versus 68.00 GTexel/s). For FP32 compute, the RTX 2000 Ada delivers 12.00 TFLOPS versus 2.176 TFLOPS. The RTX 2000 Ada is the clear winner for any modern workload, including ray tracing (with 22 RT cores), AI inference (with 88 tensor cores), and high-resolution texture work (with 16 GB of VRAM). Its 70 W TDP also makes it far more power-efficient than the FirePro D300's 150 W TDP, requiring a 250 W PSU versus 450 W.

The AMD FirePro D300 has no benchmark wins in the head-to-head data. Its only advantage is its higher average benchmark score (19,637 versus 18,954) and higher overall GPU percentile (64th versus 63rd), both of which are artifacts of the RTX 2000 Ada's poor legacy Passmark DirectX 9/10/11/12 scores. The FirePro D300 also has a wider 256-bit memory bus, but the RTX 2000 Ada's faster GDDR6 memory more than compensates. The FirePro D300's single-slot design and 242 mm length may fit in chassis where the dual-slot RTX 2000 Ada cannot, but for performance, the data shows no scenario where the FirePro D300 is preferable. The RTX 2000 Ada's 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs are newer than the FirePro D300's 4x DisplayPort 1.2, supporting higher resolutions and refresh rates. In summary, the RTX 2000 Ada is the superior card in every measured performance metric, while the FirePro D300 only retains relevance for legacy system compatibility.