AMD FirePro D300 vs NVIDIA T400 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clear winner across both benchmark tests. In Geekbench OpenCL, the AMD FirePro D300 scores 19,515 against the NVIDIA T400's 17,039, a 14.5% advantage. The gap widens considerably in Geekbench Vulkan, where the FirePro D300 reaches 19,759 while the T400 manages only 15,976, representing a 23.7% lead for the AMD part.

These are not marginal differences. The OpenCL result places the FirePro D300 roughly on par with the NVIDIA Quadro K5200, which averages 19,602, a delta of just 0.2%. It also sits within 1.2% of the AMD Radeon RX 7900 XTX, which averages 19,410. On the other side, the T400's average benchmark score of 16,508 places it just 0.6% behind the AMD Radeon PRO W7500 and 0.9% behind the AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT. Interestingly, the T400's average score is effectively tied with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 D V2, which averages 16,504, a delta of 0%.

The Vulkan test is where the FirePro D300 truly separates itself. A 23.7% margin is substantial in GPU benchmarking, indicating that the older GCN architecture handles Vulkan workloads far more efficiently than the Turing-based T400 in this specific workload. The FirePro D300's OpenCL and Vulkan scores are close to each other, 19,515 and 19,759 respectively, showing consistent performance across both APIs. The T400, conversely, shows a notable drop from OpenCL to Vulkan, falling from 17,039 to 15,976, a decline of roughly 6.2%.

Looking at the percentile rankings, the FirePro D300 sits at the 64th percentile against all GPUs, while the T400 rests at the 60th percentile. This four-point gap reinforces the head-to-head results: the FirePro D300 is the stronger performer overall, even though both cards occupy a similar tier in the broader GPU landscape. The average benchmark score for the FirePro D300 is 19,637, while the T400 averages 16,508, a difference of 3,129 points, or approximately 18.9% in favor of the AMD card.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous. The AMD FirePro D300 wins both recorded benchmarks, and it wins the Vulkan test by a commanding margin. For any workload that relies on OpenCL or Vulkan compute, the FirePro D300 is the superior choice based on the numbers in the database.

The NVIDIA T400 does not win a single benchmark in this comparison. Its strengths lie elsewhere, in areas not captured by these two tests. The T400's much lower power draw of 30 W against the FirePro D300's 150 W suggests it is designed for environments where energy efficiency and thermal output take priority over raw compute throughput. The T400 also requires no power connectors, while the FirePro D300's power requirements are unspecified but the suggested PSU of 450 W versus 200 W indicates a substantial difference in system power needs.

For users who prioritize compute performance in OpenCL or Vulkan, the FirePro D300 is the clear pick. The data shows it delivers 14.5% higher OpenCL performance and 23.7% higher Vulkan performance. However, for users in power-constrained or thermally constrained environments, the T400's 30 W TDP and 200 W suggested PSU make it a more practical fit, provided the performance deficit is acceptable.

The FirePro D300's 64th percentile ranking versus the T400's 60th percentile further supports the performance verdict. Yet the T400 is a much newer product, released in 2021 compared to the FirePro D300's 2014 launch, and it brings a more modern feature set that may matter for specific applications not covered in these benchmarks.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural eras. The AMD FirePro D300 uses the GCN 1.0 architecture on a chip codenamed Pitcairn, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The NVIDIA T400 uses the Turing architecture on the TU117 chip, also built by TSMC but on a 12 nm process.

The transistor counts tell an interesting story. The T400 packs 4,700 million transistors onto a 200 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 23.5 million per square millimeter. The FirePro D300 contains only 2,800 million transistors on a slightly larger 212 mm² die, giving it a density of 13.2 million per square millimeter. The newer 12 nm process gives the T400 a significant density advantage, but the FirePro D300's larger, older chip still wins on compute performance.

The FirePro D300 belongs to the FirePro Data Center (Dx00) generation, while the T400 is part of the Quadro Turing (Tx000) generation. Their predecessors also differ: the FirePro D300 follows FirePro Terascale, and the T400 follows Quadro Volta. Successors are similarly split, with the FirePro D300 leading to Radeon Instinct and the T400 leading to Workstation Ampere.

DirectX support differs meaningfully. The FirePro D300 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), while the T400 supports DirectX 12 (12_1). Vulkan support also differs: the FirePro D300 lists Vulkan 1.2.170, while the T400 lists Vulkan 1.4. The T400's newer architecture supports a more recent Vulkan version, yet the benchmark results show the older card performing better in Vulkan workloads, suggesting that raw compute throughput matters more than API version support in this comparison.

Specification Differences

Several specification fields distinguish the two cards. The memory clock differs: the FirePro D300 runs at 1,270 MHz with 5.1 Gbps effective, while the T400 runs at 1,250 MHz with 10 Gbps effective. Despite the T400's faster effective memory speed, its 64-bit bus width severely limits bandwidth.

Memory bandwidth is a major differentiator. The FirePro D300 delivers 162.6 GB/s, while the T400 manages only 80.00 GB/s, less than half. Both cards have 2 GB of memory, but the FirePro D300 uses GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, while the T400 uses GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus.

Compute resources differ substantially. The FirePro D300 has 1,280 shading units, 80 texture mapping units, and 32 raster output units. The T400 has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The FirePro D300's FP32 throughput is 2.176 TFLOPS, while the T400 delivers 1,094.4 GFLOPS. The T400 does offer FP16 performance of 2.189 TFLOPS (2:1), a feature the FirePro D300 lacks entirely.

Clock speeds are another point of divergence. The FirePro D300 has no listed base or boost clock, only its memory clock. The T400 lists a base clock of 420 MHz and a boost clock of 1,425 MHz, showing a wide dynamic range that helps it manage power consumption.

Display outputs differ: the FirePro D300 offers 4x DisplayPort 1.2, while the T400 offers 3x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a. Power requirements are starkly different: the FirePro D300 has a 150 W TDP and suggests a 450 W PSU, while the T400 has a 30 W TDP, requires no power connectors, and suggests only a 200 W PSU.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD FirePro D300 averages 19,637, while the NVIDIA T400 averages 16,508, a difference of approximately 18.9% in favor of the FirePro D300.

Q: How much faster is the FirePro D300 in Vulkan?

A: In Geekbench Vulkan, the FirePro D300 scores 19,759 against the T400's 15,976, giving the AMD card a 23.7% advantage.

Q: Do both cards have the same amount of memory?

A: Yes, both have 2 GB. However, the FirePro D300 uses GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 162.6 GB/s bandwidth, while the T400 uses GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 80.00 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card requires less system power?

A: The NVIDIA T400 has a 30 W TDP and suggests a 200 W PSU, while the AMD FirePro D300 has a 150 W TDP and suggests a 450 W PSU. The T400 also requires no power connectors.

Q: What is the transistor density difference between the two?

A: The T400 has a density of 23.5 million transistors per square millimeter on a 200 mm² die. The FirePro D300 has 13.2 million per square millimeter on a 212 mm² die.

Q: Which card has higher FP32 performance?

A: The FirePro D300 delivers 2.176 TFLOPS, while the T400 delivers 1,094.4 GFLOPS. The T400 does offer FP16 performance of 2.189 TFLOPS, which the FirePro D300 does not list.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD FirePro D300 wins in raw compute performance across both recorded benchmarks. Its OpenCL score of 19,515 beats the T400's 17,039 by 14.5%, and its Vulkan score of 19,759 beats the T400's 15,976 by 23.7%. The FirePro D300 also holds a higher percentile ranking at 64 versus 60, and its average benchmark score of 19,637 places it within 0.2% of the NVIDIA Quadro K5200 and within 1.2% of the AMD Radeon RX 7900 XTX. For compute-heavy workloads, particularly those using Vulkan, the FirePro D300 is the clear choice.

The NVIDIA T400 wins in power efficiency and system integration. Its 30 W TDP is one-fifth of the FirePro D300's 150 W, and its suggested PSU of 200 W is less than half of the FirePro D300's 450 W requirement. The T400 requires no power connectors, making it easier to install in systems with limited power delivery. It also supports newer standards: DirectX 12 (12_1) versus 12 (11_1), and Vulkan 1.4 versus 1.2.170. The T400's boost clock of 1,425 MHz and FP16 capability of 2.189 TFLOPS provide features that the FirePro D300 lacks entirely.

For users who need maximum compute throughput in OpenCL or Vulkan, the FirePro D300 is the superior option. For users who need a low-power card that can fit into systems with minimal power budgets, the T400 is the only sensible choice, even though it sacrifices significant performance. The data does not show a scenario where the T400 wins on performance, but its efficiency and modern feature set make it viable for specific deployment scenarios.