AMD FirePro D300 vs NVIDIA T400 4 GB Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The AMD FirePro D300 wins both recorded benchmark comparisons against the NVIDIA T400 4 GB, and the margins are substantial. In Geekbench OpenCL, the FirePro D300 scores 19515 against the T400's 17320, a 12.7% advantage. The gap widens further in Geekbench Vulkan, where the FirePro D300 reaches 19759 while the T400 manages 16263, a 21.5% lead. These are not narrow victories; the data shows the FirePro D300 consistently outperforms the T400 by a wide margin in both compute APIs.

Looking at the broader benchmark landscape, the FirePro D300's average benchmark score is 19637, placing it at the 64th percentile of all GPUs. The T400's average score is 16792, at the 60th percentile. The FirePro D300 sits 12.7% above the T400 in OpenCL and 21.5% above in Vulkan, which translates into a meaningful performance hierarchy. The FirePro D300's closest rivals in the database include the NVIDIA Quadro K5200 (average score 19602, just 0.2% lower), the AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT (19765, 0.6% higher), the AMD Radeon RX 7900 XTX (19410, 1.2% lower), and the NVIDIA Tesla K40m (19885, 1.2% higher). This places the FirePro D300 in a competitive band where it trades blows with much newer and more expensive hardware.

The T400, by contrast, sits among a different set of rivals. Its nearest neighbors include the AMD Radeon RX 7600S (average score 16696, 0.6% lower), the NVIDIA Tesla M4 (16932, 0.8% higher), the AMD Radeon HD 7970M (17019, 1.3% higher), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 690 (17037, 1.4% higher). The T400's average score is notably lower than all of these except the RX 7600S, indicating that it occupies a lower performance tier. The head-to-head results confirm this: the FirePro D300 wins 2 out of 2 comparisons, with no wins recorded for the T400.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two cards is significant. The AMD FirePro D300 is built on GCN 1.0 architecture, using the Pitcairn chip, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It contains 2,800 million transistors on a 212 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 13.2 million per square millimeter. The NVIDIA T400, in contrast, uses the Turing architecture with the TU117 chip, fabricated on a 12 nm process, also at TSMC. It packs 4,700 million transistors onto a 200 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 23.5 million per square millimeter.

The T400's transistor density is nearly double that of the FirePro D300, a direct result of the newer 12 nm node versus the older 28 nm process. Despite having fewer shading units, the T400's architecture is more modern and efficient in terms of transistor packing. However, the FirePro D300 compensates with sheer resource count: it has 1280 shading units, 80 texture mapping units, and 32 render output units. The T400 has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This is a 3.3x advantage in shading units for the FirePro D300, a 3.3x advantage in TMUs, and a 2x advantage in ROPs.

The memory subsystems also differ fundamentally. The FirePro D300 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 162.6 GB/s of bandwidth. The T400 uses 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus, delivering 80.00 GB/s. The FirePro D300 has more than double the memory bandwidth, despite having half the memory capacity. The T400's memory clock is rated at 1250 MHz (10 Gbps effective), while the FirePro D300's memory runs at 1270 MHz (5.1 Gbps effective). The T400's GDDR6 memory is faster per pin, but the narrow 64-bit bus severely limits total throughput.

Compute throughput numbers follow the same pattern. The FirePro D300 delivers 2.176 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the T400 delivers 1,094.4 GFLOPS (approximately 1.094 TFLOPS). The FirePro D300 is roughly 2x faster in single-precision compute. The T400 does have a notable advantage in FP16: it can output 2.189 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, while the FirePro D300 has no recorded FP16 capability. Pixel and texture rates also favor the FirePro D300: 27.20 GPixel/s and 68.00 GTexel/s versus the T400's 22.80 GPixel/s and 34.20 GTexel/s.

Where Each One Wins

The data points to a clear split in use cases. The AMD FirePro D300 wins in raw compute performance, memory bandwidth, and fill rates. Its 162.6 GB/s bandwidth is essential for workloads that stream large datasets, such as compute shaders, OpenCL workloads, and Vulkan-based rendering. The benchmark results reflect this: the FirePro D300 leads by 12.7% in OpenCL and 21.5% in Vulkan. For tasks that rely on FP32 throughput, the FirePro D300's 2.176 TFLOPS is roughly double the T400's 1,094.4 GFLOPS.

The NVIDIA T400 4 GB wins in power efficiency and memory capacity. Its TDP is 30 W, compared to the FirePro D300's 150 W, a 5x difference. The T400 requires no power connectors, while the FirePro D300 does (though the exact connector type is not recorded). The suggested PSU is 200 W for the T400 versus 450 W for the FirePro D300. The T400 also has 4 GB of memory versus 2 GB, which matters for workloads that exceed 2 GB of framebuffer usage. The T400's newer Turing architecture supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, whereas the FirePro D300 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170.

The T400 also has a higher boost clock of 1425 MHz (base 420 MHz), while the FirePro D300 has no recorded base or boost clock. This clock advantage does not translate into benchmark wins, however, as the FirePro D300's superior parallel resources dominate. The T400's FP16 capability (2.189 TFLOPS) is a unique feature that could benefit workloads specifically optimized for half-precision arithmetic, but the FirePro D300 has no such capability recorded.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD FirePro D300 | NVIDIA T400 4 GB |

|----------------|------------------|------------------|

| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Turing |

| Chip | Pitcairn | TU117 |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 12 nm |

| Transistors | 2,800 million | 4,700 million |

| Die Size | 212 mm² | 200 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 13.2M / mm² | 23.5M / mm² |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 162.6 GB/s | 80.00 GB/s |

| Memory Clock | 1270 MHz (5.1 Gbps effective) | 1250 MHz (10 Gbps effective) |

| Shading Units | 1280 | 384 |

| TMUs | 80 | 24 |

| ROPs | 32 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 27.20 GPixel/s | 22.80 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 68.00 GTexel/s | 34.20 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 2.176 TFLOPS | 1,094.4 GFLOPS |

| FP16 | Not recorded | 2.189 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 150 W | 30 W |

| Power Connectors | Not recorded | None |

| Suggested PSU | 450 W | 200 W |

| Display Outputs | 4x DisplayPort 1.2 | 3x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a |

| DirectX Support | 12 (11_1) | 12 (12_1) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.2.170 | 1.4 |

| Dimensions | 242 mm (9.5 inches) | Not recorded |

| Release Date | 2014-01-17 | 2021-05-05 |

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD FirePro D300 has an average benchmark score of 19637, while the NVIDIA T400 4 GB has an average score of 16792. The FirePro D300 outperforms the T400 by 12.7% in OpenCL and 21.5% in Vulkan.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The FirePro D300 delivers 162.6 GB/s over a 256-bit GDDR5 bus, while the T400 delivers 80.00 GB/s over a 64-bit GDDR6 bus. The FirePro D300 has more than double the bandwidth.

Q: How do the power requirements compare?

A: The FirePro D300 has a TDP of 150 W and requires a 450 W suggested PSU. The T400 has a TDP of 30 W and requires a 200 W suggested PSU. The T400 also has no power connectors, while the FirePro D300's connectors are not recorded.

Q: Which card supports newer graphics APIs?

A: The NVIDIA T400 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the AMD FirePro D300 supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170. The T400 has a more current API feature set.

Q: What is the FP32 compute performance difference?

A: The FirePro D300 achieves 2.176 TFLOPS of FP32, while the T400 achieves 1,094.4 GFLOPS. The FirePro D300 is approximately twice as fast in single-precision compute.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The FirePro D300 has 1280 shading units, while the T400 has 384. The FirePro D300 also has 80 TMUs and 32 ROPs, compared to the T400's 24 TMUs and 16 ROPs.

The Verdict

The data leads to a decisive conclusion: the AMD FirePro D300 is the superior performer in compute benchmarks. It wins both head-to-head tests, with a 12.7% lead in OpenCL and a 21.5% lead in Vulkan. Its average benchmark score of 19637 places it at the 64th percentile, well above the T400's 16792 at the 60th percentile. For workloads that prioritize FP32 throughput, memory bandwidth, or fill rates, the FirePro D300 is clearly the stronger choice. Its 2.176 TFLOPS, 162.6 GB/s bandwidth, and 68.00 GTexel/s texture rate all exceed the T400's corresponding figures by significant margins.

The NVIDIA T400 4 GB, however, has its own advantages. It offers 4 GB of memory versus 2 GB, which is critical for applications that need larger framebuffers. Its 30 W TDP makes it far more energy-efficient, and its lack of power connectors and 200 W PSU requirement make it easier to integrate into low-power systems. It also supports newer APIs, including DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, and has FP16 compute capability (2.189 TFLOPS) that the FirePro D300 lacks.

The verdict is situational. Users who need maximum compute performance, especially in OpenCL or Vulkan workloads, should choose the AMD FirePro D300. Its benchmark results are consistently higher, and its architecture provides over three times the shading units and double the ROPs. Users who need larger memory capacity, lower power draw, or modern API support should choose the NVIDIA T400 4 GB. The T400 wins no benchmarks in this comparison, but its 4 GB memory and 30 W TDP are compelling for specific use cases. The FirePro D300 wins on raw performance, while the T400 wins on efficiency and capacity.