GPU Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded benchmark data splits cleanly between the two FirePro server cards. The AMD FirePro S9300 X2 takes both recorded wins, but the margin of victory differs sharply by workload type, which reveals where each card is genuinely competitive.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the S9300 X2 scores 27,971 against the S7150's 26,543. That is a 5.4% lead, a modest gap for a dual-GPU card facing a single-GPU part. The OpenCL test exercises raw compute throughput across the whole device, and the S9300 X2's larger silicon does pull ahead, but not by the dramatic margin its hardware specifications might suggest. The S7150 remains within striking distance in this test, which indicates that the OpenCL workload does not fully saturate every resource the S9300 X2 carries.

The Vulkan test tells a completely different story. Here the S9300 X2 scores 37,109 versus 29,690 for the S7150, a 25% delta. This is the definitive win for the S9300 X2. Vulkan's lower-level API overhead and better multi-device scaling let the S9300 X2 express its full capability. The 25% lead is the single largest gap recorded between these two cards in any test, and it is the figure that defines the S9300 X2 as the superior choice for Vulkan-based compute workloads.

For the S7150, the data shows no benchmark category where it wins outright. Its best relative showing is in OpenCL, where the 5.4% deficit is small enough that real-world differences could be masked by driver version, workload mix, or thermal behavior. The S7150 also carries half the power draw of the S9300 X2, which matters for dense server deployments, but the raw performance data does not favor it in either recorded test.

The average benchmark score across all tests reinforces this split. The S9300 X2 averages 32,540, while the S7150 averages 28,117. That is a 15.7% difference in aggregate performance, placing the S9300 X2 at the 77th percentile of all GPUs in the database, versus the 73rd percentile for the S7150. The percentile gap is narrow, only four points, which suggests both cards sit in a similar performance tier relative to the broader GPU landscape, even though the S9300 X2 is consistently faster in direct comparison.

The Verdict

The data directs a clear choice for different deployment scenarios. For any workload that leverages Vulkan, the AMD FirePro S9300 X2 is the only rational pick from these two. Its 25% lead in Geekbench Vulkan is decisive, and its 37,109 score places it in a performance class the S7150 cannot approach. The S9300 X2 also wins OpenCL, though by the narrower 5.4% margin, so it never loses a direct comparison in the recorded data.

The AMD FirePro S7150 has one compelling advantage that the benchmark scores do not capture: power efficiency. At 150 W versus 300 W, the S7150 draws exactly half the power of the S9300 X2. For a server chassis with strict thermal limits or power budgets, two S7150 cards could be deployed for the same power envelope as one S9300 X2, and their combined compute throughput would likely exceed the single S9300 X2 in multi-GPU workloads. The S7150 also offers 8 GB of memory versus 4 GB, which matters for datasets that exceed the S9300 X2's capacity.

The database shows the S9300 X2 winning both recorded benchmarks, but the S7150 remains the sensible choice when power density, memory capacity, or cost per card (the S7150 launched at 2,399 USD versus 5,999 USD for the S9300 X2) are the governing constraints. The S9300 X2 is the performance winner; the S7150 is the efficiency and capacity winner. Neither card is the wrong purchase, but the correct choice depends entirely on whether raw speed or operational efficiency dominates the requirement list.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The direct comparison table lists two tests, and the S9300 X2 wins both. The first test, Geekbench OpenCL, shows a score of 27,971 for the S9300 X2 against 26,543 for the S7150. The delta is 5.4%, which is a real but contained advantage. In the context of the nearest rivals, both cards sit close to their expected performance bands: the S9300 X2's 27,971 OpenCL score aligns with its average benchmark score of 32,540, while the S7150's 26,543 sits just below its 28,117 average. The OpenCL test does not heavily favor either architecture, which is why the gap stays under six percent.

The second test, Geekbench Vulkan, is where the S9300 X2 separates itself. Its 37,109 score beats the S7150's 29,690 by exactly 25%. This is the largest delta recorded in any head-to-head metric between these two cards. The S9300 X2's Vulkan score is also substantially higher than its own OpenCL score, a 32.7% improvement within the same card, while the S7150's Vulkan score only beats its OpenCL score by 11.9%. This asymmetry indicates that the S9300 X2's dual-GPU design scales far better under Vulkan's explicit multi-device control, whereas the S7150's single-GPU Tonga chip does not gain as much from the lower-level API.

Looking at the nearest rivals for context, the S9300 X2's average score of 32,540 places it between the AMD Radeon RX 590 GME at 32,601 (0.2% faster) and the AMD Radeon RX 7900 GRE at 32,456 (0.3% slower). The NVIDIA T600 Mobile sits slightly ahead at 32,849, a 0.9% advantage. These are all extremely close margins, which means the S9300 X2 performs right at the expected level for its hardware class. The S7150, by contrast, averages 28,117, which beats the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti (28,020, 0.3% slower), the AMD Radeon Pro W5500X (27,973, 0.5% slower), and the AMD Radeon RX 7800M (27,883, 0.8% slower). The S7150 also leads the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 20 (27,839, 1% slower). These rival comparisons show both cards are competitive within their respective performance tiers, but the S9300 X2's tier is simply higher.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD FirePro S9300 X2 averages 32,540 across all recorded benchmarks, while the AMD FirePro S7150 averages 28,117. That is a 15.7% difference in aggregate performance.

Q: How much faster is the S9300 X2 in Vulkan compute?

A: The S9300 X2 scores 37,109 in Geekbench Vulkan versus 29,690 for the S7150, which is a 25% lead. This is the largest performance gap recorded between the two cards in any test.

Q: Does the S7150 win any benchmark?

A: No. The recorded data shows the S9300 X2 winning both Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. The S7150's closest result is in OpenCL, where it trails by only 5.4%.

Q: What are the memory differences between the two cards?

A: The S9300 X2 has 4 GB of HBM memory on a 4096-bit bus with 512.0 GB/s bandwidth. The S7150 has 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus with 160.0 GB/s bandwidth. The S7150 offers double the capacity, but the S9300 X2 offers more than three times the bandwidth.

Q: How do the power requirements compare?

A: The S9300 X2 has a 300 W TDP and requires a 700 W power supply with two 8-pin connectors. The S7150 has a 150 W TDP and requires a 450 W power supply with a single 6-pin connector. The S7150 draws exactly half the power.

Q: What are the percentile rankings for each card?

A: The S9300 X2 ranks at the 77th percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the S7150 ranks at the 73rd percentile. The four-point gap indicates similar overall positioning despite the S9300 X2's higher raw scores.

Architecture Differences

Both cards share the same GCN 3.0 architecture and are built on TSMC's 28 nm process, but they diverge sharply in every other physical and logical aspect. The S9300 X2 uses the Capsaicin chip, which is a dual-GPU design, while the S7150 uses the Tonga chip, a single-GPU part. The Capsaicin chip contains 8,900 million transistors on a 596 mm² die, versus 5,000 million transistors on a 366 mm² die for Tonga. The transistor density is slightly higher on the S9300 X2 at 14.9 million per mm², compared to 13.7 million per mm² for the S7150.

The compute resources scale accordingly. The S9300 X2 has 4,096 shading units, 256 texture mapping units, and 64 raster operation units. The S7150 has exactly half of each: 2,048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. This doubling of resources translates directly into the S9300 X2's higher pixel rate (62.40 GPixel/s versus 29.44 GPixel/s) and texture rate (249.6 GTexel/s versus 117.8 GTexel/s). The FP32 compute throughput follows the same pattern: 7.987 TFLOPS for the S9300 X2 versus 3.768 TFLOPS for the S7150. The S7150 does offer FP16 throughput at 7.537 TFLOPS via a 2:1 ratio, a feature that is not listed for the S9300 X2.

Memory architecture presents the most striking contrast. The S9300 X2 uses 4 GB of HBM on a 4096-bit bus, running at 500 MHz with 1000 Mbps effective speed, delivering 512.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The S7150 uses 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, running at 1250 MHz with 5 Gbps effective speed, delivering 160.0 GB/s. The S9300 X2's bandwidth advantage is 3.2 times that of the S7150, which directly supports its higher compute throughput in memory-bound workloads. The S7150's larger capacity, however, accommodates larger working sets.

Physical and power characteristics differ as much as the compute blocks. The S9300 X2 is a dual-slot card measuring 267 mm in length, requiring 300 W and a 700 W power supply with two 8-pin connectors. The S7150 is a single-slot card at 241 mm length, requiring 150 W and a 450 W power supply with one 6-pin connector. Both cards are 111 mm tall and have no display outputs, reflecting their server-oriented design. Both support PCIe 3.0 x16, DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. Both cards are end-of-life products, with the S7150 released in January 2016 and the S9300 X2 in March 2016. Both share the same predecessor (FirePro Terascale) and successor (Radeon Pro GCN) in the product lineage.