AMD FirePro S9300 X2 vs AMD FirePro W8000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a clear, though not overwhelming, victory for the AMD FirePro S9300 X2 across both recorded tests. In Geekbench OpenCL, the S9300 X2 scores 27,971 against the W8000's 24,440, a delta of 14.4% in favor of the newer card. This is a substantial margin in compute workloads, reflecting the S9300 X2's architectural advantage in raw floating-point throughput.

The gap narrows in the Vulkan test, where the S9300 X2 records 37,109 versus the W8000's 33,981, a 9.2% advantage. While still a decisive win, the smaller delta suggests that the W8000's older GCN 1.0 architecture handles Vulkan's draw call and command buffer overhead more efficiently relative to its raw specs than it does in OpenCL's compute-heavy paths. Still, the S9300 X2 wins both head-to-head matchups, giving it a 2-0 record.

Comparing these scores to their respective peer groups adds context. The S9300 X2's average benchmark score of 32,540 places it in the 77th percentile of all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rival is the AMD Radeon RX 590 GME, which scores 32,601, a mere 0.2% difference. The S9300 X2 also sits within 0.3% of the Radeon RX 7900 GRE (32,456) and 0.5% of the FirePro S10000 (32,388). This clustering indicates that despite its server-oriented design and dual-GPU heritage, the S9300 X2 performs squarely within a competitive mid-range envelope of modern and older cards.

The W8000, by contrast, averages 29,211, landing in the 75th percentile. Its nearest rival is the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH at 29,197, a negligible 0.0% delta. The Intel Arc A370M (29,175) is 0.1% behind, and the Radeon RX 470 (28,996) trails by 0.7%. Notably, the W8000 holds a 1.2% edge over the Radeon RX 6800M (28,874), a much newer mobile part, which speaks to the staying power of its Tahiti-based compute design in certain workloads.

The headline numbers are clear: the S9300 X2 leads by 14.4% in OpenCL and 9.2% in Vulkan. But the percentile data reveals that both cards sit within a narrow band of performance relative to their contemporaries. The S9300 X2's absolute lead over the W8000 is 3,329 points on average, a meaningful gap but not a generational chasm.

Where Each One Wins

The S9300 X2 wins every recorded benchmark, so the "where each one wins" split is heavily one-sided. However, the nature of the wins differs. In OpenCL, the S9300 X2's 14.4% advantage reflects its superior compute throughput: 7.987 TFLOPS FP32 versus the W8000's 3.226 TFLOPS. That is more than double the raw floating-point capability, yet the actual benchmark delta is only 14.4%, indicating that OpenCL's memory access patterns and kernel launch overheads do not fully exploit the S9300 X2's theoretical headroom.

In Vulkan, the S9300 X2's 9.2% lead is smaller still. This suggests that the W8000's GCN 1.0 architecture, with its simpler front-end and lower thread group dispatch overhead, is relatively more efficient per TFLOP in graphics-oriented API workloads. The W8000's 32 ROPs and 112 TMUs, while far fewer than the S9300 X2's 64 ROPs and 256 TMUs, are paired with a 256-bit GDDR5 bus running at 5.5 Gbps effective. The S9300 X2's 4096-bit HBM interface at 1000 Mbps effective delivers 512.0 GB/s, nearly three times the W8000's 176.0 GB/s, yet the Vulkan delta remains under 10%.

For use-case segmentation, the data supports the S9300 X2 as the stronger choice for compute-heavy OpenCL workloads, such as rendering, simulation, or data-parallel tasks. The W8000, despite losing both tests, offers a narrower gap in Vulkan, which may matter for real-time graphics or API-level compatibility in legacy applications. The W8000 also provides display outputs (4x DisplayPort 1.2 and 1x SDI), while the S9300 X2 has no outputs at all, making the W8000 the only option among the two for any workload requiring a physical display connection.

The W8000's lower power draw, 225 W versus the S9300 X2's 300 W, also makes it more feasible in systems with a 550 W suggested PSU versus the S9300 X2's 700 W recommendation. Neither card wins on efficiency in absolute terms, but the W8000 is clearly the more modest power consumer.

Architecture Differences

The two cards represent distinct generations of AMD's GCN architecture. The S9300 X2 is built on GCN 3.0, codenamed Capsaicin, while the W8000 uses the original GCN 1.0, codenamed Tahiti. Both are fabricated on TSMC's 28 nm process, but the transistor counts diverge sharply. The S9300 X2 packs 8,900 million transistors on a 596 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 14.9M per mm². The W8000 has 4,313 million transistors on a 352 mm² die, at 12.3M per mm². The S9300 X2's die is nearly 70% larger and holds more than double the transistors.

Memory subsystems are fundamentally different. The S9300 X2 uses 4 GB of HBM on a 4096-bit bus, delivering 512.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The W8000 uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, producing 176.0 GB/s. The S9300 X2's bandwidth advantage is nearly 3x, which is critical for memory-bound compute kernels. The W8000's memory clock is 1375 MHz (5.5 Gbps effective), while the S9300 X2's memory runs at 500 MHz (1000 Mbps effective), but the vastly wider bus more than compensates.

Compute resources follow the same pattern. The S9300 X2 has 4,096 shading units, 256 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The W8000 has 1,792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. Pixel rate for the S9300 X2 is 62.40 GPixel/s versus 28.80 GPixel/s for the W8000. Texture rate is 249.6 GTexel/s versus 100.8 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput is 7.987 TFLOPS versus 3.226 TFLOPS. In every raw compute metric, the S9300 X2 is at least 2x the W8000.

API support differs slightly. Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.170, but the S9300 X2 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the W8000 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_1). This means the S9300 X2 can expose certain DirectX 12 features that the older card cannot, which may affect compatibility in modern Windows applications.

Physical dimensions and power delivery also differ. The S9300 X2 is 267 mm long (10.5 inches) and 111 mm tall (4.4 inches), requiring 2x 8-pin power connectors. The W8000 is 279 mm long (11 inches) and 111 mm tall, using 2x 6-pin connectors. Both are dual-slot cards. The S9300 X2's higher power requirement (300 W TDP) and larger transistor count reflect its dual-GPU-class compute design, though the database lists it as a single chip.

The S9300 X2 was released on 2016-03-30, while the W8000 launched on 2012-06-13. Both are end-of-life production status. The S9300 X2's predecessor is the FirePro Terascale, and its successor is listed as Radeon Pro GCN. The W8000 shares the same predecessor and its successor is Radeon Pro Polaris.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD FirePro S9300 X2 is the faster card in every recorded benchmark. It wins OpenCL by 14.4% and Vulkan by 9.2%. Its average benchmark score of 32,540 exceeds the W8000's 29,211 by 11.4%. In raw compute resources, the S9300 X2 offers 2.5x the shading units, 2x the ROPs, and nearly 3x the memory bandwidth. For any workload that can leverage these resources, the S9300 X2 is the clear choice.

However, the W8000 has one critical advantage: display outputs. The S9300 X2 has no outputs, making it unsuitable for any interactive or display-driven workflow. The W8000 provides 4x DisplayPort 1.2 and 1x SDI, enabling direct monitor connectivity. For users needing a workstation card with visual output, the W8000 is the only viable option between the two.

The W8000 also consumes less power (225 W versus 300 W) and requires a less demanding PSU (550 W versus 700 W). In systems with constrained power budgets or smaller PSUs, the W8000 is the safer fit. Its 2x 6-pin connectors are also more universally compatible than the S9300 X2's 2x 8-pin requirement.

For compute-only server environments where display output is irrelevant and power delivery is adequate, the S9300 X2 is the superior choice. Its 77th percentile ranking and proximity to modern cards like the Radeon RX 590 GME (within 0.2%) and RX 7900 GRE (within 0.3%) show it remains competitive even years after release. The W8000, at the 75th percentile, is not far behind, but its 1.2% edge over the Radeon RX 6800M is its only notable peer-group highlight.

Choose the S9300 X2 for headless compute density. Choose the W8000 for display-capable workstations or power-limited systems. There is no scenario where both cards are equally suitable, and the benchmark data does not support a tie.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD FirePro S9300 X2 averages 32,540, compared to the AMD FirePro W8000's 29,211, a difference of 11.4%.

Q: How much faster is the S9300 X2 in OpenCL?

A: The S9300 X2 scores 27,971 versus the W8000's 24,440 in Geekbench OpenCL, a 14.4% advantage.

Q: Does the W8000 win any benchmark?

A: No. The W8000 loses both recorded tests. It trails by 14.4% in OpenCL and 9.2% in Vulkan.

Q: Can the S9300 X2 connect to a display?

A: No. The S9300 X2 has no display outputs. The W8000 has 4x DisplayPort 1.2 and 1x SDI.

Q: What memory types do the two cards use?

A: The S9300 X2 uses 4 GB of HBM on a 4096-bit bus with 512.0 GB/s bandwidth. The W8000 uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 176.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card has a higher transistor count?

A: The S9300 X2 has 8,900 million transistors on a 596 mm² die. The W8000 has 4,313 million on a 352 mm² die.