AMD FirePro S9300 X2 vs AMD Radeon Pro 5300 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clear split between the two cards depending on the API workload. In Geekbench OpenCL, the AMD Radeon Pro 5300 scores 38,747 against the FirePro S9300 X2's 27,971, a decisive 38.5% advantage. That is not a marginal lead; it is a substantial gap that places the newer RDNA 1.0 part firmly ahead in compute workloads that stress OpenCL. The FirePro S9300 X2, despite its much larger silicon and older GCN 3.0 design, cannot close that distance in this test.

However, the Geekbench Vulkan result flips the outcome. Here, the FirePro S9300 X2 scores 37,109 while the Radeon Pro 5300 trails at 35,793, a 3.5% deficit. The older card wins, but the margin is far smaller than the OpenCL gap. This suggests that the FirePro's raw hardware resources, particularly its 4,096 shading units, can still leverage Vulkan's lower-level API access to outperform a newer but smaller chip. The head-to-head record stands at one win apiece, which makes the comparison more nuanced than a simple generational sweep.

Looking at the average benchmark scores, the Radeon Pro 5300 posts 40,870, which places it 82nd percentile among all GPUs in the database. The FirePro S9300 X2 manages 32,540 on average, sitting at the 77th percentile. The delta between their average scores is roughly 25.6% in favor of the Radeon Pro 5300, consistent with the OpenCL result. Yet the Vulkan data reminds us that the FirePro is not obsolete in every context.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different eras and design philosophies. The Radeon Pro 5300 uses the Navi 14 chip built on RDNA 1.0 architecture, manufactured by TSMC on a 7 nm process. It packs 6,400 million transistors into a 158 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 40.5 million per square millimeter. The FirePro S9300 X2, by contrast, uses the Capsaicin chip with GCN 3.0 architecture, also from TSMC but on a 28 nm process. It contains 8,900 million transistors spread across a massive 596 mm² die, with a density of just 14.9 million per square millimeter. The process node difference is stark: 7 nm versus 28 nm explains why the newer card achieves far higher density and efficiency despite fewer transistors.

Memory configurations diverge sharply. The Radeon Pro 5300 has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 224.0 GB/s of bandwidth. Its memory clock is 1750 MHz, rated at 14 Gbps effective. The FirePro S9300 X2 also has 4 GB, but it is HBM on a 4096-bit bus, achieving 512.0 GB/s, more than double the bandwidth. The FirePro's memory clock is listed at 500 MHz with 1000 Mbps effective. That enormous bus width is the FirePro's key architectural weapon, though it comes with a power cost.

Compute resources differ significantly. The Radeon Pro 5300 has 1,280 shading units, 80 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The FirePro S9300 X2 has 4,096 shading units, 256 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The FirePro's raw count is triple in shading units and TMUs, quadruple in ROPs. Pixel rate favors the FirePro at 62.40 GPixel/s versus 52.80 GPixel/s. Texture rate also favors it: 249.6 GTexel/s versus 132.0 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 7.987 TFLOPS for the FirePro against 4.224 TFLOPS for the Radeon Pro 5300. The older card is numerically superior in every raw throughput metric. Yet the benchmark data shows the Radeon Pro 5300 winning OpenCL handily, implying that architecture efficiency and driver optimization matter more than raw counts.

The FirePro has no listed FP16 performance, while the Radeon Pro 5300 provides 8.448 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio. API support also differs: the Radeon Pro 5300 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The FirePro supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. Both are end-of-life products. The Radeon Pro 5300 uses a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface, while the FirePro uses PCIe 3.0 x16. Neither card has display outputs, which points to their intended roles as compute or server accelerators rather than desktop graphics cards.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score in the database?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 5300 has an average benchmark score of 40,870, compared to the AMD FirePro S9300 X2's 32,540. The Radeon Pro 5300 also sits at the 82nd percentile among all GPUs, while the FirePro is at the 77th percentile.

Q: How does the OpenCL performance compare between the two?

A: In Geekbench OpenCL, the Radeon Pro 5300 scores 38,747, which is 38.5% higher than the FirePro S9300 X2's 27,971. This is the largest recorded performance gap between the two cards.

Q: Does the FirePro S9300 X2 win any benchmark?

A: Yes. In Geekbench Vulkan, the FirePro S9300 X2 scores 37,109, beating the Radeon Pro 5300's 35,793 by 3.5%. This gives the FirePro one win in the head-to-head comparison.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The Radeon Pro 5300 has a TDP of 85 W and requires no power connectors, with a suggested PSU of 250 W. The FirePro S9300 X2 has a TDP of 300 W, requires two 8-pin power connectors, and needs a suggested PSU of 700 W.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The FirePro S9300 X2 has 512.0 GB/s of bandwidth due to its 4096-bit HBM bus, while the Radeon Pro 5300 has 224.0 GB/s over a 128-bit GDDR6 bus. The FirePro offers more than double the memory bandwidth.

Q: Which card has a higher transistor count and die size?

A: The FirePro S9300 X2 has 8,900 million transistors on a 596 mm² die, while the Radeon Pro 5300 has 6,400 million transistors on a 158 mm² die. The FirePro is physically much larger, but the Radeon Pro 5300 achieves higher transistor density at 40.5M per mm² versus 14.9M per mm².

The Verdict

The data points to different strengths. The Radeon Pro 5300 is the better choice for OpenCL compute workloads, where it leads by 38.5%. Its higher average benchmark score, 40,870 versus 32,540, and its higher percentile ranking make it the more balanced performer in the database's overall metrics. It also consumes far less power: 85 W versus 300 W, with no external power connectors compared to the FirePro's two 8-pin connectors. For any deployment where thermal envelope or power delivery is a constraint, the Radeon Pro 5300 is clearly favored.

The FirePro S9300 X2, however, wins in Vulkan by 3.5%, and it offers substantially higher raw compute specifications: 7.987 TFLOPS FP32, 4,096 shading units, and 512.0 GB/s memory bandwidth. Its launch MSRP was 5,999 USD, which reflects its original positioning as a high-end server accelerator. The FirePro also has a larger physical footprint at 267 mm in length and 111 mm in height, taking a dual-slot width, whereas the Radeon Pro 5300 is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with no slot width. For applications that can leverage Vulkan's lower overhead and take advantage of the FirePro's massive memory bus, the older card remains viable.

The verdict depends on the workload. If the priority is OpenCL performance, power efficiency, and overall database percentile standing, the Radeon Pro 5300 is the superior option. If the workload is Vulkan-centric and can exploit the FirePro's raw shading power and bandwidth, the FirePro S9300 X2 holds a narrow edge. Neither card dominates across all recorded tests, and the split result (1 win each) suggests that the choice should be driven by the specific API and compute pattern in use.

Specification Differences

The table below lists only the fields where the two GPUs differ, based on the recorded data:

• Chip: Navi 14 (Radeon Pro 5300) vs Capsaicin (FirePro S9300 X2)
• Architecture: RDNA 1.0 vs GCN 3.0
• Generation: Radeon Pro Mac (Navi Series) vs FirePro Server (Sx300)
• Process Node: 7 nm vs 28 nm
• Transistors: 6,400 million vs 8,900 million
• Die Size: 158 mm² vs 596 mm²
• Transistor Density: 40.5M / mm² vs 14.9M / mm²
• Memory Clock: 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) vs 500 MHz (1000 Mbps effective)
• Memory Type: GDDR6 vs HBM
• Memory Bus Width: 128 bit vs 4096 bit
• Memory Bandwidth: 224.0 GB/s vs 512.0 GB/s
• Shading Units: 1280 vs 4096
• TMUs: 80 vs 256
• ROPs: 32 vs 64
• Pixel Rate: 52.80 GPixel/s vs 62.40 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 132.0 GTexel/s vs 249.6 GTexel/s
• FP32: 4.224 TFLOPS vs 7.987 TFLOPS
• FP16: 8.448 TFLOPS (2:1) vs not listed
• TDP: 85 W vs 300 W
• Slot Width: IGP vs Dual-slot
• Power Connectors: None vs 2x 8-pin
• Suggested PSU: 250 W vs 700 W
• Bus Interface: PCIe 4.0 x8 vs PCIe 3.0 x16
• DirectX Support: 12 (12_1) vs 12 (12_0)
• Vulkan Support: 1.4 vs 1.2.170
• Dimensions: No length/height listed vs 267 mm (10.5 inches) length, 111 mm (4.4 inches) height
• Release Date: 2020-08-03 vs 2016-03-30
• Predecessor: Not listed vs FirePro Terascale
• Successor: Not listed vs Radeon Pro GCN
• Launch MSRP: Not listed vs 5,999 USD

Where Each One Wins

The Radeon Pro 5300 wins decisively in Geekbench OpenCL, posting 38,747 against 27,971, a 38.5% lead. This is the headline result for the newer card. It also wins on efficiency: 85 W TDP versus 300 W, no power connectors versus two 8-pin connectors, and a suggested PSU of 250 W versus 700 W. Its average benchmark score of 40,870 is higher than the FirePro's 32,540, and it ranks at the 82nd percentile versus 77th. The Radeon Pro 5300 is also smaller in practical terms, being an IGP rather than a dual-slot card, and it supports a newer DirectX version (12_1) and Vulkan version (1.4). For OpenCL-heavy workloads, power-constrained environments, or systems where physical space is limited, the Radeon Pro 5300 is the clear winner.

The FirePro S9300 X2 wins in Geekbench Vulkan, scoring 37,109 versus 35,793, a 3.5% margin. It also dominates on raw compute specifications: 7.987 TFLOPS FP32, 4,096 shading units, 256 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and 512.0 GB/s memory bandwidth. Its pixel rate of 62.40 GPixel/s and texture rate of 249.6 GTexel/s exceed the Radeon Pro 5300's 52.80 GPixel/s and 132.0 GTexel/s. The FirePro's 4096-bit HBM bus is a unique advantage that the Radeon Pro 5300 cannot match. For Vulkan-based applications that can utilize its massive parallelism and bandwidth, the FirePro S9300 X2 holds the edge. It also has a listed predecessor (FirePro Terascale) and successor (Radeon Pro GCN), indicating a defined product lineage.

The split is clean: one win for OpenCL and efficiency, one win for Vulkan and raw throughput. The database shows no single card winning both API tests, so the decision rests on which workload matches the user's needs. The Radeon Pro 5300 is the more modern, efficient, and overall higher-scoring part. The FirePro S9300 X2 is the brute-force compute card that still finds relevance in Vulkan scenarios.