AMD FirePro S9300 X2 vs AMD Radeon Pro 575 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clear overall winner in direct comparisons: the AMD Radeon Pro 575 takes both benchmark matchups against the AMD FirePro S9300 X2. The largest margin comes in the Geekbench OpenCL test, where the Radeon Pro 575 scores 34,596 versus the FirePro S9300 X2's 27,971. That is a 23.7% advantage, a substantial gap that indicates significantly stronger compute performance in general-purpose workloads.

The Vulkan results are far closer. The Radeon Pro 575 posts 37,878, while the FirePro S9300 X2 trails slightly at 37,109. The delta here is just 2.1%, meaning the two cards are effectively neck-and-neck in Vulkan-based tasks. For practical purposes, this is within run-to-run variation territory, so neither card holds a decisive edge in that API.

There is no Geekbench Metal score recorded for the FirePro S9300 X2, which makes sense given its server-oriented design and lack of display outputs. The Radeon Pro 575's Metal score of 46,192 is the strongest single result in this comparison, and it highlights where the mobile workstation card excels.

Looking at average benchmark scores across all tests, the Radeon Pro 575 sits at 39,555, while the FirePro S9300 X2 averages 32,540. That puts the Radeon Pro 575 roughly 21.5% ahead on aggregate, which aligns with its commanding OpenCL lead.

Architecture Differences

The underlying architectures could hardly be more different. The Radeon Pro 575 uses the Ellesmere chip built on GCN 4.0, manufactured on a 14 nm process by GlobalFoundries. It packs 5,700 million transistors into a 232 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 24.6 million per square millimeter. The FirePro S9300 X2, by contrast, uses the Capsaicin chip on the older GCN 3.0 architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process by TSMC. It has 8,900 million transistors spread across a much larger 596 mm² die, resulting in a lower density of 14.9 million per square millimeter.

Those architectural differences have direct performance implications. The FirePro S9300 X2 offers far more raw shading resources: 4,096 shading units, 256 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs, exactly double the Radeon Pro 575's 2,048 shaders, 128 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. That hardware advantage shows up in theoretical peak rates: the FirePro S9300 X2 reaches 7.987 TFLOPS FP32, 7.4% higher than the Radeon Pro 575's 4.489 TFLOPS. It also pushes 249.6 GTexel/s and 62.40 GPixel/s versus 140.3 GTexel/s and 35.07 GPixel/s for the Radeon Pro 575. Yet in real-world OpenCL testing, the Radeon Pro 575 still wins by 23.7%, suggesting the older GCN 3.0 architecture suffers from inefficiencies that raw specs do not reveal.

Memory design is another major divergence. The Radeon Pro 575 uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 217.0 GB/s of bandwidth at a 1695 MHz memory clock (6.8 Gbps effective). The FirePro S9300 X2 uses 4 GB of HBM on a massive 4096-bit bus, yielding 512.0 GB/s, more than double the bandwidth, at a much lower memory clock of 500 MHz (1000 Mbps effective). The HBM stack is clearly the higher-bandwidth solution, but it does not overcome the Radeon Pro 575's other advantages.

The other notable difference is display support. The Radeon Pro 575 has display outputs described as "Portable Device Dependent," meaning it is designed to drive a panel in a mobile workstation. The FirePro S9300 X2 has no display outputs at all, which confirms its role as a compute-only accelerator for servers.

Where Each One Wins

The Radeon Pro 575 wins in every head-to-head benchmark recorded, but the nature of those wins matters. In OpenCL workloads, which include many scientific, rendering, and data-processing tasks, the Radeon Pro 575 is decisively superior. A 23.7% lead is not a marginal gap; it is a category difference. Anyone planning to run OpenCL compute will see clearly better performance on the Radeon Pro 575, despite the FirePro S9300 X2 having double the shading units and nearly 75% higher theoretical FP32.

The Vulkan result tells a different story. With only a 2.1% difference, the two cards are effectively tied in Vulkan graphics workloads. To be clear, the FirePro S9300 X2 has no display outputs, so it cannot be used for any visual Vulkan rendering on a monitor. But for headless compute or render-farm tasks that use Vulkan as the compute API, the S9300 X2 is not at a meaningful disadvantage.

The FirePro S9300 X2's strongest case is theoretical rather than empirical. Its 512.0 GB/s memory bandwidth, 64 ROPs, and 7.987 TFLOPS FP32 are all far higher than the Radeon Pro 575's. In workloads that are perfectly tuned to GCN 3.0 and saturate that memory subsystem, the S9300 X2 could outperform, but the recorded benchmarks do not show that. The data shows the Radeon Pro 575 winning both tests that both cards ran.

The Radeon Pro 575 also wins on efficiency in a practical sense. Its 150 W TDP is half the FirePro S9300 X2's 300 W TDP. Even with the lower peak throughput, the Radeon Pro 575 gets better benchmark results at half the power draw. The FirePro S9300 X2 requires a 700 W suggested PSU and two 8-pin power connectors, while the Radeon Pro 575 uses no external power connectors. That makes the Radeon Pro 575 far easier to integrate into a workstation chassis.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every major specification category. Here are the fields where the data shows a direct contrast:

• Process node: 14 nm (Radeon Pro 575) versus 28 nm (FirePro S9300 X2)
• Foundry: GlobalFoundries versus TSMC
• Transistors: 5,700 million versus 8,900 million
• Die size: 232 mm² versus 596 mm²
• Transistor density: 24.6M per mm² versus 14.9M per mm²
• Shading units: 2,048 versus 4,096
• TMUs: 128 versus 256
• ROPs: 32 versus 64
• Memory type: GDDR5 versus HBM
• Memory bus width: 256-bit versus 4096-bit
• Memory clock: 6.8 Gbps effective versus 1000 Mbps effective
• Memory bandwidth: 217.0 GB/s versus 512.0 GB/s
• FP32: 4.489 TFLOPS versus 7.987 TFLOPS
• Pixel rate: 35.07 GPixel/s versus 62.40 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 140.3 GTexel/s versus 249.6 GTexel/s
• TDP: 150 W versus 300 W
• Slot width: MXM Module versus Dual-slot
• Power connectors: None versus 2x 8-pin
• Suggested PSU: Not specified versus 700 W
• Display outputs: Portable Device Dependent versus No outputs
• Length: Not specified versus 267 mm (10.5 inches)
• Height: Not specified versus 111 mm (4.4 inches)
• Release date: June 4, 2017 versus March 30, 2016
• API support: Vulkan 1.3 versus Vulkan 1.2.170

The FirePro S9300 X2 was released earlier and has a predecessor (FirePro Terascale) and successor (Radeon Pro GCN) listed, while the Radeon Pro 575 has neither. The FirePro S9300 X2 also has a launch MSRP of 5,999 USD, which is not available for the Radeon Pro 575.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher raw compute power in the database?

A: The FirePro S9300 X2 has higher theoretical FP32 at 7.987 TFLOPS, compared to the Radeon Pro 575's 4.489 TFLOPS.

Q: Which card performs better in OpenCL benchmarks?

A: The Radeon Pro 575 scores 34,596 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 23.7% higher than the FirePro S9300 X2's 27,971.

Q: Why does the Radeon Pro 575 beat the FirePro S9300 X2 in OpenCL despite having half the shaders?

A: The recorded data shows the Radeon Pro 575's GCN 4.0 architecture on a 14 nm process is more efficient in actual workloads. The FirePro S9300 X2's GCN 3.0 on 28 nm does not translate its 4,096 shaders into better OpenCL scores.

Q: Does the FirePro S9300 X2 have any display outputs?

A: No, the FirePro S9300 X2 has no display outputs at all, making it a compute-only accelerator for servers.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between the two?

A: The FirePro S9300 X2 has 512.0 GB/s bandwidth over a 4096-bit HBM bus, while the Radeon Pro 575 has 217.0 GB/s over a 256-bit GDDR5 bus.

Q: Which card is more power-efficient?

A: The Radeon Pro 575 uses 150 W TDP with no external power connectors, while the FirePro S9300 X2 uses 300 W TDP and requires two 8-pin connectors and a 700 W suggested PSU.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the recorded benchmark data, the AMD Radeon Pro 575 is the better choice for anyone running OpenCL or Vulkan workloads. It wins both head-to-head tests: 23.7% in OpenCL and 2.1% in Vulkan. It also has a higher average benchmark score (39,555 versus 32,540) and sits at the 82nd percentile of all GPUs, compared to the FirePro S9300 X2's 77th percentile.

The FirePro S9300 X2's reasons for existence are not visible in the benchmark results. Its 512.0 GB/s bandwidth and 64 ROPs are impressive on paper, but the data shows it losing in every test it actually ran. The only scenario in which it makes sense is a server environment where massive memory bandwidth is the sole requirement, or where the card's lack of display outputs is actually a feature rather than a limitation. Its 300 W TDP and dual-slot footprint further restrict it to large server chassis.

For a mobile workstation, the Radeon Pro 575 is the clear winner. It uses an MXM module form factor, draws only 150 W, requires no external power connectors, and delivers superior benchmark results. Its 4 GB GDDR5 memory is the same size as the FirePro S9300 X2's HBM, so there is no capacity disadvantage. The only thing it loses on is raw bandwidth and the theoretical FP32 peak, but those do not translate into wins in the recorded tests.

For anyone who must run OpenCL compute, the Radeon Pro 575 is the only rational pick. For Vulkan graphics, the two are effectively tied. For any other workload, the Radeon Pro 575's higher benchmark scores, lower power draw, and better percentile ranking make it the safer purchase. The FirePro S9300 X2 might have been an interesting server accelerator in 2016, but by 2017 the Radeon Pro 575 already outperformed it on the tests that matter.