AMD FirePro S9300 X2 vs AMD Radeon Pro 575X Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in the database’s average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 575X records an average benchmark score of 39,116, while the AMD FirePro S9300 X2 scores 32,540. That puts the Radeon Pro 575X about 20% ahead in overall measured performance.

Q: How do the two compare in raw compute specifications?

A: The FirePro S9300 X2 has 4,096 shading units and 256 texture mapping units, versus 2,048 shading units and 128 TMUs on the Radeon Pro 575X. The FirePro also leads in FP32 throughput at 7.987 TFLOPS compared to 4.489 TFLOPS, and has a much wider 4096-bit memory bus versus 256-bit.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The FirePro S9300 X2 offers 512.0 GB/s of bandwidth using 4 GB of HBM memory. The Radeon Pro 575X provides 217.0 GB/s with 4 GB of GDDR5 memory. The FirePro’s bandwidth is more than double.

Q: Why does the Radeon Pro 575X win benchmarks despite lower raw specs?

A: The benchmark results show the Radeon Pro 575X scoring 34,773 in OpenCL and 37,919 in Vulkan, while the FirePro S9300 X2 scores 27,971 and 37,109 respectively. Despite the FirePro’s higher theoretical throughput, the Radeon Pro 575X’s GCN 4.0 architecture and newer 14 nm process appear to deliver better real-world efficiency in these tests.

Q: What is the release date and production status of each?

A: The Radeon Pro 575X was released on 2019-03-17 and is marked as end-of-life. The FirePro S9300 X2 was released on 2016-03-30 and is also marked as end-of-life. Both are discontinued products.

Q: Which card has a higher percentile ranking among all GPUs?

A: The Radeon Pro 575X sits at the 82nd percentile, while the FirePro S9300 X2 sits at the 77th percentile. This indicates the Radeon Pro 575X outperforms a larger share of the database’s GPU population.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different architectural generations and process nodes. The Radeon Pro 575X uses the Ellesmere chip built on GCN 4.0 architecture, fabricated by GlobalFoundries on a 14 nm process. 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 uses the Capsaicin chip based on GCN 3.0, built by TSMC on a 28 nm process. It contains 8,900 million transistors across a much larger 596 mm² die, with a lower density of 14.9 million per square millimeter.

The FirePro S9300 X2 is a dual-chip design (Capsaicin is the codename for a dual-GPU board), which explains its massive transistor count and die area. It has 4,096 shading units, 256 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, effectively doubling the Radeon Pro 575X’s 2,048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. However, the Radeon Pro 575X’s GCN 4.0 architecture is newer, with support for Vulkan 1.3 and DirectX 12 (12_0), while the FirePro supports Vulkan 1.2.170 and DirectX 12 (12_0). Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Memory architecture is a major divergence. The Radeon Pro 575X uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, with memory clocked at 1695 MHz (6.8 Gbps effective) and bandwidth of 217.0 GB/s. The FirePro S9300 X2 uses 4 GB of HBM on a 4096-bit bus, with memory at 500 MHz (1000 Mbps effective) and bandwidth of 512.0 GB/s. The FirePro’s HBM provides significantly higher bandwidth, but the Radeon Pro 575X’s GDDR5 operates at a much higher effective clock speed.

Power and physical design also differ sharply. The Radeon Pro 575X is an integrated GPU (IGP) with no power connectors and a 150 W TDP, designed for portable devices. The FirePro S9300 X2 is a dual-slot card measuring 267 mm (10.5 inches) in length and 111 mm (4.4 inches) in height, requiring two 8-pin power connectors and a suggested 700 W power supply, with a 300 W TDP. The FirePro has no display outputs, confirming its server-oriented role, while the Radeon Pro 575X’s outputs are portable device dependent.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split by use case. If the workload is general-purpose graphics, OpenCL compute, or Vulkan rendering on a portable platform, the Radeon Pro 575X is the stronger choice. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks: 24.3% ahead in OpenCL and 2.2% ahead in Vulkan. Its average benchmark score of 39,116 versus 32,540, plus its higher 82nd percentile ranking, reinforces this.

The FirePro S9300 X2 is a different animal. It is a server-class compute card with no display outputs, dual-slot cooling, and a 300 W TDP. Its strengths lie in raw FP32 throughput (7.987 TFLOPS) and memory bandwidth (512.0 GB/s), which are not reflected in the Geekbench workloads recorded in the database. For workloads that heavily favor raw ALU throughput or high-bandwidth memory access, the FirePro’s specification sheet suggests it could excel, but the benchmark data does not capture such scenarios.

In practical terms, the Radeon Pro 575X is for mobile workstations needing solid OpenCL and Vulkan performance in a low-power IGP form factor. The FirePro S9300 X2 is for dedicated compute nodes where power draw and physical size are acceptable, and where the lack of display outputs is irrelevant. The Radeon Pro 575X wins on measured performance and efficiency; the FirePro wins on paper specifications for compute-heavy tasks.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon Pro 575X | AMD FirePro S9300 X2 |

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

| Architecture | GCN 4.0 | GCN 3.0 |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 28 nm |

| Foundry | GlobalFoundries | TSMC |

| Transistors | 5,700 million | 8,900 million |

| Die Size | 232 mm² | 596 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 24.6M / mm² | 14.9M / mm² |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | HBM |

| Memory Clock | 1695 MHz (6.8 Gbps effective) | 500 MHz (1000 Mbps effective) |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 4096 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 217.0 GB/s | 512.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 2048 | 4096 |

| TMUs | 128 | 256 |

| ROPs | 32 | 64 |

| Pixel Rate | 35.07 GPixel/s | 62.40 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 140.3 GTexel/s | 249.6 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 4.489 TFLOPS | 7.987 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 4.489 TFLOPS (1:1) | Not specified |

| TDP | 150 W | 300 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | 2x 8-pin |

| Suggested PSU | Not specified | 700 W |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | No outputs |

| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.2.170 |

| Release Date | 2019-03-17 | 2016-03-30 |

| Predecessor | Not specified | FirePro Terascale |

| Successor | Not specified | Radeon Pro GCN |

| Launch MSRP | Not specified | 5,999 USD |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database includes two direct comparisons between these cards. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Radeon Pro 575X scores 34,773 against the FirePro S9300 X2’s 27,971, a 24.3% advantage. This is the largest measured gap between the two. The Radeon Pro 575X’s newer architecture and higher memory clock appear to compensate for its lower shading unit count.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the margin narrows considerably. The Radeon Pro 575X scores 37,919 versus 37,109 for the FirePro, a 2.2% lead. This near-tie suggests that Vulkan workloads are less sensitive to the architectural differences, or that the FirePro’s raw compute resources help it close the gap.

The Radeon Pro 575X also has a Metal benchmark score of 44,655, which the FirePro does not have recorded. That score is notably higher than both cards’ OpenCL and Vulkan results, indicating strong Metal performance for the Radeon Pro 575X in Apple-centric environments.

Looking at rival comparisons, the Radeon Pro 575X’s nearest competitors include the Radeon Pro 580X (38,706 average, 1.1% slower) and the NVIDIA GeForce MX570 A (38,691 average, 1.1% slower). It also edges out the Radeon Pro 575 (39,555, 1.1% slower than the 575X). The FirePro S9300 X2’s rivals are closer in score: the Radeon RX 590 GME (32,601, 0.2% faster), the Radeon RX 7900 GRE (32,456, 0.3% slower), and the FirePro S10000 (32,388, 0.5% slower). These tight deltas indicate that both cards sit in competitive performance bands relative to their peers.

Where Each One Wins

The Radeon Pro 575X wins in every recorded benchmark test. It takes the OpenCL test by a wide 24.3% margin and the Vulkan test by 2.2%. It also holds a higher average benchmark score (39,116 versus 32,540) and a higher percentile ranking (82 versus 77). For users running OpenCL compute, Vulkan rendering, or Metal workloads (given the 44,655 Metal score), the Radeon Pro 575X is the clear measured winner.

The FirePro S9300 X2 does not win any recorded benchmark, but its specification sheet points to scenarios where it could be preferable. It offers 7.987 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput, which is 78% higher than the Radeon Pro 575X’s 4.489 TFLOPS. Its 512.0 GB/s memory bandwidth is more than double the 217.0 GB/s of the Radeon Pro 575X, and its 4096-bit bus is 16 times wider. The FirePro also has double the pixel rate (62.40 GPixel/s versus 35.07 GPixel/s) and texture rate (249.6 GTexel/s versus 140.3 GTexel/s).

These raw specs suggest the FirePro S9300 X2 is better suited for compute-heavy tasks that are not well represented by Geekbench’s OpenCL and Vulkan tests. Workloads that stress raw FP32 math, high-bandwidth memory access, or large texture operations could favor the FirePro. Its server-oriented design (no display outputs, dual-slot, 2x 8-pin power) indicates it is intended for dedicated compute nodes, not desktop or mobile use.

The Radeon Pro 575X, meanwhile, is an integrated GPU with a 150 W TDP and no power connectors, designed for portable devices. It wins on measured efficiency and real-world benchmark performance. For users who need a drop-in mobile GPU solution with strong OpenCL and Vulkan scores, the data favors the Radeon Pro 575X. For users building a compute server where power and size are not constraints, the FirePro S9300 X2’s raw specifications offer untapped potential, despite losing the recorded benchmarks.