AMD FirePro S9300 X2 vs AMD Radeon Pro 580 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits cleanly along workload lines, with the AMD Radeon Pro 580 taking both recorded wins. The Radeon Pro 580 dominates in OpenCL compute and Vulkan graphics, while the FirePro S9300 X2 offers no benchmark victories in the database. The Radeon Pro 580’s average benchmark score of 40,318 places it in the 82nd percentile of all GPUs, while the FirePro S9300 X2 sits at 32,540, good for the 77th percentile. That gap of nearly 8,000 points translates into a clear performance tier separation.

For compute-heavy OpenCL workloads, the Radeon Pro 580 leads by a wide margin. It scores 38,457 against the FirePro S9300 X2’s 27,971, a 37.5% advantage. This makes the Radeon Pro 580 the better pick for general-purpose GPU computing, scientific simulations, and render tasks that rely on OpenCL acceleration. The FirePro S9300 X2’s architecture, while newer in raw shader count, simply does not convert that hardware into higher OpenCL throughput.

In Vulkan workloads, the Radeon Pro 580 again takes the lead, scoring 43,285 versus 37,109 for the FirePro S9300 X2, a 16.6% difference. Vulkan is increasingly relevant for modern game engines and cross-platform graphics APIs. The Radeon Pro 580’s newer GCN 4.0 architecture provides better driver optimization and feature support, which shows in the benchmark numbers.

The FirePro S9300 X2’s strengths lie elsewhere: it is a dual-slot, 300 W server card with no display outputs, so its intended use case is headless compute in a rack. The Radeon Pro 580, by contrast, is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) for portable devices, so it targets mobile workstations. The data indicates the Radeon Pro 580 wins outright in every measured benchmark, but the FirePro S9300 X2 still has a role for server deployments where its 4 GB HBM memory and 512.0 GB/s bandwidth might matter, even if the average score does not reflect that advantage.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different generations and foundries. The Radeon Pro 580 uses the Ellesmere chip built on GCN 4.0 architecture, manufactured on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The FirePro S9300 X2 uses the Capsaicin chip with GCN 3.0 architecture, built on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The node difference is significant: 14 nm allows higher transistor density, 24.6 million transistors per square millimeter for the Radeon Pro 580 versus 14.9 million for the FirePro S9300 X2. The Radeon Pro 580 packs 5,700 million transistors on a 232 mm² die, while the FirePro S9300 X2 has 8,900 million transistors on a much larger 596 mm² die.

Shader compute differs too. The FirePro S9300 X2 has 4,096 shading units, 256 texture mapping units, and 64 raster operation units, versus 2,304 shading units, 144 TMUs, and 32 ROPs on the Radeon Pro 580. Despite the FirePro’s higher raw counts, the Radeon Pro 580 achieves higher benchmark scores, suggesting that architectural efficiency and higher clock speeds matter more than sheer shader volume. The Radeon Pro 580 runs at a base clock of 1100 MHz and a boost of 1200 MHz, while the FirePro S9300 X2 has no listed base or boost clocks. The Radeon Pro 580’s pixel rate is 38.40 GPixel/s and its texture rate is 172.8 GTexel/s; the FirePro S9300 X2 pushes 62.40 GPixel/s and 249.6 GTexel/s, but that does not translate into benchmark wins.

Memory architecture is a stark contrast. The Radeon Pro 580 uses 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, yielding 217.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The FirePro S9300 X2 uses 4 GB of HBM memory on a massive 4096-bit bus, delivering 512.0 GB/s. The FirePro’s bandwidth is 2.4x higher, but its memory runs at only 500 MHz (1000 Mbps effective), while the Radeon Pro 580’s memory runs at 1695 MHz (6.8 Gbps effective). The FirePro’s wider bus compensates for the lower clock, but the smaller capacity and older GCN 3.0 architecture limit its effective performance.

The Radeon Pro 580 has a TDP of 185 W and is an IGP with no power connectors, while the FirePro S9300 X2 has a 300 W TDP and requires 2x 8-pin power connectors. The FirePro also lists a suggested PSU of 700 W, while the Radeon Pro 580 has none. The FirePro S9300 X2 measures 267 mm in length and 111 mm in height, while the Radeon Pro 580 has no listed dimensions. The FirePro has no display outputs, while the Radeon Pro 580’s outputs are portable device dependent.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records two common benchmarks: Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. The Radeon Pro 580 wins both.

OpenCL: The Radeon Pro 580 scores 38,457 against the FirePro S9300 X2’s 27,971. That is a 37.5% advantage, the largest single-performance gap between the two. This is not a small edge; it is a decisive lead in a widely used compute API. The FirePro S9300 X2, despite having nearly double the shading units (4,096 versus 2,304), cannot match the Radeon Pro 580’s throughput. The likely explanation is higher achievable clock speeds on the 14 nm process and better compute efficiency per shader in GCN 4.0.

Vulkan: The Radeon Pro 580 scores 43,285, while the FirePro S9300 X2 scores 37,109. The 16.6% difference is smaller but still clear. Vulkan support also differs: the Radeon Pro 580 supports Vulkan 1.3, while the FirePro S9300 X2 supports Vulkan 1.2.170. The newer driver stack and architecture give the Radeon Pro 580 a more optimized path for Vulkan workloads, which are increasingly important for modern game ports and scientific visualizations.

The Radeon Pro 580 also has a Geekbench Metal score of 39,213, which the FirePro S9300 X2 has no equivalent for. Metal is Apple’s graphics API, and the Radeon Pro 580’s presence in that benchmark indicates its relevance to macOS environments, while the FirePro S9300 X2’s lack of a Metal score reflects its server-oriented, headless design.

In terms of nearest rivals, the Radeon Pro 580’s average score of 40,318 places it just 0.1% behind the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070, 0.6% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro WX 7100, and 1.9% ahead of the NVIDIA RTX A500 Mobile. The FirePro S9300 X2’s average of 32,540 is 0.2% behind the AMD Radeon RX 590 GME, 0.3% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 7900 GRE, and 0.9% behind the NVIDIA T600 Mobile. So while the FirePro S9300 X2 is competitive with mid-range consumer cards, the Radeon Pro 580 sits closer to high-end desktop GPUs like the RTX 5070, a much newer part.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon Pro 580 | 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 |

| Memory size | 8 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory type | GDDR5 | HBM |

| Memory bus | 256 bit | 4096 bit |

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

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

| Shading units | 2304 | 4096 |

| TMUs | 144 | 256 |

| ROPs | 32 | 64 |

| Pixel rate | 38.40 GPixel/s | 62.40 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 172.8 GTexel/s | 249.6 GTexel/s |

| FP32 compute | 5.530 TFLOPS | 7.987 TFLOPS |

| TDP | 175 W | 300 W |

| Slot width | IGP | Dual-slot |

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

| Suggested PSU | None | 700 W |

| Display outputs| Portable Device Dependent | No outputs |

| Vulkan version | 1.3 | 1.2.170 |

| Release date | 2017-06-04 | 2016-03-30 |

The Radeon Pro 580 has a higher memory clock (1695 MHz vs 500 MHz), a larger capacity (8 GB vs 4 GB), and a newer architecture with higher Vulkan support. The FirePro S9300 X2 has a wider memory bus (4096-bit vs 256-bit), more bandwidth (512.0 GB/s vs 217.0 GB/s), more shading units, and higher FP32 compute (7.987 TFLOPS vs 5.530 TFLOPS). The Radeon Pro 580 also has a smaller die and lower TDP, reflecting its newer process node.

The FirePro S9300 X2 is the only one with a launch MSRP. It was listed at 5,999 USD. The Radeon Pro 580 has no launch MSRP in the database.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 580, with an average score of 40,318, compared to the AMD FirePro S9300 X2’s 32,540. That is a 24% difference in favor of the Radeon Pro 580.

Q: What is the biggest performance gap between the two?

A: In Geekbench OpenCL, the Radeon Pro 580 scores 38,457 against the FirePro S9300 X2’s 27,971, a 37.5% lead. This is the largest single delta in the head-to-head benchmarks.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A:** The FirePro S9300 X2 has 4,096 shading units, while the Radeon Pro 580 has 2,304. However, the Radeon Pro 580 still wins benchmarks, indicating higher per-shader efficiency.

Q: What is the launch MSRP of the FirePro S9300 X2?

A:** The FirePro S9300 X2 has a launch MSRP of 5,999 USD. The Radeon Pro 580 has no listed launch MSRP.

Q: Which card supports Vulkan 1.3?

A:** The Radeon Pro 580 supports Vulkan 1.3, while the FirePro S9300 X2 supports Vulkan 1.2.170. The Radeon Pro 580 also has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 43,285, 16.6% higher than the FirePro’s 37,109.

Q: How do the two compare in terms of power consumption?

A:** The FirePro S9300 X2 has a 300 W TDP and requires 2x 8-pin power connectors, with a suggested PSU of 700 W. The Radeon Pro 580 has a 175 W TDP and uses no power connectors, as it is an integrated GPU for portable devices.