AMD FirePro S9300 X2 vs AMD Radeon Pro W5500X Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows the AMD FirePro S9300 X2 and AMD Radeon Pro W5500X are difficult to compare directly, as they were tested under different benchmark suites. The FirePro S9300 X2 produces a Geekbench OpenCL score of 27,971 and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 37,109. The Radeon Pro W5500X, on the other hand, has a single recorded Geekbench Metal score of 27,973. When looking at the aggregate numbers, the FirePro S9300 X2 holds a substantial lead. Its average benchmark score is 32,540, while the Radeon Pro W5500X averages 27,973. That is a difference of roughly 4,567 points, placing the FirePro S9300 X2 about 16% higher in the database's overall scoring.

For context on the FirePro S9300 X2, its average score sits at the 77th percentile of all GPUs tracked. That places it in a tight cluster of competitors. The AMD Radeon RX 590 GME scores 32,601, which is 0.2% higher than the FirePro S9300 X2. The AMD Radeon RX 7900 GRE scores 32,456, which is 0.3% lower. The AMD FirePro S10000 scores 32,388, which is 0.5% lower, and the NVIDIA T600 Mobile scores 32,849, which is 0.9% higher. In practical terms, the FirePro S9300 X2 trades blows with these cards, all within a 1% margin. The data indicates this is an extremely tight field at this performance tier.

The Radeon Pro W5500X sits at the 73rd percentile, slightly below its rival. Its nearest competitors are similarly close. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti scores 28,020, which is 0.2% higher. The AMD Radeon RX 7800M scores 27,883, which is 0.3% lower. The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 20 scores 27,839, which is 0.5% lower, and the AMD FirePro S7150 scores 28,117, which is 0.5% higher. Again, the spread is minimal, but the FirePro S9300 X2 operates in a higher scoring bracket altogether.

The biggest single win for the FirePro S9300 X2 comes in the Vulkan test. A score of 37,109 is significantly above its OpenCL result of 27,971, a gap of over 9,000 points. The Radeon Pro W5500X has no Vulkan result in the database, so the FirePro S9300 X2 is the clear choice for Vulkan-based workloads. The Radeon Pro W5500X does have a Metal result, which the FirePro S9300 X2 lacks entirely. The database shows no overlapping tests, so direct head-to-head wins cannot be assigned. The FirePro S9300 X2 wins on raw average score, while the W5500X wins on the specific API support it offers.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different eras and different design philosophies. The AMD FirePro S9300 X2 uses the Capsaicin chip, built on GCN 3.0 architecture, and is fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The AMD Radeon Pro W5500X uses the Navi 14 chip, built on RDNA 1.0 architecture, and is fabricated on a 7 nm process, also at TSMC. The process node difference is substantial. A 28 nm node versus a 7 nm node means the W5500X packs transistors much more densely. The FirePro S9300 X2 has 8,900 million transistors on a 596 mm² die, giving it a density of 14.9 million transistors per square millimeter. The W5500X has 6,400 million transistors on a 158 mm² die, which works out to 40.5 million per square millimeter.

The memory subsystems are entirely different as well. The FirePro S9300 X2 uses 4 GB of HBM memory on a 4096-bit bus, delivering 512.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The W5500X uses 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 224.0 GB/s. The FirePro has more than double the memory bandwidth, but half the capacity. The memory clock rates reflect this. The FirePro runs memory at 500 MHz, or 1000 Mbps effective. The W5500X runs memory at 1750 MHz, or 14 Gbps effective. The high bus width of the FirePro compensates for the lower clock speed.

The compute resources are also scaled very differently. The FirePro S9300 X2 has 4,096 shading units, 256 texture mapping units, and 64 raster operation units. The W5500X has 1,536 shading units, 96 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The FirePro has roughly 2.7 times the shading units and TMUs, and double the ROPs. This translates to a large raw throughput advantage. The FirePro delivers 7.987 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, a pixel rate of 62.40 GPixel/s, and a texture rate of 249.6 GTexel/s. The W5500X delivers 5.398 TFLOPS of FP32, a pixel rate of 56.22 GPixel/s, and a texture rate of 168.7 GTexel/s. The W5500X does offer FP16 performance at 10.80 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, a feature the FirePro lacks in the recorded data.

The power profiles are drastically different. The FirePro S9300 X2 is rated at 300 W TDP and requires two 8-pin power connectors plus a 700 W power supply. The W5500X is rated at 125 W TDP and requires only a 300 W power supply, with no dedicated power connectors listed. This makes the W5500X a far more manageable card for system integration. The bus interface also differs. The FirePro uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the W5500X uses the Apple MPX interface. Display outputs are another differentiator. The FirePro has no outputs, designed for compute-only server use, while the W5500X has two HDMI 2.0b outputs.

The Verdict

The data clearly separates these two cards into different roles. The AMD FirePro S9300 X2 is a compute monster. Its 7.987 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, 512.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth, and 4096 shading units make it the stronger card for raw number crunching. It also has a higher average benchmark score of 32,540 versus 27,973, and a higher percentile ranking at 77 versus 73. Users who need Vulkan performance will find the FirePro's score of 37,109 compelling. This is a server-grade accelerator with no display outputs, meant for dense compute tasks where power draw is secondary.

The AMD Radeon Pro W5500X is the more practical card for workstation use. It has display outputs, two HDMI 2.0b ports, and a much lower power requirement. A 125 W TDP with a 300 W suggested PSU makes it easy to slot into a Mac chassis. It also has 8 GB of memory, double the capacity of the FirePro, which helps with larger datasets that fit in VRAM. Its FP16 capability at 10.80 TFLOPS gives it an edge in workloads that can use half-precision math. The Metal benchmark score of 27,973 shows it performs respectably in Apple's ecosystem.

From the data alone, the FirePro S9300 X2 wins on absolute performance. The W5500X wins on efficiency, memory capacity, and connectivity. Neither card is a general-purpose winner; they are tools for different jobs. The FirePro is for compute nodes, the W5500X is for graphics workstations. If the workload is Vulkan or FP32-heavy and power is available, the FirePro is the pick. If the workload involves macOS, requires display output, or benefits from FP16, the W5500X is the pick.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD FirePro S9300 X2 | AMD Radeon Pro W5500X |

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

| Chip | Capsaicin | Navi 14 |

| Architecture | GCN 3.0 | RDNA 1.0 |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 7 nm |

| Transistors | 8,900 million | 6,400 million |

| Die Size | 596 mm² | 158 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 14.9M / mm² | 40.5M / mm² |

| Base Clock | Not specified | 1187 MHz |

| Boost Clock | Not specified | 1757 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 500 MHz / 1000 Mbps effective | 1750 MHz / 14 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 8 GB |

| Memory Type | HBM | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus Width | 4096 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 512.0 GB/s | 224.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 4096 | 1536 |

| TMUs | 256 | 96 |

| ROPs | 64 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 62.40 GPixel/s | 56.22 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 249.6 GTexel/s | 168.7 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 7.987 TFLOPS | 5.398 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | Not specified | 10.80 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 300 W | 125 W |

| Power Connectors | 2x 8-pin | Not specified |

| Suggested PSU | 700 W | 300 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | Apple MPX |

| Display Outputs | No outputs | 2x HDMI 2.0b |

| DirectX Support | 12 (12_0) | 12 (12_1) |

| OpenGL Support | 4.6 | 4.6 |

| Vulkan Support | 1.2.170 | 1.4 |

| Length | 267 mm / 10.5 inches | Not specified |

| Height | 111 mm / 4.4 inches | Not specified |

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD FirePro S9300 X2 has an average benchmark score of 32,540, which is higher than the Radeon Pro W5500X's 27,973.

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

A: No, the database lists the FirePro S9300 X2 with no outputs. It is designed for compute-only server use.

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

A: The FirePro S9300 X2 delivers 512.0 GB/s over a 4096-bit HBM bus, while the W5500X delivers 224.0 GB/s over a 128-bit GDDR6 bus.

Q: Which card supports FP16 computation?

A: The Radeon Pro W5500X lists FP16 performance at 10.80 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio. The FirePro S9300 X2 does not have an FP16 figure in the database.

Q: What is the power draw of each card?

A: The FirePro S9300 X2 is rated at 300 W TDP with a suggested 700 W power supply. The W5500X is rated at 125 W TDP with a suggested 300 W power supply.

Q: Which card has a higher Vulkan benchmark score?

A: The FirePro S9300 X2 has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 37,109. The W5500X has no Vulkan score recorded in the database.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD FirePro S9300 X2 wins in scenarios that demand raw compute throughput. Its FP32 performance of 7.987 TFLOPS is nearly 48% higher than the W5500X's 5.398 TFLOPS. The texture rate of 249.6 GTexel/s versus 168.7 GTexel/s gives it a clear advantage in fill-rate-bound tasks. The memory bandwidth of 512.0 GB/s is more than double the W5500X's 224.0 GB/s, which matters for large datasets and memory-heavy algorithms. The Vulkan score of 37,109 is the standout result in the entire dataset, indicating strong Vulkan compute potential. This card is for headless servers, GPU compute clusters, and applications that can leverage its 4096 shading units.

The AMD Radeon Pro W5500X wins in efficiency and integration scenarios. Its 125 W TDP is less than half the FirePro's 300 W, making it far easier to cool and power. The 8 GB memory capacity is double the FirePro's 4 GB, which is useful for workloads that need larger working sets. The FP16 throughput of 10.80 TFLOPS is a capability the FirePro does not list, so half-precision workloads favor the W5500X. The two HDMI 2.0b outputs make it a functional graphics card, whereas the FirePro cannot drive a display. The DirectX 12_1 support and Vulkan 1.4 support are newer API versions than the FirePro's 12_0 and 1.2.170. The Metal benchmark score of 27,973, while lower than the FirePro's average, is the only Metal result in this comparison, giving the W5500X the edge for macOS users. This card is for Mac Pro workstations, graphics output, and power-conscious builds.