AMD FirePro S9300 X2 vs AMD Radeon PRO W6400 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded benchmark data splits cleanly between these two professional AMD cards, with the AMD Radeon PRO W6400 taking both recorded wins. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the W6400 scores 35,027 against the FirePro S9300 X2’s 27,971, a 25.2% advantage. In Geekbench Vulkan, the W6400 again leads with 39,286 versus 37,109, a smaller 5.9% margin. The FirePro S9300 X2 does not win either of the two head-to-head tests in the database, so its use case rests on strengths that are not reflected in these particular benchmarks.

The W6400’s wins point toward scenarios where modern API support and per-clock efficiency matter more than raw compute throughput. Its RDNA 2.0 architecture supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), Vulkan 1.4, and OpenGL 4.6, while the FirePro S9300 X2’s GCN 3.0 architecture is limited to DirectX 12 (12_0), Vulkan 1.2.170, and OpenGL 4.6. The W6400 also has dedicated ray accelerators (12 RT cores), which the FirePro lacks entirely. For workloads that leverage ray tracing or the latest graphics feature sets, the W6400 is the only option between the two.

The FirePro S9300 X2, by contrast, is built for a different era of computing. Its 4,096 shading units, 256 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs give it a theoretical FP32 throughput of 7.987 TFLOPS, more than double the W6400’s 3.565 TFLOPS. It also carries a 4096-bit memory bus with 4 GB of HBM and 512.0 GB/s of bandwidth, versus the W6400’s 64-bit bus and 128.0 GB/s. These specifications suggest the FirePro was designed for memory-bandwidth-hungry compute tasks, but the recorded Geekbench scores do not confirm that advantage in practice, at least not in these specific tests. The FirePro’s average benchmark score of 32,540 also trails the W6400’s 37,157.

In terms of percentile ranking against all GPUs in the database, the W6400 sits at the 80th percentile, while the FirePro S9300 X2 sits at the 77th. That three-point gap reinforces the W6400’s overall standing, even though the FirePro’s nearest rivals include cards like the AMD Radeon RX 7900 GRE (average score 32,456, a 0.3% delta) and the AMD FirePro S10000 (average score 32,388, a 0.5% delta), placing it in a similar performance tier.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W6400 has an average benchmark score of 37,157, while the AMD FirePro S9300 X2 has an average of 32,540. The W6400 also ranks at the 80th percentile versus the FirePro’s 77th.

Q: How do the two cards compare in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The W6400 scores 35,027 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 25.2% higher than the FirePro S9300 X2’s 27,971.

Q: Does the FirePro S9300 X2 win any recorded benchmark?

A: No. The head-to-head data shows two tests, Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan, and the W6400 wins both. The FirePro has zero wins in the recorded comparison.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The W6400 uses 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 128.0 GB/s bandwidth. The FirePro S9300 X2 uses 4 GB of HBM on a 4096-bit bus with 512.0 GB/s bandwidth. Both have 4 GB, but the FirePro has four times the bus width and four times the bandwidth.

Q: Which card has higher raw FP32 compute?

A: The FirePro S9300 X2 has 7.987 TFLOPS FP32, which is more than double the W6400’s 3.565 TFLOPS. Despite this, the FirePro still loses both recorded Geekbench tests.

Q: Do both cards support the same graphics APIs?

A: No. The W6400 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), Vulkan 1.4, and OpenGL 4.6. The FirePro supports DirectX 12 (12_0), Vulkan 1.2.170, and OpenGL 4.6. The W6400 also has 12 ray accelerators, while the FirePro has none.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records two head-to-head comparisons, and the AMD Radeon PRO W6400 dominates both. The largest gap appears in Geekbench OpenCL, where the W6400 posts 35,027 versus the FirePro S9300 X2’s 27,971. That is a 25.2% delta in favor of the W6400, a substantial margin that suggests the newer architecture’s efficiency outweighs the FirePro’s larger compute resource pool in this workload.

The second test, Geekbench Vulkan, shows a narrower but still decisive result. The W6400 scores 39,286, while the FirePro scores 37,109. The 5.9% delta is far smaller than the OpenCL gap, but it still leaves the FirePro behind. Vulkan is a lower-level API, and the FirePro’s older GCN 3.0 design may not translate its theoretical advantages into practical performance, at least not in this test.

Looking at the broader picture, the W6400’s average benchmark score of 37,157 puts it 14.2% ahead of the FirePro’s 32,540 average. The W6400’s nearest rival, the AMD Radeon RX Vega 56, averages 37,507, which is only 0.9% higher, meaning the W6400 sits in a tight cluster near the top of its immediate comparison group. The FirePro’s nearest rival, the AMD Radeon RX 590 GME, averages 32,601, just 0.2% higher, so the FirePro is also close to its direct peers, but that peer group is simply a tier below the W6400’s.

The win count is unambiguous: the W6400 records 2 wins and the FirePro records 0 in the head-to-head set. The data does not support any scenario where the FirePro outperforms the W6400 in the tests that were run. Even the FirePro’s much larger FP32 throughput (7.987 TFLOPS versus 3.565 TFLOPS) and vastly higher memory bandwidth (512.0 GB/s versus 128.0 GB/s) do not translate into benchmark victories.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every major specification category. The W6400 uses a 6 nm process node, while the FirePro S9300 X2 uses a 28 nm node. The W6400’s die is 107 mm² with 5,400 million transistors, giving a transistor density of 50.5 million per mm². The FirePro’s die is 596 mm² with 8,900 million transistors, for a density of 14.9 million per mm². The FirePro is physically much larger and less dense.

Memory configurations diverge sharply. The W6400 has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, with memory clocked at 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) and bandwidth of 128.0 GB/s. The FirePro has 4 GB of HBM on a 4096-bit bus, with memory at 500 MHz (1000 Mbps effective) and bandwidth of 512.0 GB/s. Both cards have 4 GB, but the FirePro’s bus width is 64 times larger and its bandwidth is four times higher.

Compute resources also differ. The W6400 has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, 32 ROPs, and 12 RT cores. The FirePro has 4,096 shading units, 256 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, with no RT cores. The W6400’s pixel rate is 74.27 GPixel/s and texture rate is 111.4 GTexel/s. The FirePro’s pixel rate is 62.40 GPixel/s and texture rate is 249.6 GTexel/s. The FirePro has a higher texture rate but a lower pixel rate.

Power and physical requirements are very different. The W6400 has a TDP of 50 W, is single-slot, requires no power connectors, and needs a 250 W suggested PSU. The FirePro has a TDP of 300 W, is dual-slot, requires two 8-pin power connectors, and needs a 700 W suggested PSU. The FirePro is also longer at 267 mm (10.5 inches) and taller at 111 mm (4.4 inches), while the W6400’s dimensions are not recorded.

Bus interface and display outputs differ. The W6400 uses PCIe 4.0 x4 and has two DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The FirePro uses PCIe 3.0 x16 and has no display outputs, meaning it is a server-oriented card with no video output capability. The W6400’s launch MSRP is not recorded, while the FirePro’s launch MSRP is 5,999 USD. The W6400 was released on 2022-01-18, the FirePro on 2016-03-30. Both are end-of-life products.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two cards is generational. The AMD Radeon PRO W6400 is built on RDNA 2.0, using the Navi 24 chip, and belongs to the Radeon Pro Navi (Navi II Series) generation. The AMD FirePro S9300 X2 is built on GCN 3.0, using the Capsaicin chip, and belongs to the FirePro Server (Sx300) generation. RDNA 2.0 represents a fundamental redesign of AMD’s GPU architecture, emphasizing efficiency and modern features, while GCN 3.0 is an older design focused on raw throughput.

The process node difference is stark: 6 nm for the W6400 versus 28 nm for the FirePro. This explains the transistor density gap of 50.5 million per mm² versus 14.9 million per mm². The W6400 packs 5,400 million transistors into 107 mm², while the FirePro spreads 8,900 million transistors across 596 mm². The newer node allows the W6400 to achieve higher clock speeds (base 2039 MHz, boost 2321 MHz) versus the FirePro, which has no base or boost clocks recorded. The W6400’s memory also runs at a much higher effective speed of 16 Gbps versus the FirePro’s 1000 Mbps.

Feature support separates the two clearly. The W6400 includes 12 dedicated ray accelerators, enabling hardware-accelerated ray tracing, a feature entirely absent from the FirePro. The W6400 also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), which includes features like mesh shaders and variable rate shading, while the FirePro is limited to DirectX 12 (12_0). Vulkan support is also newer on the W6400 (1.4 versus 1.2.170). Both cards support OpenGL 4.6.

The FP16 capability differs. The W6400 has FP16 performance of 7.130 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), while the FirePro has no recorded FP16 figure. This suggests the W6400 can accelerate half-precision workloads, which are common in AI inference and some compute tasks, while the FirePro’s FP16 support is either absent or not documented.

The FirePro’s predecessor is listed as FirePro Terascale, and its successor is Radeon Pro GCN. The W6400’s predecessor is Radeon Pro Vega, with no successor listed. This places the W6400 at the end of a lineage, while the FirePro sits in the middle of the server GPU evolution.

The Verdict

The data directs a clear conclusion: choose the AMD Radeon PRO W6400 for any workload represented by the recorded benchmarks. It wins both Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan, has a higher average score (37,157 versus 32,540), and ranks higher in the database’s percentile standings (80th versus 77th). Its 25.2% lead in OpenCL is particularly decisive, and even its narrower 5.9% Vulkan win keeps it ahead.

The W6400 is the right pick for modern graphics and compute tasks that use current APIs. Its support for DirectX 12 Ultimate, Vulkan 1.4, and ray acceleration gives it a feature set the FirePro cannot match. Its lower power draw (50 W versus 300 W), no power connectors, and single-slot design also make it far easier to integrate into a workstation. The W6400’s 6 nm process and efficient RDNA 2.0 architecture explain how it wins benchmarks despite having less than half the FirePro’s FP32 throughput.

The FirePro S9300 X2, by contrast, is a card from 2016 with a 28 nm GCN 3.0 design. Its strengths are theoretical: 7.987 TFLOPS FP32, 512.0 GB/s memory bandwidth, and 4,096 shading units. But the recorded data shows these strengths do not translate into benchmark wins. The FirePro loses both head-to-head tests, and its average score is 14.2% lower than the W6400’s. It also has no display outputs, requiring a separate GPU for any visualization, and it demands 300 W with two 8-pin connectors.

If the workload is purely about raw compute throughput on paper, the FirePro’s specifications look impressive. But benchmark results indicate the W6400 outperforms it in practice for the tests that were run. The FirePro’s only recorded advantage is its 512.0 GB/s bandwidth and larger bus width, yet those do not yield higher Geekbench scores. The FirePro’s launch MSRP of 5,999 USD also reflects its server-class positioning, but no performance data in this comparison justifies that premium over the W6400.

For a professional user facing this choice, the W6400 is the data-backed recommendation. It wins every recorded comparison, supports more modern features, consumes far less power, and delivers a higher average benchmark score. The FirePro S9300 X2 remains a historical artifact, a high-bandwidth compute card whose architecture does not compete with the newer RDNA 2.0 design in the tests that matter here. The verdict is straightforward: the W6400 is the superior card in this matchup.