AMD FirePro S9300 X2 vs AMD Radeon Pro WX 7100 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score in the database?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 7100 posts an average benchmark score of 40,063, while the AMD FirePro S9300 X2 records 32,540. The WX 7100 sits at the 82nd percentile among all GPUs, compared to the FirePro S9300 X2's 77th percentile.

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

A: The Radeon Pro WX 7100 scores 40,148 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 43.5% higher than the FirePro S9300 X2's 27,971. This is the largest performance gap observed between the two in any shared benchmark.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The Radeon Pro WX 7100 has 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 224.0 GB/s bandwidth. The FirePro S9300 X2 has 4 GB of HBM on a 4096-bit bus with 512.0 GB/s bandwidth, more than double the bandwidth despite half the capacity.

Q: Are both cards the same architecture?

A: No. The Radeon Pro WX 7100 uses GCN 4.0 on a 14 nm process (GlobalFoundries), while the FirePro S9300 X2 uses GCN 3.0 on a 28 nm process (TSMC). The WX 7100 also supports Vulkan 1.3 versus Vulkan 1.2.170 for the FirePro card.

Q: Do both cards have display outputs?

A: No. The Radeon Pro WX 7100 has 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, while the FirePro S9300 X2 has no display outputs at all, reflecting its server-oriented design.

Q: Which card has the higher transistor count?

A: The FirePro S9300 X2 has 8,900 million transistors on a 596 mm² die, versus 5,700 million transistors on a 232 mm² die for the Radeon Pro WX 7100. The WX 7100 achieves a much higher transistor density of 24.6M per mm² versus 14.9M per mm².

Where Each One Wins

The Radeon Pro WX 7100 wins both shared benchmark tests outright: Geekbench OpenCL by 43.5% and Geekbench Vulkan by 6.9%. It also wins on memory capacity with 8 GB versus 4 GB, and it offers the only display outputs between the two, with four DisplayPort 1.4a connectors. For any workstation scenario involving rendering, compute workloads through OpenCL, or Vulkan-based applications, the WX 7100 is the stronger performer. Its higher percentile ranking (82nd versus 77th) and higher average score (40,063 versus 32,540) reinforce this across the database's broader GPU landscape.

The FirePro S9300 X2 wins on raw memory bandwidth, delivering 512.0 GB/s through its 4096-bit HBM interface, which is more than double the WX 7100's 224.0 GB/s. It also has a higher theoretical compute ceiling: 7.987 TFLOPS FP32 versus 5.728 TFLOPS, plus more shading units (4096 versus 2304), more texture mapping units (256 versus 144), and more render output units (64 versus 32). For memory-bandwidth-bound or raw-throughput-bound server tasks, the S9300 X2's specifications suggest it could excel, though the recorded benchmarks do not show it winning any shared test.

The practical split is clear: the WX 7100 is the all-around workstation card with displays and superior benchmark results, while the S9300 X2 is a specialized server compute card with exceptional bandwidth but no video outputs and weaker measured performance in the shared tests.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different generations of AMD's GCN architecture. The Radeon Pro WX 7100 uses GCN 4.0, built on a 14 nm process by GlobalFoundries, with the Ellesmere chip. The FirePro S9300 X2 uses GCN 3.0, built on the older 28 nm process by TSMC, with the Capsaicin chip. The process shrink gives the WX 7100 a substantial density advantage: 24.6 million transistors per mm² versus 14.9 million, despite having fewer total transistors (5,700 million versus 8,900 million) and a much smaller die (232 mm² versus 596 mm²).

The FirePro S9300 X2 packs more compute hardware: 4096 shading units, 256 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, against the WX 7100's 2304 shading units, 144 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. Its memory system is entirely different as well, using 4 GB of HBM across a 4096-bit bus, versus 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus. Neither card has ray tracing cores or tensor cores, and both support DirectX 12 (12_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The Vulkan support differs slightly: the WX 7100 supports Vulkan 1.3, while the S9300 X2 supports Vulkan 1.2.170.

The WX 7100 has a base clock of 1188 MHz and a boost clock of 1243 MHz, with memory running at 1750 MHz (7 Gbps effective). The S9300 X2 lists no base or boost clocks in the database, only a memory clock of 500 MHz (1000 Mbps effective). The S9300 X2 compensates with its enormous bus width, achieving 512.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the WX 7100 relies on a narrower bus with much faster effective memory speed.

The design intent differs too. The WX 7100 is a single-slot card with 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, a 130 W TDP, and a single 6-pin power connector. The S9300 X2 is a dual-slot server card with no display outputs, a 300 W TDP, and two 8-pin power connectors. The S9300 X2 is also physically longer at 267 mm versus 241 mm for the WX 7100, though their heights are nearly identical (111 mm versus 112 mm).

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every major specification category:

• Architecture: GCN 4.0 (WX 7100) versus GCN 3.0 (S9300 X2)
• Process node: 14 nm GlobalFoundries (WX 7100) versus 28 nm TSMC (S9300 X2)
• Transistors: 5,700 million versus 8,900 million
• Die size: 232 mm² versus 596 mm²
• Transistor density: 24.6M / mm² versus 14.9M / mm²
• Memory: 8 GB GDDR5 on 256-bit versus 4 GB HBM on 4096-bit
• Memory bandwidth: 224.0 GB/s versus 512.0 GB/s
• Shading units: 2304 versus 4096
• TMUs: 144 versus 256
• ROPs: 32 versus 64
• FP32: 5.728 TFLOPS versus 7.987 TFLOPS
• FP16: 5.728 TFLOPS (1:1) versus not listed
• TDP: 130 W versus 300 W
• Slot width: Single-slot versus dual-slot
• Power connectors: 1x 6-pin versus 2x 8-pin
• Suggested PSU: 300 W versus 700 W
• Display outputs: 4x DisplayPort 1.4a versus none
• Vulkan support: 1.3 versus 1.2.170
• Dimensions: 241 mm length versus 267 mm length
• Release date: 2016-11-09 versus 2016-03-30
• Launch MSRP: 799 USD versus 5,999 USD

The two cards share some traits: both use PCIe 3.0 x16, both support DirectX 12 (12_0) and OpenGL 4.6, both are end-of-life, and neither has ray tracing or tensor cores.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains two shared benchmark results between these cards, and the Radeon Pro WX 7100 wins both.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the WX 7100 scores 40,148 against the S9300 X2's 27,971, a 43.5% advantage. This is a decisive margin, especially given that the S9300 X2 has nearly 78% more shading units (4096 versus 2304) and 39% higher FP32 throughput (7.987 TFLOPS versus 5.728 TFLOPS). The data suggests that raw compute resources do not translate directly into OpenCL performance here; the WX 7100's newer architecture, higher clocks, and larger memory capacity appear to matter more in this workload.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the gap narrows considerably. The WX 7100 scores 39,683 versus 37,109 for the S9300 X2, a 6.9% advantage. This closer result indicates that the S9300 X2's hardware is more competitive in Vulkan-based tasks, but it still trails the WX 7100. The S9300 X2's higher memory bandwidth (512.0 GB/s) and greater compute resources may help in Vulkan, yet they are not enough to overcome the WX 7100's architectural advantages.

The WX 7100 also holds an edge in the database's broader context. Its average score of 40,063 places it near rivals like the AMD Radeon Pro 580 (40,318, -0.6%), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 (40,377, -0.8%), and ahead of the NVIDIA RTX A500 Mobile (39,568, 1.3%) and AMD Radeon Pro 575 (39,555, 1.3%). The S9300 X2's average of 32,540 sits near the AMD Radeon RX 590 GME (32,601, -0.2%), the AMD Radeon RX 7900 GRE (32,456, 0.3%), the AMD FirePro S10000 (32,388, 0.5%), and slightly behind the NVIDIA T600 Mobile (32,849, -0.9%).

The WX 7100 also has a third benchmark result, Geekbench Metal at 40,357, which the S9300 X2 does not have recorded. That Metal score is consistent with its OpenCL and Vulkan results, reinforcing its overall performance profile.

The Verdict

The data points to the AMD Radeon Pro WX 7100 as the better choice for almost any use case. It wins both shared benchmarks, delivers 8 GB of memory with display outputs, consumes less power at 130 W versus 300 W, requires a smaller power supply at 300 W versus 700 W, and occupies a single slot instead of two. Its average benchmark score of 40,063 versus 32,540 and its higher percentile ranking (82nd versus 77th) make the overall performance gap clear.

The FirePro S9300 X2 should only be considered for specialized scenarios where its unique traits matter: 512.0 GB/s of HBM bandwidth, a 4096-bit bus, 7.987 TFLOPS FP32, and 4096 shading units. These are server-class specifications aimed at compute-heavy workloads that can exploit its massive memory interface. However, the recorded benchmark data does not show it winning any shared test, and its lack of display outputs makes it unsuitable for typical workstation use.

For professionals needing a versatile workstation GPU with strong OpenCL and Vulkan performance, display connectivity, and lower power requirements, the Radeon Pro WX 7100 is the clear choice. For server deployments where raw bandwidth and compute throughput are the only priorities, the FirePro S9300 X2's specifications may still hold appeal, but the benchmark results suggest the WX 7100 is the more effective card even in compute-oriented tasks. The 43.5% OpenCL gap is particularly telling: it shows that architecture and software optimization can outweigh sheer hardware resources.