AMD FirePro S9300 X2 vs AMD Radeon RX 470 Comparison

AMD FirePro S9300 X2 and AMD Radeon RX 470 represent two distinct approaches to AMD’s graphics architecture from the same era, one aimed at compute-heavy server workloads and the other at consumer gaming. The database records two head-to-head benchmark comparisons, both of which favor the Radeon RX 470, yet the architectural gulf between these cards is substantial. The FirePro S9300 X2 is a dual-GPU monster with a massive die and HBM memory, while the RX 470 is a compact, power-efficient Polaris part. This analysis interprets the recorded scores, architectural differences, and specification gaps to clarify where each product wins.

FAQ

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

A: The AMD FirePro S9300 X2 has an average benchmark score of 32,540, while the AMD Radeon RX 470 sits lower at 28,996. Despite this, the RX 470 wins both direct head-to-head tests.

Q: What are the direct benchmark results between the two cards?

A: In Geekbench OpenCL, the RX 470 scores 33,568 against the FirePro’s 27,971, a delta of -16.7% for the FirePro. In Geekbench Vulkan, the RX 470 scores 39,884 versus 37,109, a -7% delta for the FirePro.

Q: How do their memory subsystems differ?

A: The FirePro S9300 X2 uses 4 GB of HBM with a 4096-bit bus and 512.0 GB/s bandwidth. The RX 470 uses 4 GB of GDDR5 with a 256-bit bus and 211.2 GB/s bandwidth, less than half the FirePro’s bandwidth.

Q: Which card has better compute specifications?

A: The FirePro S9300 X2 offers 4096 shading units, 256 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, with FP32 performance of 7.987 TFLOPS. The RX 470 has 2048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, delivering 4.940 TFLOPS.

Q: What are the thermal and power differences?

A: The FirePro S9300 X2 has a 300 W TDP and requires a 700 W suggested PSU with 2x 8-pin connectors. The RX 470 has a 120 W TDP, a 300 W suggested PSU, and a single 6-pin connector.

Q: Which card has a newer API support profile?

A: The RX 470 supports Vulkan 1.3, while the FirePro S9300 X2 supports Vulkan 1.2.170. Both support DirectX 12 (12_0) and OpenGL 4.6.

Where Each One Wins

The Radeon RX 470 wins both recorded head-to-head benchmarks, but the FirePro S9300 X2 holds advantages in raw compute throughput and memory bandwidth that matter in specific workloads. The RX 470’s wins come in Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan, suggesting better optimization for consumer-level compute and graphics APIs, likely due to its newer GCN 4.0 architecture and higher clock speeds. The OpenCL delta of -16.7% is significant, meaning the RX 470 outperforms the FirePro by nearly one-sixth in that test, which measures general-purpose compute. The Vulkan delta is smaller at -7%, indicating the FirePro closes the gap in graphics-oriented workloads, though it still trails.

Where the FirePro wins is in absolute compute capacity. With 4096 shading units versus 2048, and FP32 throughput of 7.987 TFLOPS versus 4.940 TFLOPS, it has roughly 1.6 times the raw shader output. Its memory bandwidth of 512.0 GB/s dwarfs the RX 470’s 211.2 GB/s, making it suited for memory-bound tasks like large data sets or high-resolution textures. The FirePro also has a higher pixel rate (62.40 GPixel/s vs 38.59 GPixel/s) and texture rate (249.6 GTexel/s vs 154.4 GTexel/s), which could benefit compute-heavy rendering pipelines. However, the database shows no benchmark where the FirePro wins, so these theoretical advantages do not translate into recorded test victories.

The RX 470 also wins on efficiency metrics in practice. Its 120 W TDP is less than half of the FirePro’s 300 W, and it achieves higher scores with fewer resources, indicating better per-watt performance. For users prioritizing single-GPU simplicity, the RX 470’s single 6-pin connector and 300 W PSU requirement are more manageable than the FirePro’s dual 8-pin and 700 W PSU. The RX 470’s smaller die (232 mm² vs 596 mm²) and newer 14 nm process versus 28 nm also suggest better manufacturing efficiency.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different GCN generations. The FirePro S9300 X2 uses GCN 3.0, based on the Capsaicin chip, while the RX 470 uses GCN 4.0, built on the Ellesmere chip. This generational gap explains many behavioral differences. GCN 4.0 introduced improvements in clock scaling and power management, which likely contribute to the RX 470’s higher benchmark scores despite fewer compute units. The FirePro’s GCN 3.0 architecture is older, designed for server compute with a focus on raw throughput rather than latency-sensitive consumer tasks.

The process nodes differ significantly: the FirePro uses 28 nm TSMC, while the RX 470 uses 14 nm GlobalFoundries. This translates to a transistor density of 14.9M per mm² for the FirePro versus 24.6M per mm² for the RX 470, meaning the RX 470 packs more transistors into a smaller area. The FirePro’s 8,900 million transistors on a 596 mm² die contrast with the RX 470’s 5,700 million on 232 mm². The FirePro’s larger die and older node result in higher power draw and heat, but also allow for a 4096-bit memory bus, which is impossible on the RX 470’s 256-bit bus.

Memory technology is another key architectural split. The FirePro uses HBM (High Bandwidth Memory) with a 4096-bit interface, while the RX 470 uses GDDR5 with a 256-bit interface. HBM’s stacked design enables much higher bandwidth per watt, but the FirePro’s implementation still draws 300 W. The RX 470’s GDDR5 is simpler and cheaper, but offers less bandwidth. This difference is crucial for compute tasks that stream large amounts of data, where the FirePro’s 512.0 GB/s could theoretically excel, though the benchmarks show the RX 470 winning anyway.

The RX 470 also has FP16 capabilities at 4.940 TFLOPS (1:1), while the FirePro lists no FP16 data in the database. This suggests the RX 470 can handle half-precision workloads more readily, which is relevant for machine learning and some compute tasks. The FirePro’s FP32 is higher, but without FP16 support, it may be less versatile in modern mixed-precision workloads.

Specification Differences

The specifications where these two differ are numerous. The FirePro S9300 X2 has double the shading units (4096 vs 2048), double the TMUs (256 vs 128), and double the ROPs (64 vs 32). Its pixel rate is 62.40 GPixel/s versus 38.59 GPixel/s, and its texture rate is 249.6 GTexel/s versus 154.4 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 7.987 TFLOPS versus 4.940 TFLOPS. The FirePro’s memory clock is listed as 500 MHz (1000 Mbps effective), while the RX 470 runs at 1650 MHz (6.6 Gbps effective), but the FirePro’s wider bus compensates with higher bandwidth.

The FirePro has no base or boost clock listed, while the RX 470 has a base clock of 926 MHz and a boost of 1206 MHz. This clock speed advantage likely explains the RX 470’s benchmark wins, as it can execute instructions faster per cycle despite fewer cores. The FirePro’s memory is 4 GB HBM, same capacity as the RX 470’s 4 GB GDDR5, but the bus width and bandwidth differ as noted.

Power and cooling specs diverge sharply. The FirePro requires 300 W TDP, a 700 W suggested PSU, and 2x 8-pin connectors, while the RX 470 needs only 120 W, a 300 W PSU, and 1x 6-pin. The FirePro has no display outputs, while the RX 470 offers 1x HDMI 2.0b and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a. Dimensions also differ: the FirePro is 267 mm long and 111 mm high, while the RX 470 is 240 mm long, 95 mm high, and 35 mm wide. Both are dual-slot cards.

Release dates are close, with the FirePro on 2016-03-30 and the RX 470 on 2016-08-03. The FirePro’s launch MSRP is 5,999 USD, while the RX 470’s is 179 USD. Production status for both is end-of-life. The FirePro’s predecessor is FirePro Terascale and successor is Radeon Pro GCN, while the RX 470’s predecessor is Pirate Islands and successor is Polaris.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records exactly two head-to-head tests, and the Radeon RX 470 wins both. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RX 470 scores 33,568 against the FirePro’s 27,971, a delta of -16.7% for the FirePro. This is the larger margin of the two, indicating a substantial disadvantage for the FirePro in general-purpose compute. The OpenCL workload likely stresses the shader array and memory system in ways that favor the RX 470’s higher clocks and newer architecture, despite the FirePro’s theoretical compute advantage.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the RX 470 scores 39,884 versus the FirePro’s 37,109, a smaller delta of -7%. Vulkan is a graphics API that emphasizes driver efficiency and low overhead, and the RX 470’s newer GCN 4.0 design appears to handle it better. The FirePro’s older architecture and lack of display outputs may hinder its Vulkan performance, as it is not designed for real-time graphics workloads.

These results are surprising given the FirePro’s higher average benchmark score of 32,540 versus the RX 470’s 28,996. The FirePro’s average is buoyed by its Geekbench Vulkan score of 37,109, which is higher than its OpenCL score, but still below the RX 470’s Vulkan result. The RX 470’s average is pulled down by its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 842, which is low compared to its Geekbench scores, but that test is not part of the head-to-head comparison.

The percentile ranks are close: the FirePro sits at 77th percentile versus the RX 470’s 74th, meaning the FirePro is slightly better relative to all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals include the RX 590 GME (delta -0.2%), RX 7900 GRE (0.3%), FirePro S10000 (0.5%), and NVIDIA T600 Mobile (-0.9%). The RX 470’s rivals are the RX 6800M (0.4%), Intel Arc A370M (-0.6%), RX Vega M GH (-0.7%), and FirePro W8000 (-0.7%). These deltas are small, indicating both cards sit in a tightly competitive cluster.

In the head-to-head, the RX 470’s wins are clear but not overwhelming, especially in Vulkan. The FirePro’s theoretical strengths in bandwidth and shader count do not overcome the RX 470’s practical advantages in clock speed and architectural maturity. For compute users, the FirePro’s lack of benchmark wins is a red flag, despite its server pedigree. For gamers or general users, the RX 470 is the better choice based on the recorded data, offering higher scores, lower power draw, and display outputs.