AMD FirePro S9300 X2 vs AMD Radeon RX 5300M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains a single head-to-head benchmark between the AMD Radeon RX 5300M and the AMD FirePro S9300 X2, and the result is decisive. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Radeon RX 5300M scores 36,529 points, while the FirePro S9300 X2 scores 27,971 points. This gives the RX 5300M a 30.6% advantage, a substantial margin that places it firmly ahead in this particular compute workload.

The FirePro S9300 X2 does have one benchmark result that the RX 5300M cannot match: a Geekbench Vulkan score of 37,109. However, since the RX 5300M has no recorded Vulkan benchmark in the database, this cannot be treated as a direct head-to-head comparison. The only directly comparable metric is OpenCL, and there the RX 5300M wins outright.

When examining the broader context through nearest rivals, the RX 5300M's OpenCL score sits at the 80th percentile among all GPUs. Its closest competitor, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN X, averages 36,530 points, a 0% delta, meaning the two are effectively tied. The AMD Radeon PRO W6400 scores 37,157, which is 1.7% higher than the RX 5300M, while the NVIDIA T1000 trails at 36,289, a 0.7% deficit. The AMD Radeon Pro Duo is further behind at 35,860, a 1.9% gap.

The FirePro S9300 X2, by contrast, sits at the 77th percentile. Its average benchmark score across both recorded tests is 32,540. Its nearest rival, the AMD Radeon RX 590 GME, scores 32,601, a 0.2% difference in favor of the latter. The AMD Radeon RX 7900 GRE scores 32,456, putting it 0.3% behind the FirePro. The AMD FirePro S10000 scores 32,388, a 0.5% deficit, and the NVIDIA T600 Mobile scores 32,849, which is 0.9% higher. This places the FirePro S9300 X2 in a tight pack of older and midrange cards, none of which are close to the RX 5300M's OpenCL performance.

The 30.6% delta in OpenCL is not a marginal difference. It means that in this specific compute test, the RX 5300M processes roughly 30% more work per unit time than the FirePro S9300 X2. This is particularly striking given the architectural and generational gap between the two products, which will be examined in the Architecture Differences section.

The Verdict

Based strictly on benchmark data, the AMD Radeon RX 5300M is the clear winner for OpenCL compute workloads. Its 36,529 score versus 27,971 for the FirePro S9300 X2 represents a 30.6% lead, which is a dominant margin in GPU comparisons. The RX 5300M also holds a higher percentile ranking at 80 versus 77, and its average benchmark score of 36,529 is higher than the FirePro's average of 32,540.

However, the choice is not entirely one-sided when considering the full scope of recorded data. The FirePro S9300 X2 has a Vulkan score of 37,109, which surpasses the RX 5300M's OpenCL score. But since there is no Vulkan result for the RX 5300M, the database cannot confirm which GPU is faster in Vulkan. The FirePro also has a significantly larger memory bus and bandwidth, which may matter in specific memory-bound workloads, though no benchmark in the database directly measures this.

For a user prioritizing OpenCL performance, the RX 5300M is the obvious selection. It delivers higher raw compute throughput, consumes less power at 85 W versus 300 W, and does not require external power connectors or a 700 W suggested power supply. The FirePro S9300 X2, on the other hand, is a dual-slot server card with no display outputs, requiring 2x 8-pin power connectors and a 700 W power supply. Its launch MSRP was 5,999 USD, which was a premium server-grade price, but the current database does not list a price for the RX 5300M.

The FirePro S9300 X2 is better suited for environments where its Vulkan capability and massive 512.0 GB/s memory bandwidth are essential. Its 4 GB of HBM memory on a 4096-bit bus is a unique configuration that no mobile GPU can match. But for general compute benchmarks, the RX 5300M is the superior product.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different eras and design philosophies. The AMD Radeon RX 5300M uses the Navi 14 chip, built on the RDNA 1.0 architecture, and manufactured on a 7 nm process at TSMC. The FirePro S9300 X2 uses the Capsaicin chip, based on the older GCN 3.0 architecture, and manufactured on a 28 nm process, also at TSMC.

The process node difference is stark: 7 nm versus 28 nm. This allows the RX 5300M to pack 6,400 million transistors into a die size of 158 mm², resulting in a transistor density of 40.5 million per square millimeter. The FirePro S9300 X2, in contrast, houses 8,900 million transistors on a massive 596 mm² die, with a transistor density of only 14.9 million per square millimeter. The FirePro's die is nearly four times larger, yet it has fewer transistors per area, reflecting the older manufacturing process.

The memory subsystems are fundamentally different. The RX 5300M uses 3 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 96-bit bus, delivering 168.0 GB/s of bandwidth. Memory clock is listed at 1750 MHz, with 14 Gbps effective. The FirePro S9300 X2 uses 4 GB of HBM memory on a 4096-bit bus, delivering 512.0 GB/s of bandwidth, which is over three times the bandwidth of the RX 5300M. Its memory clock is 500 MHz, with 1000 Mbps effective. This gives the FirePro a substantial advantage in memory-bound scenarios, despite its lower overall compute scores.

The compute configurations also differ significantly. The RX 5300M has 1,408 shading units, 88 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The FirePro S9300 X2 has 4,096 shading units, 256 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. Despite having nearly three times the shading units and TMUs, the FirePro's OpenCL score is lower, indicating that architectural efficiency matters more than raw unit counts. The RX 5300M achieves a pixel rate of 46.24 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 127.2 GTexel/s. The FirePro achieves 62.40 GPixel/s and 249.6 GTexel/s, which are higher fill rates.

In terms of floating-point performance, the RX 5300M delivers 4.069 TFLOPS for FP32 and 8.138 TFLOPS for FP16 (at 2:1 ratio). The FirePro S9300 X2 delivers 7.987 TFLOPS for FP32, which is nearly double the RX 5300M's FP32 output. However, the FirePro has no listed FP16 performance. This suggests that the FirePro is designed for raw FP32 compute, while the RX 5300M's RDNA architecture emphasizes efficiency and FP16 throughput.

The bus interfaces differ as well: the RX 5300M uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while the FirePro uses PCIe 3.0 x16. The RX 5300M supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The FirePro supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The newer Vulkan version on the RX 5300M is notable.

Power consumption is a major differentiator. The RX 5300M has a TDP of 85 W and requires no power connectors. The FirePro S9300 X2 has a TDP of 300 W, requires 2x 8-pin power connectors, and a suggested PSU of 700 W. The FirePro is a dual-slot card measuring 267 mm in length and 111 mm in height, with no display outputs. The RX 5300M has no listed dimensions and its display outputs are described as portable device dependent.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 5300M scores 36,529, while the AMD FirePro S9300 X2 scores 27,971. The RX 5300M leads by 30.6%.

Q: Does the FirePro S9300 X2 have any benchmark where it scores higher?

A: Yes, the FirePro S9300 X2 has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 37,109. However, the RX 5300M has no recorded Vulkan benchmark, so no direct comparison can be made.

Q: How does each GPU rank relative to all other GPUs?

A: The RX 5300M is in the 80th percentile, while the FirePro S9300 X2 is in the 77th percentile.

Q: What are the memory specifications for each GPU?

A: The RX 5300M has 3 GB of GDDR6 on a 96-bit bus with 168.0 GB/s bandwidth. The FirePro S9300 X2 has 4 GB of HBM on a 4096-bit bus with 512.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU requires more power?

A: The FirePro S9300 X2 has a TDP of 300 W, requires 2x 8-pin power connectors, and a suggested PSU of 700 W. The RX 5300M has a TDP of 85 W and requires no power connectors.

Q: What are the closest rivals for each GPU based on average benchmark scores?

A: For the RX 5300M, the closest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN X with a 0% delta. For the FirePro S9300 X2, the closest rival is the AMD Radeon RX 590 GME with a 0.2% delta in favor of the RX 590 GME.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon RX 5300M wins decisively in the OpenCL compute benchmark. Its 36,529 score is 30.6% higher than the FirePro S9300 X2's 27,971. This makes it the better choice for any workload that relies on OpenCL, which is a common API for general-purpose GPU computing. The RX 5300M also wins on efficiency: it consumes 85 W versus 300 W, and it does not require external power connectors or a high-capacity power supply. Its 7 nm process node and RDNA 1.0 architecture deliver higher performance per watt and per transistor.

The RX 5300M also has a more modern feature set. It supports DirectX 12 (12_1) versus 12 (12_0) on the FirePro, and Vulkan 1.4 versus 1.2.170. It also has a higher percentile ranking at 80 versus 77. For mobile or portable applications, the RX 5300M is the only viable choice, as the FirePro has no display outputs and is a dual-slot server card.

The AMD FirePro S9300 X2 wins in memory bandwidth. Its 512.0 GB/s bandwidth is more than triple the RX 5300M's 168.0 GB/s, and its 4096-bit bus is unmatched. This makes it better suited for memory-intensive workloads that require massive data throughput, even if the compute cores are less efficient. The FirePro also has higher raw fill rates: 62.40 GPixel/s versus 46.24 GPixel/s, and 249.6 GTexel/s versus 127.2 GTexel/s. Its FP32 compute of 7.987 TFLOPS is nearly double the RX 5300M's 4.069 TFLOPS, which could benefit certain FP32-heavy applications that are not well-represented by the OpenCL benchmark.

The FirePro also has a Vulkan score of 37,109, which is higher than the RX 5300M's OpenCL score. If Vulkan is the primary API, the FirePro may offer better performance, though the lack of a RX 5300M Vulkan result prevents a definitive conclusion. The FirePro's 4 GB of HBM memory, while smaller than the RX 5300M's 3 GB in raw capacity, is faster in terms of bandwidth, which could be a deciding factor for specific scientific or server workloads.

In summary, the RX 5300M is the winner for OpenCL compute, efficiency, and modern API support. The FirePro S9300 X2 is the winner for memory bandwidth, fill rates, and raw FP32 throughput. The choice depends on whether the workload is compute-bound (RX 5300M) or memory-bound and FP32-heavy (FirePro).