AMD FirePro S9300 X2 vs AMD Radeon RX 560 XT Comparison

# AMD Radeon RX 560 XT vs AMD FirePro S9300 X2

These two AMD GPUs take fundamentally different paths to performance. The Radeon RX 560 XT is a 14 nm Polaris part aimed at mainstream desktop use, while the FirePro S9300 X2 is a 28 nm server accelerator with dual-GPU architecture and no display outputs. Benchmark results show a near-split decision: the RX 560 XT wins one test decisively, while the FirePro S9300 X2 edges ahead in the other. The data indicates that workload type matters more than raw specifications when choosing between them.

Where Each One Wins

The Radeon RX 560 XT claims victory in Geekbench OpenCL with a score of 31,387 versus 27,971 for the FirePro S9300 X2 — a 12.2% advantage. This is a substantial margin, suggesting that the RX 560 XT handles general-purpose compute tasks more efficiently in this particular benchmark. Its 79th percentile ranking across all GPUs places it slightly ahead of the FirePro S9300 X2's 77th percentile, and its average benchmark score of 34,133 beats the FirePro's 32,540. In OpenCL workloads typical of video encoding, physics simulation, or image processing, the RX 560 XT appears to be the stronger choice despite its lower transistor count and older architecture lineage.

The FirePro S9300 X2 takes the Geekbench Vulkan test by a narrow margin: 37,109 versus 36,879 for the RX 560 XT, a 0.6% difference. While this is a slim lead, it demonstrates that the FirePro's dual-GPU design can deliver competitive graphics API performance when properly utilized. The FirePro's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 590 GME (0.2% ahead) and the AMD Radeon RX 7900 GRE (0.3% behind), placing it in solid company. For Vulkan-based rendering workloads, the FirePro S9300 X2 holds a slight edge, though the practical difference is almost negligible.

Use-case guidance follows from these results. The RX 560 XT suits OpenCL-heavy applications where its 12.2% lead translates into faster completion times. The FirePro S9300 X2, despite losing OpenCL, offers competitive Vulkan performance and brings server-grade features like 512.0 GB/s memory bandwidth that may benefit specific scientific or enterprise workloads. However, the FirePro's lack of display outputs means it cannot serve as a primary graphics card — it is strictly a compute accelerator.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations. The RX 560 XT uses GCN 4.0 with the Ellesmere chip, built on GlobalFoundries' 14 nm process. It packs 5,700 million transistors into a 232 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 24.6 million per square millimeter. In contrast, the FirePro S9300 X2 uses GCN 3.0 with the Capsaicin chip, fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process. It contains 8,900 million transistors across a much larger 596 mm² die, with a lower density of 14.9 million per square millimeter. The process node difference explains why the RX 560 XT achieves higher density despite fewer total transistors.

Memory architecture diverges sharply. The RX 560 XT uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 224.0 GB/s bandwidth. The FirePro S9300 X2 also has 4 GB, but it is HBM on a massive 4096-bit bus, yielding 512.0 GB/s — more than double the bandwidth. This memory bandwidth gap is critical for compute-heavy tasks that stream large datasets. The FirePro's HBM implementation runs at 500 MHz (1000 Mbps effective), while the RX 560 XT's GDDR5 runs at 1750 MHz (7 Gbps effective), but the bus width difference overwhelms the clock speed advantage.

Execution resources also favor the FirePro on paper. It has 4096 shading units, 256 texture mapping units, and 64 render output units, versus 1792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 32 ROPs on the RX 560 XT. This translates to 7.987 TFLOPS FP32 performance for the FirePro versus 4.394 TFLOPS for the RX 560 XT. The RX 560 XT offers FP16 at a 1:1 ratio (4.394 TFLOPS), while the FirePro lists no FP16 capability. Pixel rate is 62.40 GPixel/s for the FirePro and 39.23 GPixel/s for the RX 560 XT; texture rate is 249.6 GTexel/s versus 137.3 GTexel/s. Despite these specification advantages, the FirePro still loses the OpenCL benchmark, suggesting that architectural efficiency and driver optimization play significant roles.

Power and physical specifications differ substantially. The RX 560 XT draws 150 W TDP with a single 6-pin connector and a 450 W suggested PSU. The FirePro S9300 X2 demands 300 W TDP, dual 8-pin connectors, and a 700 W suggested PSU. Both are dual-slot cards, but the FirePro is longer at 267 mm (10.5 inches) versus 241 mm (9.5 inches) for the RX 560 XT, and it also has specified height of 111 mm (4.4 inches). The RX 560 XT provides 1x HDMI 2.0b and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs; the FirePro has no display outputs at all.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins in OpenCL performance?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 560 XT wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 31,387 versus 27,971 for the FirePro S9300 X2, a 12.2% advantage.

Q: Does the FirePro S9300 X2 outperform in any benchmark?

A: Yes, the FirePro S9300 X2 wins the Geekbench Vulkan test with 37,109 points versus 36,879 for the RX 560 XT, a 0.6% margin.

Q: Can the FirePro S9300 X2 be used as a display adapter?

A: No, the FirePro S9300 X2 has no display outputs, while the RX 560 XT provides 1x HDMI 2.0b and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a connections.

Q: How do memory bandwidth figures compare?

A: The FirePro S9300 X2 offers 512.0 GB/s bandwidth via 4 GB of HBM on a 4096-bit bus, while the RX 560 XT provides 224.0 GB/s via 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The RX 560 XT has a 150 W TDP with a 450 W suggested PSU and one 6-pin connector. The FirePro S9300 X2 has a 300 W TDP with a 700 W suggested PSU and two 8-pin connectors.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The RX 560 XT has an average benchmark score of 34,133, while the FirePro S9300 X2 averages 32,540. The RX 560 XT also ranks at the 79th percentile versus the FirePro's 77th.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon RX 560 XT | AMD FirePro S9300 X2 |

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

| Architecture | GCN 4.0 | GCN 3.0 |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 28 nm |

| Foundry | GlobalFoundries | TSMC |

| Transistors | 5,700 million | 8,900 million |

| Die Size | 232 mm² | 596 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 24.6M / mm² | 14.9M / mm² |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | HBM |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 4096 bit |

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

| Memory Clock | 1750 MHz (7 Gbps effective) | 500 MHz (1000 Mbps effective) |

| Shading Units | 1792 | 4096 |

| TMUs | 112 | 256 |

| ROPs | 32 | 64 |

| Pixel Rate | 39.23 GPixel/s | 62.40 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 137.3 GTexel/s | 249.6 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 4.394 TFLOPS | 7.987 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 4.394 TFLOPS (1:1) | Not specified |

| TDP | 150 W | 300 W |

| Power Connectors | 1x 6-pin | 2x 8-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 450 W | 700 W |

| Display Outputs | 1x HDMI 2.0b, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a | No outputs |

| Vulkan API | 1.3 | 1.2.170 |

| Length | 241 mm (9.5 inches) | 267 mm (10.5 inches) |

| Height | Not specified | 111 mm (4.4 inches) |

| Release Date | 2019-03-12 | 2016-03-30 |

| Launch MSRP | Not specified | 5,999 USD |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench OpenCL result is the headline matchup. The RX 560 XT posts 31,387 points against the FirePro S9300 X2's 27,971, a 12.2% lead for the consumer card. This outcome is counterintuitive given the FirePro's hardware specifications: it has more than double the shading units (4096 versus 1792), nearly double the FP32 throughput (7.987 TFLOPS versus 4.394 TFLOPS), and more than double the memory bandwidth (512.0 GB/s versus 224.0 GB/s). Yet the RX 560 XT still wins. The data suggests that OpenCL performance on the FirePro S9300 X2 may be constrained by its dual-GPU configuration or driver maturity, rather than raw compute capacity. The RX 560 XT's nearest rival in overall average score is the NVIDIA RTX A2000 12 GB at 34,154, which is only 0.1% ahead — the RX 560 XT sits in remarkably close competition with that card.

The Vulkan test flips the outcome, though by a hair. The FirePro S9300 X2 scores 37,109 versus 36,879 for the RX 560 XT, a 0.6% margin. This is within noise territory, but it does show the FirePro's ability to leverage its architecture in a modern graphics API. Notably, the FirePro's Vulkan score of 37,109 is actually higher than its OpenCL score of 27,971, while the RX 560 XT scores higher in Vulkan (36,879) than in OpenCL (31,387) as well. Both cards perform better under Vulkan, but the FirePro's improvement is more dramatic — a 32.7% jump from OpenCL to Vulkan, compared to the RX 560 XT's 17.5% improvement. This suggests the FirePro's compute capabilities are better exposed through Vulkan's lower-level interface.

The average benchmark scores tell a similar story. The RX 560 XT averages 34,133 across its two tests, while the FirePro S9300 X2 averages 32,540 — a 4.9% difference in favor of the RX 560 XT. When placed against their respective peer groups, the RX 560 XT sits at the 79th percentile of all GPUs, with rivals including the AMD Radeon RX 480 (0.4% behind) and AMD Radeon HD 7950 (0.5% behind). The FirePro S9300 X2 sits at the 77th percentile, with the AMD Radeon RX 590 GME 0.2% ahead and the AMD Radeon RX 7900 GRE 0.3% behind. The FirePro's nearest rival list notably includes the AMD FirePro S10000, a predecessor from the same professional line, which trails by 0.5%.

The specification sheet heavily favors the FirePro S9300 X2, yet benchmark outcomes favor the RX 560 XT overall. This underscores that architectural efficiency, driver optimization, and workload characteristics can outweigh raw hardware resources. For OpenCL-focused compute tasks, the RX 560 XT delivers a clear 12.2% win. For Vulkan workloads, the FirePro S9300 X2 offers a marginal 0.6% edge. The RX 560 XT also provides display outputs, lower power draw (150 W versus 300 W), and a smaller physical footprint, making it a more practical choice for most users. The FirePro S9300 X2, with its 5,999 USD launch MSRP, no video outputs, and server-oriented design, targets a niche that prioritizes memory bandwidth above all else.