AMD FirePro S9300 X2 vs AMD Radeon RX 590 GME Comparison

The AMD Radeon RX 590 GME and the AMD FirePro S9300 X2 are two very different products that happen to land at nearly identical average benchmark scores. The RX 590 GME, a consumer Polaris part from 2020, edges out the dual-GPU FirePro server card from 2016 by a razor-thin 0.2% in average benchmark score, with 32601 versus 32540. Despite this statistical tie, the two cards deliver their performance in radically different ways, with the consumer card dominating in the available head-to-head tests while the FirePro offers a unique dual-GPU architecture that trades away conventional display output entirely.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The available head-to-head data leaves no ambiguity about which card performs better in compute workloads. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RX 590 GME scores 36294, which is 29.8% higher than the FirePro S9300 X2’s 27971. This is a decisive margin that might surprise given the FirePro’s raw specifications, but the data reflects real-world execution rather than theoretical peak numbers.

The gap widens even further in Geekbench Vulkan, where the RX 590 GME posts 60508 against the FirePro’s 37109. That represents a 63.1% advantage for the consumer card, more than doubling the percentage lead seen in OpenCL. The RX 590 GME wins both available head-to-head tests, giving it a 2-0 record in this comparison, while the FirePro S9300 X2 fails to claim a single victory.

Looking at the broader context, both cards sit at the 77th percentile among all GPUs, meaning they outperform roughly three-quarters of the field. The RX 590 GME’s average score of 32601 puts it just ahead of the FirePro S9300 X2’s 32540, with the delta between them at a negligible 0.2%. For comparison, the nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 7900 GRE at 32456 (0.4% behind the RX 590 GME) and the NVIDIA T600 Mobile at 32849 (0.8% ahead).

The OpenCL result is particularly telling for the FirePro’s positioning. Despite featuring double the shading units, 4096 versus 2304, and a higher FP32 throughput of 7.987 TFLOPS versus 6.543 TFLOPS, the FirePro cannot translate that theoretical advantage into a win. The RX 590 GME’s newer GCN 4.0 architecture and higher memory clocks appear to deliver better real-world efficiency in these specific workloads.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 590 GME has a slightly higher average benchmark score of 32601, compared to the AMD FirePro S9300 X2’s 32540, a difference of 0.2%.

Q: How does the RX 590 GME perform in Geekbench Vulkan compared to the FirePro S9300 X2?

A: The RX 590 GME scores 60508 in Geekbench Vulkan, which is 63.1% higher than the FirePro S9300 X2’s 37109, making it the clear winner in that test.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference between the two cards?

A: The RX 590 GME uses 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the FirePro S9300 X2 uses 4 GB of HBM memory on a 4096-bit bus with 512.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Do both cards support the same DirectX version?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 (12_0) and OpenGL 4.6. However, the RX 590 GME supports Vulkan 1.3 while the FirePro S9300 X2 supports Vulkan 1.2.170.

Q: What is the process node difference between the two GPUs?

A: The RX 590 GME is built on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries, while the FirePro S9300 X2 uses a 28 nm process at TSMC.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The FirePro S9300 X2 has significantly more shading units at 4096, compared to the RX 590 GME’s 2304, yet it still loses in the head-to-head benchmarks.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different architectural generations and manufacturing processes, which explains much of their performance behavior. The RX 590 GME uses the Polaris 20 chip built on GCN 4.0 architecture, manufactured on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It packs 5,700 million transistors into a 232 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 24.6 million transistors per square millimeter.

In contrast, the FirePro S9300 X2 uses the Capsaicin chip built on the older GCN 3.0 architecture, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. This chip is substantially larger, with 8,900 million transistors spread across a 596 mm² die, but the older process technology results in a lower transistor density of 14.9 million per square millimeter. The FirePro’s die is more than 2.5 times larger physically, yet it holds fewer transistors per area.

Memory architecture presents another stark contrast. The RX 590 GME uses conventional GDDR5 memory: 8 GB on a 256-bit bus, running at 2000 MHz with an 8 Gbps effective rate, delivering 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The FirePro S9300 X2 goes a different route with 4 GB of HBM memory on a massive 4096-bit bus, running at 500 MHz with 1000 Mbps effective rate, achieving 512.0 GB/s of bandwidth — double the RX 590 GME’s throughput. The RX 590 GME’s memory clock of 2000 MHz is four times higher than the FirePro’s 500 MHz, but the bus width advantage gives the FirePro the bandwidth crown.

The FirePro’s compute resources are also significantly larger on paper. It features 4096 shading units, 256 texture mapping units, and 64 render output units. The RX 590 GME counters with 2304 shading units, 144 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. This gives the FirePro a 78% advantage in shading units and a 100% advantage in ROPs. Pixel rate for the FirePro is 62.40 GPixel/s versus 45.44 GPixel/s for the RX 590 GME, and texture rate is 249.6 GTexel/s versus 204.5 GTexel/s.

FP32 compute performance also favors the FirePro, which delivers 7.987 TFLOPS against the RX 590 GME’s 6.543 TFLOPS. The RX 590 GME additionally lists FP16 performance at 6.543 TFLOPS (1:1), while the FirePro does not report an FP16 figure. Despite all these theoretical advantages, the benchmarks show the RX 590 GME winning decisively, suggesting that architectural efficiency and driver maturity matter more than raw specs in these tests.

The Verdict

The data points to the AMD Radeon RX 590 GME as the better performer in the tested workloads. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks with margins of 29.8% and 63.1%, and it holds a slight 0.2% lead in average benchmark score. For anyone running Geekbench OpenCL or Vulkan workloads, the RX 590 GME is the clear choice based on measured results.

The FirePro S9300 X2’s higher theoretical specifications — more shading units, more memory bandwidth, higher FP32 throughput — do not translate into benchmark victories. This suggests that its older GCN 3.0 architecture and 28 nm process place it at a disadvantage in these particular tests, despite the hardware being more powerful on paper.

However, the FirePro S9300 X2 targets a different use case entirely. It has no display outputs, making it unsuitable for conventional desktop use or gaming. Its 4 GB of HBM memory with 512.0 GB/s bandwidth and dual-slot design with 2x 8-pin power connectors indicate a server-oriented product, possibly intended for compute clusters where display output is unnecessary. The RX 590 GME, with its 1x HDMI 2.0b and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, is a conventional consumer card.

For consumers or workstation users who need display output and want the better benchmark performer, the RX 590 GME is the obvious pick. For server deployments where display output is irrelevant and the older dual-GPU design might fit specific infrastructure needs, the FirePro S9300 X2 remains an option, but the benchmark data does not favor it. The RX 590 GME’s wins in both tests, combined with its 0.2% average score advantage, make it the superior choice in this direct comparison.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every major specification category. The RX 590 GME uses the Polaris 20 chip on GCN 4.0 architecture with a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries, while the FirePro S9300 X2 uses the Capsaicin chip on GCN 3.0 architecture with a 28 nm process at TSMC. Transistor counts are 5,700 million versus 8,900 million, and die sizes are 232 mm² versus 596 mm².

Memory specifications diverge substantially: the RX 590 GME has 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the FirePro S9300 X2 has 4 GB of HBM on a 4096-bit bus with 512.0 GB/s bandwidth. Memory clocks are 2000 MHz (8 Gbps effective) versus 500 MHz (1000 Mbps effective).

Compute unit counts favor the FirePro: 4096 shading units, 256 TMUs, and 64 ROPs versus 2304 shading units, 144 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. Pixel rate is 62.40 GPixel/s versus 45.44 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 249.6 GTexel/s versus 204.5 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 7.987 TFLOPS versus 6.543 TFLOPS.

Power and physical specifications also differ. The RX 590 GME has a 175 W TDP with a single 8-pin power connector and a 450 W suggested PSU, while the FirePro S9300 X2 has a 300 W TDP with dual 8-pin connectors and a 700 W suggested PSU. The RX 590 GME measures 241 mm (9.5 inches) in length, while the FirePro is 267 mm (10.5 inches) long and 111 mm (4.4 inches) tall. The RX 590 GME offers display outputs, while the FirePro has none. Vulkan support differs, with the RX 590 GME at version 1.3 and the FirePro at 1.2.170. The FirePro S9300 X2 carries a launch MSRP of 5,999 USD.