AMD FirePro S9300 X2 vs AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT Comparison

The AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT and AMD FirePro S9300 X2 sit at the same overall performance percentile, but they are generations apart in design philosophy. The RX 7800 XT is a modern RDNA 3.0 consumer card with 16 GB of memory, while the FirePro S9300 X2 is an end-of-life GCN 3.0 server accelerator with no display outputs. Benchmark data shows the RX 7800 XT dominating in every shared test, yet the S9300 X2’s average score remains within 0.2% of its newer rival, a gap that highlights how different workloads can produce wildly different results.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT has an average benchmark score of 32619, while the AMD FirePro S9300 X2 scores 32540. The RX 7800 XT leads by 0.2% according to the nearestRivals data.

Q: How much faster is the RX 7800 XT in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The RX 7800 XT scores 139381 in Geekbench OpenCL compared to the S9300 X2’s 27971, a difference of 398.3% in favor of the RX 7800 XT.

Q: Does the FirePro S9300 X2 support display outputs?

A: No. The FirePro S9300 X2 has no display outputs, making it unsuitable for direct monitor connection. The RX 7800 XT offers 1x HDMI 2.1a and 3x DisplayPort 2.1.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The RX 7800 XT has 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus with 624.1 GB/s bandwidth. The S9300 X2 has 4 GB of HBM on a 4096-bit bus with 512.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card has a higher transistor count?

A: The RX 7800 XT contains 28,100 million transistors on a 5 nm process. The S9300 X2 has 8,900 million transistors on a 28 nm process.

Q: Are both cards in the same performance percentile?

A: Yes, both the RX 7800 XT and the S9300 X2 are listed at the 76th percentile among all GPUs, despite their architectural differences and age gap.

Architecture Differences

The RX 7800 XT uses the Navi 32 chip built on RDNA 3.0 architecture, codenamed Wheat Nas, and belongs to the Navi III (RX 7000) generation. It is fabricated by TSMC on a 5 nm process, yielding a die size of 346 mm² with a transistor density of 81.2M per mm². The S9300 X2 uses the Capsaicin chip on GCN 3.0 architecture from the FirePro Server (Sx300) generation, also fabricated by TSMC but on a 28 nm process. Its die is substantially larger at 596 mm², yet the transistor density drops to 14.9M per mm² due to the older process node.

Shading unit counts are close: the RX 7800 XT has 3840 shading units, while the S9300 X2 has 4096. The S9300 X2 actually has more TMUs (256 vs 240), but the RX 7800 XT has more ROPs (96 vs 64). The RX 7800 XT includes 60 ray tracing cores, a feature entirely absent from the GCN 3.0 card. The S9300 X2 has no listed base, boost, or game clocks, whereas the RX 7800 XT runs at 1295 MHz base, 2124 MHz game, and 2430 MHz boost.

Memory architecture is a fundamental split. The RX 7800 XT uses 16 GB of GDDR6 with a 256-bit bus and 624.1 GB/s bandwidth. The S9300 X2 uses 4 GB of HBM on a massive 4096-bit bus but achieves only 512.0 GB/s due to a low 500 MHz memory clock. The RX 7800 XT’s FP32 compute is 37.32 TFLOPS versus 7.987 TFLOPS for the S9300 X2. Pixel and texture rates also favor the newer card: 233.3 GPixel/s and 583.2 GTexel/s versus 62.40 GPixel/s and 249.6 GTexel/s respectively.

The RX 7800 XT supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while the S9300 X2 is limited to DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.2.170. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The S9300 X2 has no display outputs at all, while the RX 7800 XT provides modern HDMI 2.1a and DisplayPort 2.1 connectivity. The S9300 X2 is end-of-life, released on 2016-03-30, while the RX 7800 XT remains active, released on 2023-08-24.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Only two shared benchmarks exist between these cards, and the RX 7800 XT wins both decisively. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RX 7800 XT scores 139381 against the S9300 X2’s 27971, a 398.3% advantage. That is not a marginal win; it is a generational leap. The newer architecture’s FP32 throughput of 37.32 TFLOPS versus 7.987 TFLOPS explains most of this gap, as OpenCL compute scales heavily with raw shader throughput.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the RX 7800 XT scores 143060 versus 37109 for the S9300 X2, a 285.5% difference. Vulkan performance benefits from modern driver optimization and hardware features like ray tracing cores, which the S9300 X2 lacks entirely. The RX 7800 XT’s support for Vulkan 1.4 versus the S9300 X2’s 1.2.170 also contributes to better API utilization.

Despite these blowouts in shared tests, the average benchmark scores tell a different story. The RX 7800 XT averages 32619, and the S9300 X2 averages 32540, a delta of only 0.2%. This occurs because the RX 7800 XT has ten benchmark entries, including Passmark tests where it scores 24176 in G3D and 13473 in GPU Compute, while the S9300 X2 only has two Geekbench entries. The S9300 X2’s average is buoyed by its relatively strong Vulkan and OpenCL results compared to its specs, but the RX 7800 XT’s broader test coverage shows consistent performance across DirectX 9, 10, 11, and 12 workloads.

The nearestRivals data confirms the closeness of their averages. The RX 7800 XT’s closest rival is the S9300 X2 at 0.2% ahead, followed by the NVIDIA P104-100 at -0.4% and NVIDIA T600 Mobile at -0.7%. The S9300 X2’s closest rival is the RX 7800 XT at -0.2% behind, then the AMD FirePro S10000 at 0.5% ahead. Both cards occupy the same performance tier despite the RX 7800 XT having far more benchmark data points.

Specification Differences

The process node is the most fundamental difference: 5 nm for the RX 7800 XT versus 28 nm for the S9300 X2. Transistor counts are 28,100 million versus 8,900 million, and die sizes are 346 mm² versus 596 mm². The RX 7800 XT has a transistor density of 81.2M per mm², while the S9300 X2 manages only 14.9M per mm².

Memory differs completely. The RX 7800 XT has 16 GB of GDDR6 with a 256-bit bus, 624.1 GB/s bandwidth, and a memory clock of 2438 MHz (19.5 Gbps effective). The S9300 X2 has 4 GB of HBM with a 4096-bit bus, 512.0 GB/s bandwidth, and a 500 MHz memory clock (1000 Mbps effective). The RX 7800 XT has no base clock listed for memory, but its effective speed is far higher.

Compute resources are close but not identical. The RX 7800 XT has 3840 shading units, 240 TMUs, and 96 ROPs. The S9300 X2 has 4096 shading units, 256 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The RX 7800 XT adds 60 RT cores, which the S9300 X2 lacks. Pixel rate is 233.3 GPixel/s versus 62.40 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 583.2 GTexel/s versus 249.6 GTexel/s.

Power and interface specs also diverge. The RX 7800 XT has a TDP of 263 W with a suggested PSU of 600 W, while the S9300 X2 draws 300 W and suggests a 700 W PSU. Both use dual-slot cooling and 2x 8-pin power connectors. The RX 7800 XT uses PCIe 4.0 x16, while the S9300 X2 uses PCIe 3.0 x16. The RX 7800 XT has display outputs (1x HDMI 2.1a, 3x DisplayPort 2.1), while the S9300 X2 has none. Dimensions are identical in length (267 mm) and height (111 mm), but the RX 7800 XT is 50 mm wide while the S9300 X2 has no listed width.

API support differs: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) versus 12 (12_0), Vulkan 1.4 versus 1.2.170. Production status is Active versus End-of-life. Release dates are 2023-08-24 versus 2016-03-30. The launch MSRP for the RX 7800 XT is 499 USD, and the S9300 X2 launched at 5,999 USD.

The Verdict

The data points to the RX 7800 XT as the superior card for virtually any workload that appears in the benchmark suite. It wins both head-to-head tests by margins of 398.3% and 285.5%, has more memory, higher bandwidth, and supports modern APIs. The S9300 X2’s only competitive advantage is its average score, which trails by just 0.2%, but that figure is misleading because it is based on only two benchmarks that the RX 7800 XT dominates anyway.

The RX 7800 XT is the practical choice for anyone needing a functional GPU with display outputs, ray tracing support, and broad API compatibility. Its 16 GB memory capacity and 624.1 GB/s bandwidth make it suitable for modern gaming and compute tasks. The S9300 X2, with no display outputs and an end-of-life status, is a server accelerator from 2016 that cannot connect to a monitor directly and lacks modern features like RT cores and Vulkan 1.4 support.

The S9300 X2’s higher TDP (300 W vs 263 W) and larger die (596 mm² vs 346 mm²) with fewer transistors show it is less efficient. Its 4 GB HBM memory, while on a 4096-bit bus, delivers less bandwidth than the RX 7800 XT’s GDDR6. The 28 nm process node versus 5 nm is a seven-year gap in manufacturing technology.

For a builder making a decision today, the RX 7800 XT is the only rational pick. The S9300 X2 is a legacy part that may still function in specialized compute environments, but its lack of outputs, older API support, and lower performance in every shared test make it obsolete for general use. The 0.2% average score difference is a statistical artifact of sparse benchmarking, not a sign of competitive parity.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 7800 XT wins in every benchmark category where both cards have data. Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan are clear victories, but its Passmark scores also show strength: 24176 in G3D, 13473 in GPU Compute, 1177 in G2D, and strong DirectX results across versions 9 (304), 10 (121), 11 (249), and 12 (93). The S9300 X2 has no Passmark entries, so its only data points are the two Geekbench tests it loses.

The S9300 X2 wins in raw shading unit count (4096 vs 3840) and TMU count (256 vs 240), but this does not translate to benchmark victories. It also has a wider memory bus (4096-bit vs 256-bit), but lower effective bandwidth negates that advantage. Its launch MSRP of 5,999 USD versus 499 USD for the RX 7800 XT suggests it was positioned for enterprise compute, but the newer card outperforms it at a fraction of the price.

For gaming, the RX 7800 XT is the clear winner based on DirectX 12 Ultimate support, ray tracing cores, and display outputs. For server compute without displays, the S9300 X2 still offers GCN 3.0 compute capabilities, but its 7.987 TFLOPS FP32 is dwarfed by the RX 7800 XT’