AMD FirePro S9300 X2 vs AMD Radeon RX 7800M Comparison

AMD FirePro S9300 X2 is a dual-GPU server accelerator from 2016, built on the GCN 3.0 architecture and a 28 nm process. AMD Radeon RX 7800M is a 2024 mobile GPU using RDNA 3.0 on a 5 nm node. The database shows two direct benchmark comparisons, and the Radeon RX 7800M wins both by a wide margin. However, the FirePro S9300 X2 still holds a higher average benchmark score across all recorded tests, 32540 versus 27883, and a better percentile ranking at 77 compared to 73. This creates an interesting split: the older card wins on aggregate averages, while the newer mobile part dominates in the specific compute and graphics APIs tested head-to-head.

Where Each One Wins

The Radeon RX 7800M is the clear winner in OpenCL and Vulkan compute workloads. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 120778 against the FirePro S9300 X2's 27971, a delta of -76.8% from the perspective of the older card. In Geekbench Vulkan, the RX 7800M scores 126668 versus 37109, a delta of -70.7%. These are not small margins; the RX 7800M delivers roughly four times the OpenCL score and over three times the Vulkan score. The data indicates that for any modern compute API workload, the RX 7800M is the superior choice.

The FirePro S9300 X2 wins on aggregate statistics. Its average benchmark score of 32540 is higher than the RX 7800M's 27883. Its nearest rivals in the database include the AMD Radeon RX 590 GME at 32601 (delta -0.2%), the AMD Radeon RX 7900 GRE at 32456 (delta 0.3%), and the AMD FirePro S10000 at 32388 (delta 0.5%). This places the S9300 X2 in a competitive position against much newer desktop parts, despite its age. The RX 7800M, by contrast, sits near the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 20 at 27839 (delta 0.2%), the AMD Radeon Pro W5500X at 27973 (delta -0.3%), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti at 28020 (delta -0.5%). The FirePro S9300 X2 also has a higher percentile rank, 77 versus 73, meaning it outperforms a larger share of all GPUs in the database.

The practical split is this: the FirePro S9300 X2 is a legacy compute card that still holds its own in aggregate scoring, while the RX 7800M is a modern mobile GPU that crushes it in current API benchmarks. If you are running older compute stacks that rely on the FirePro's specific configuration, the aggregate score suggests it remains viable. If you are running anything modern, the RX 7800M is the winner.

Architecture Differences

The two cards share a manufacturer but little else. The FirePro S9300 X2 uses the Capsaicin chip, built on GCN 3.0, fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process. It packs 8,900 million transistors on a 596 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 14.9M per mm². The RX 7800M uses the Navi 32 chip, built on RDNA 3.0, codenamed Wheat Nas, also fabricated by TSMC but on a 5 nm process. It contains 28,100 million transistors on a 346 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 81.2M per mm². The density difference is stark: the newer process allows over five times more transistors per square millimeter.

Memory architecture differs fundamentally. The FirePro S9300 X2 has 4 GB of HBM on a 4096-bit bus, delivering 512.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The RX 7800M has 12 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus, delivering 432.0 GB/s. The FirePro has more bandwidth but far less capacity, a trade-off typical of its HBM design. The RX 7800M has three times the memory size, which matters for modern workloads that need larger working sets.

Compute resources are also distributed differently. The FirePro S9300 X2 has 4096 shading units, 256 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The RX 7800M has 3840 shading units, 240 TMUs, and 96 ROPs. The RX 7800M has fewer shading units and TMUs but more ROPs. It also has 60 ray tracing cores, which the FirePro lacks entirely. The RX 7800M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while the FirePro is limited to DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.2.170. This makes the RX 7800M compatible with modern feature sets, including ray tracing and mesh shaders.

Clock speeds tell a similar story. The RX 7800M has a base clock of 1295 MHz, a game clock of 2145 MHz, and a boost clock of 2335 MHz. The FirePro S9300 X2 has no base or boost clock listed in the database, only a memory clock of 500 MHz (1000 Mbps effective). The RX 7800M's memory runs at 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective). The RX 7800M also has a much higher pixel rate at 224.2 GPixel/s versus 62.40 GPixel/s, and a higher texture rate at 560.4 GTexel/s versus 249.6 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 35.87 TFLOPS for the RX 7800M versus 7.987 TFLOPS for the FirePro, a 4.5x advantage.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear choice for modern workloads: the AMD Radeon RX 7800M. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks by massive margins, has a newer architecture, more memory, ray tracing support, and a much higher FP32 throughput. It is also an active product, while the FirePro S9300 X2 is end-of-life. The RX 7800M's 35.87 TFLOPS FP32 and 12 GB memory make it suitable for current compute tasks, and its Vulkan 1.4 and DirectX 12 Ultimate support ensure compatibility with contemporary software.

The FirePro S9300 X2 has one redeeming statistic: its average benchmark score of 32540 is higher than the RX 7800M's 27883. This suggests that in the broader set of database tests, the FirePro still performs competitively, likely due to its 512.0 GB/s bandwidth and 4096 shading units. If you are running legacy compute workloads that were optimized for GCN architecture and rely on high memory bandwidth, the FirePro remains a functional option. Its 77th percentile ranking versus the RX 7800M's 73rd percentile also indicates it beats a larger fraction of all GPUs in the database.

For most buyers, the RX 7800M is the practical pick. It is newer, faster in current APIs, and supports modern features. The FirePro S9300 X2 is only worth considering if you have a specific need for its HBM bandwidth or its dual-GPU server configuration, and even then, the RX 7800M's compute advantage makes it hard to justify.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD FirePro S9300 X2 has an average benchmark score of 32540, while the AMD Radeon RX 7800M has 27883.

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

A: In Geekbench OpenCL, the RX 7800M scores 120778 versus the FirePro S9300 X2's 27971, a delta of -76.8% from the FirePro's perspective.

Q: Does the FirePro S9300 X2 support ray tracing?

A: No. The FirePro S9300 X2 has no ray tracing cores, while the RX 7800M has 60.

Q: What memory configuration does each card use?

A: The FirePro S9300 X2 uses 4 GB of HBM on a 4096-bit bus with 512.0 GB/s bandwidth. The RX 7800M uses 12 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus with 432.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card has a higher pixel rate?

A: The RX 7800M has a pixel rate of 224.2 GPixel/s, while the FirePro S9300 X2 has 62.40 GPixel/s.

Q: What is the process node difference?

A: The FirePro S9300 X2 is built on a 28 nm process, while the RX 7800M uses a 5 nm process.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two recorded head-to-head benchmarks both go to the RX 7800M. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RX 7800M scores 120778, which is 76.8% higher than the FirePro S9300 X2's 27971. This is a dominant win, indicating that the RX 7800M is far better suited for OpenCL compute tasks. The FirePro's GCN 3.0 architecture, despite its 4096 shading units and 512.0 GB/s bandwidth, cannot keep up with the RDNA 3.0 design in this test.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the RX 7800M scores 126668, a 70.7% improvement over the FirePro's 37109. Vulkan is a modern low-level API, and the RX 7800M's support for Vulkan 1.4 versus the FirePro's 1.2.170 gives it a structural advantage. The RX 7800M's 35.87 TFLOPS FP32 compute is more than four times the FirePro's 7.987 TFLOPS, which explains the gap.

Beyond these direct comparisons, the aggregate data shows the FirePro S9300 X2 is not without merit. Its average score of 32540 places it just 0.2% below the AMD Radeon RX 590 GME and 0.3% above the AMD Radeon RX 7900 GRE. The RX 7800M's average of 27883 is only 0.2% above the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 20 and 0.5% below the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti. The FirePro's higher percentile rank of 77 versus 73 reinforces that it outperforms a larger share of the GPU population in the database.

The RX 7800M's wins are decisive in the two tests that matter most for current software. The FirePro's aggregate lead is a reminder that benchmark averages can be skewed by the mix of tests, but for anyone running OpenCL or Vulkan, the RX 7800M is the clear winner.

Specification Differences

The specifications differ across nearly every measurable field. Here is the breakdown of where the two cards diverge.

• Process Node: FirePro S9300 X2 uses 28 nm, RX 7800M uses 5 nm.
• Transistors: FirePro has 8,900 million, RX 7800M has 28,100 million.
• Die Size: FirePro is 596 mm², RX 7800M is 346 mm².
• Transistor Density: FirePro is 14.9M / mm², RX 7800M is 81.2M / mm².
• Memory Size: FirePro has 4 GB, RX 7800M has 12 GB.
• Memory Type: FirePro uses HBM, RX 7800M uses GDDR6.
• Memory Bus Width: FirePro has 4096 bit, RX 7800M has 192 bit.
• Memory Bandwidth: FirePro has 512.0 GB/s, RX 7800M has 432.0 GB/s.
• Shading Units: FirePro has 4096, RX 7800M has 3840.
• TMUs: FirePro has 256, RX 7800M has 240.
• ROPs: FirePro has 64, RX 7800M has 96.
• Ray Tracing Cores: FirePro has none, RX 7800M has 60.
• Pixel Rate: FirePro is 62.40 GPixel/s, RX 7800M is 224.2 GPixel/s.
• Texture Rate: FirePro is 249.6 GTexel/s, RX 7800M is 560.4 GTexel/s.
• FP32: FirePro is 7.987 TFLOPS, RX 7800M is 35.87 TFLOPS.
• FP16: FirePro has none listed, RX 7800M is 35.87 TFLOPS (1:1).
• TDP: FirePro is 300 W, RX 7800M is 180 W.
• Slot Width: FirePro is dual-slot, RX 7800M is IGP.
• Power Connectors: FirePro uses 2x 8-pin, RX 7800M uses none.
• Bus Interface: FirePro is PCIe 3.0 x16, RX 7800M is PCIe 4.0 x16.
• DirectX Support: FirePro is 12 (12_0), RX 7800M is 12 Ultimate (12_2).
• Vulkan Support: FirePro is 1.2.170, RX 7800M is 1.4.
• Display Outputs: FirePro has no outputs, RX 7800M is portable device dependent.
• Release Date: FirePro is 2016-03-30, RX 7800M is 2024-09-10.
• Production Status: FirePro is end-of-life, RX 7800M is active.