AMD FirePro S9300 X2 vs AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 Comparison

The Verdict

The data presents two very different AMD products with distinct purposes. The Radeon RX Vega 56 is a consumer gaming and general compute card, while the FirePro S9300 X2 is a server-oriented accelerator with no display outputs. Benchmark results show the RX Vega 56 holds a clear overall advantage in the recorded database tests, with an average benchmark score of 37507 compared to 32540 for the FirePro S9300 X2, a difference of roughly 15 percent. The RX Vega 56 also sits at the 81st percentile among all GPUs, while the FirePro S9300 X2 sits at the 77th percentile. For any user choosing between these two, the RX Vega 56 is the more versatile and faster option in the tests recorded, and it can actually output to a display. The FirePro S9300 X2, with its 4 GB memory capacity and server-oriented design, is only sensible for workloads that specifically require its dual-chip architecture and higher memory bandwidth, but the benchmark data does not favor it in the tests captured.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 has an average benchmark score of 37507, while the AMD FirePro S9300 X2 scores 32540. The RX Vega 56 leads by roughly 15 percent in this metric.

Q: How do these cards compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The RX Vega 56 sits within 1.6 percent of the NVIDIA Tesla P4, GeForce RTX 4070, and AMD Radeon PRO W6400, with delta values between -0.4 and 0.9 percent. The FirePro S9300 X2 sits within 1 percent of the AMD Radeon RX 590 GME, RX 7900 GRE, FirePro S10000, and NVIDIA T600 Mobile, with deltas between -0.9 and 0.5 percent.

Q: What memory configurations do these cards use?

A: The RX Vega 56 has 8 GB of HBM2 memory on a 2048-bit bus with 409.6 GB/s bandwidth. The FirePro S9300 X2 has 4 GB of HBM memory on a 4096-bit bus with 512.0 GB/s bandwidth, giving the FirePro higher raw bandwidth despite less capacity.

Q: When were these cards released?

A: The FirePro S9300 X2 was released on March 2016, predating the RX Vega 56, which launched on August 2017. Both are now end-of-life products.

Q: What is the pixel rate difference?

A: The RX Vega 56 delivers 94.14 GPixel/s, while the FirePro S9300 X2 delivers 62.40 GPixel/s. The RX Vega 56 is about 51 percent higher in pixel throughput.

Q: Does either card support modern APIs differently?

A: Both support DirectX 12 and OpenGL 4.6, but the RX Vega 56 supports Vulkan 1.3 and DirectX 12 (12_1), while the FirePro S9300 X2 supports Vulkan 1.2.170 and DirectX 12 (12_0).

Architecture Differences

The RX Vega 56 uses the Vega 10 chip built on GCN 5.0 architecture, fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It contains 12,500 million transistors on a 495 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 25.3M per mm². The FirePro S9300 X2 uses the Capsaicin chip based on GCN 3.0 architecture, built on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 8,900 million transistors across a 596 mm² die, resulting in a lower transistor density of 14.9M per mm². The architectural generation gap is significant: GCN 5.0 is a newer design than GCN 3.0, and the process node difference from 28 nm to 14 nm explains why the RX Vega 56 achieves higher density despite having more transistors on a smaller die.

The FirePro S9300 X2 is a dual-GPU server card, which explains its Capsaicin chip designation and the fact that it has no display outputs. The RX Vega 56 is a conventional single-GPU consumer card with 1x HDMI 2.0b and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The FirePro's memory architecture uses HBM on a 4096-bit bus, whereas the RX Vega 56 uses HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus. The FirePro has 4096 shading units and 256 texture mapping units, while the RX Vega 56 has 3584 shading units and 224 TMUs. Both have 64 ROPs. The FirePro actually has more shading units and TMUs than the RX Vega 56, yet it still loses in the recorded benchmarks, which suggests architectural efficiency and clock behavior matter more than raw unit counts.

Neither card has ray tracing cores or tensor cores, as both predate those features in AMD's product stack. The FirePro S9300 X2's predecessor is the FirePro Terascale, while the RX Vega 56's predecessor is Polaris. The successor for the RX Vega 56 is Navi, and for the FirePro S9300 X2 it is Radeon Pro GCN. The FirePro generation is listed as FirePro Server (Sx300), which aligns with its server positioning.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across several core specification fields. The RX Vega 56 has a base clock of 1156 MHz and a boost clock of 1471 MHz, while the FirePro S9300 X2 has no recorded base or boost clocks in the database. The memory clock also differs: the RX Vega 56 runs at 800 MHz with 1600 Mbps effective, while the FirePro S9300 X2 runs at 500 MHz with 1000 Mbps effective. Memory capacity is 8 GB for the RX Vega 56 versus 4 GB for the FirePro S9300 X2. The memory type is HBM2 for the RX Vega 56 and HBM for the FirePro S9300 X2. The bus width is 2048-bit for the RX Vega 56 and 4096-bit for the FirePro S9300 X2. Memory bandwidth is 409.6 GB/s for the RX Vega 56 and 512.0 GB/s for the FirePro S9300 X2.

The shading units are 3584 for the RX Vega 56 and 4096 for the FirePro S9300 X2. TMUs are 224 versus 256. Pixel rate is 94.14 GPixel/s for the RX Vega 56 and 62.40 GPixel/s for the FirePro S9300 X2. Texture rate is 329.5 GTexel/s versus 249.6 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 10.54 TFLOPS for the RX Vega 56 versus 7.987 TFLOPS for the FirePro S9300 X2. The RX Vega 56 also lists FP16 at 21.09 TFLOPS (2:1), while the FirePro S9300 X2 has no FP16 data recorded.

TDP is 210 W for the RX Vega 56 and 300 W for the FirePro S9300 X2. The suggested PSU is 550 W for the RX Vega 56 and 700 W for the FirePro S9300 X2. Both are dual-slot cards with 2x 8-pin power connectors. The RX Vega 56 is 280 mm long, while the FirePro S9300 X2 is 267 mm long. Both are 111 mm tall. The RX Vega 56 has a width of 40 mm, while the FirePro S9300 X2 has no width recorded. The bus interface is PCIe 3.0 x16 for both. DirectX support is 12 (12_1) for the RX Vega 56 and 12 (12_0) for the FirePro S9300 X2. OpenGL is 4.6 for both. Vulkan support is 1.3 for the RX Vega 56 and 1.2.170 for the FirePro S9300 X2.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database has no direct head-to-head benchmark entries between these two cards, so the comparison relies on their individual benchmark records. The RX Vega 56 was tested in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 with a score of 1501, and Geekbench Metal with a score of 73512. The FirePro S9300 X2 was tested in Geekbench OpenCL with a score of 27971, and Geekbench Vulkan with a score of 37109. These are different test suites, so direct apples-to-apples comparison is limited, but the average benchmark scores provide the clearest signal.

The average benchmark score for the RX Vega 56 is 37507, placing it at the 81st percentile. The FirePro S9300 X2 averages 32540, placing it at the 77th percentile. The RX Vega 56 leads by about 15 percent in average score. Looking at nearest rivals, the RX Vega 56's closest competitor is the NVIDIA Tesla P4 with an average score of 37628 and a delta of -0.3 percent, followed by the GeForce RTX 4070 at 37628 with a delta of -0.4 percent, the AMD Radeon PRO W6400 at 37157 with a 0.9 percent delta, and the GeForce RTX 4080 Mobile at 38135 with a -1.6 percent delta. The FirePro S9300 X2's closest rival is the AMD Radeon RX 7900 GRE at 32456 with a 0.3 percent delta, followed by the AMD FirePro S10000 at 32388 with a 0.5 percent delta, the AMD Radeon RX 590 GME at 32601 with a -0.2 percent delta, and the NVIDIA T600 Mobile at 32849 with a -0.9 percent delta. These rival clusters show that both cards occupy mid-tier positions in the database, but the RX Vega 56 sits in a slightly higher performance class.

The biggest statistical win for the RX Vega 56 comes from its FP32 compute advantage of 10.54 TFLOPS versus 7.987 TFLOPS, a lead of about 32 percent. The texture rate advantage is 329.5 GTexel/s versus 249.6 GTexel/s, about 32 percent higher. The pixel rate advantage is 94.14 GPixel/s versus 62.40 GPixel/s, about 51 percent higher. The memory capacity advantage is 8 GB versus 4 GB, double the capacity. The FirePro S9300 X2's wins are narrower: it has 512.0 GB/s memory bandwidth versus 409.6 GB/s, about 25 percent higher, and it has a 4096-bit bus versus 2048-bit, double the bus width. It also has more shading units at 4096 versus 3584 and more TMUs at 256 versus 224, but these advantages do not translate into higher benchmark scores.

Where Each One Wins

The RX Vega 56 wins in every recorded benchmark category that matters for general performance. Its average benchmark score of 37507 versus 32540 makes it the faster card overall. It wins on FP32 compute with 10.54 TFLOPS against 7.987 TFLOPS, which is critical for general compute workloads. It wins on pixel rate at 94.14 GPixel/s versus 62.40 GPixel/s and texture rate at 329.5 GTexel/s versus 249.6 GTexel/s. It has double the memory capacity at 8 GB versus 4 GB, which matters for modern workloads that exceed 4 GB. It has a higher base clock of 1156 MHz versus no recorded base clock for the FirePro, and a higher boost clock of 1471 MHz versus no recorded boost clock. It supports newer API versions with DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3. It has display outputs, making it usable for any workload that requires visual output. It also has a lower TDP at 210 W versus 300 W, and a lower suggested PSU at 550 W versus 700 W.

The FirePro S9300 X2 wins on memory bandwidth with 512.0 GB/s versus 409.6 GB/s, and it has a wider memory bus at 4096-bit versus 2048-bit. It has more shading units at 4096 versus 3584 and more TMUs at 256 versus 224. These hardware advantages are real, but the benchmark data does not show them producing higher scores. The FirePro also wins on transistor count per chip in terms of die size, though that is not a performance metric. Its server-oriented design with no display outputs makes it unsuitable for desktop use. The FirePro S9300 X2 is the card to consider only if a workload specifically demands the highest memory bandwidth and leverages the dual-GPU server form factor, but the recorded data does not demonstrate any performance benefit in the tests captured.

For compute-heavy tasks that use FP32 performance, the RX Vega 56 is clearly the better choice. For tasks that require more than 4 GB of memory, the RX Vega 56 is again the better choice. For any task that requires a display connection, only the RX Vega 56 can do it. The FirePro S9300 X2 retains a niche advantage in memory bandwidth, but with no display outputs, a higher TDP, and lower recorded benchmark scores, the data supports choosing the RX Vega 56 in nearly all scenarios. The percentile rankings reinforce this: the RX Vega 56 at the 81st percentile versus the FirePro at the 77th percentile places the RX Vega 56 in a higher performance tier overall.