AMD FirePro S9300 X2 vs AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clear, though uneven, victory for the AMD FirePro S9300 X2 across the two shared benchmark tests. In Geekbench OpenCL, the FirePro S9300 X2 scores 27971 against 27125 for the Radeon RX Vega M GH, a modest 3.1% advantage. That margin is narrow enough to suggest the two cards are in the same performance tier for compute workloads that favour OpenCL. The gap widens substantially in Geekbench Vulkan, where the FirePro S9300 X2 posts 37109 versus 31268, a decisive 18.7% lead. This is the headline result: the dual-GPU server card excels when the workload shifts to Vulkan's lower-level API, while the integrated Vega M part trails by a significant margin.

Looking at the broader database context, the FirePro S9300 X2's average benchmark score sits at 32540, placing it in the 77th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals according to the database include the AMD Radeon RX 590 GME at 32601 (a 0.2% difference), the AMD Radeon RX 7900 GRE at 32456 (0.3% ahead of the FirePro), and the AMD FirePro S10000 at 32388. These deltas are tiny, meaning the FirePro S9300 X2 sits in a dense pack of comparable performers. The Radeon RX Vega M GH's average score is 29197, which lands it in the 74th percentile. Its nearest rivals are the AMD FirePro W8000 at 29211 (a 0% difference), the Intel Arc A370M at 29175, and the AMD Radeon RX 470 at 28996. The Vega M GH is therefore not far behind the FirePro in raw average terms, but the head-to-head Vulkan result reveals a structural weakness.

The wins tally is 2 for the FirePro S9300 X2 and 0 for the Radeon RX Vega M GH. No benchmark in the database favours the Vega M GH. This binary outcome, however, hides the nuance: the OpenCL margin is almost within noise, while the Vulkan margin is a chasm. A user prioritising OpenCL compute might see these as comparable parts; a user prioritising Vulkan would not.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different generations of AMD's graphics architecture. The FirePro S9300 X2 is built on GCN 3.0, using the Capsaicin chip, and belongs to the FirePro Server (Sx300) generation. The Radeon RX Vega M GH uses GCN 4.0, built on the Polaris 22 chip, and sits in the Vega (Vega M) generation. This generational gap is significant: GCN 4.0 introduced architectural refinements over GCN 3.0, but the FirePro compensates with sheer hardware scale.

The manufacturing processes differ notably. The FirePro S9300 X2 uses a 28 nm process at TSMC, packing 8,900 million transistors into a 596 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 14.9 million per square millimetre. The Radeon RX Vega M GH uses a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries, with 5,000 million transistors on a 208 mm² die, achieving a much higher density of 24.0 million per square millimetre. The Vega M GH is the more modern and denser design, but the FirePro's larger die and transistor count give it raw compute muscle.

Memory configurations diverge sharply. The FirePro S9300 X2 has 4 GB of HBM on a 4096-bit bus, with memory clocked at 500 MHz (1000 Mbps effective) and bandwidth of 512.0 GB/s. The Radeon RX Vega M GH also has 4 GB, but of HBM2, on a 1024-bit bus, with memory at 800 MHz (1600 Mbps effective) and bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s. The FirePro's bandwidth advantage is enormous: 512.0 GB/s versus 204.8 GB/s, a factor of 2.5. This likely explains much of the Vulkan performance gap, as memory-bound workloads benefit disproportionately from bandwidth.

The shading resources tell a similar story. The FirePro S9300 X2 has 4096 shading units, 256 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The Radeon RX Vega M GH has 1536 shading units, 96 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. Both have the same ROP count, but the FirePro has 2.67 times the shading units and 2.67 times the TMUs. Pixel rates are close: the FirePro achieves 62.40 GPixel/s, while the Vega M GH achieves 76.16 GPixel/s, meaning the smaller chip actually wins on pixel throughput. Texture rate favours the FirePro at 249.6 GTexel/s versus 114.2 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 7.987 TFLOPS for the FirePro versus 3.656 TFLOPS for the Vega M GH. The Vega M GH does support FP16 at a 1:1 ratio (3.656 TFLOPS), while the FirePro has no recorded FP16 capability.

The Vega M GH has no predecessor or successor listed in the database, while the FirePro S9300 X2's predecessor is FirePro Terascale and its successor is Radeon Pro GCN. The FirePro also carries a launch MSRP of 5,999 USD, whereas the Vega M GH has no recorded launch price.

Where Each One Wins

The FirePro S9300 X2 wins in every scenario where raw compute throughput or memory bandwidth is the bottleneck. Its 512.0 GB/s bandwidth dwarfs the Vega M GH's 204.8 GB/s, making it the clear choice for large dataset processing, high-resolution compute workloads, or any task that streams data through memory intensively. Its FP32 output of 7.987 TFLOPS is more than double the Vega M GH's 3.656 TFLOPS, so heavy number-crunching in scientific simulation, machine learning inference, or rendering tasks will favour the FirePro. The texture rate of 249.6 GTexel/s also points to advantages in texture-heavy workloads, despite the Vega M GH's higher pixel rate.

The Radeon RX Vega M GH's wins are more subtle and are not reflected in the head-to-head benchmark results, which show zero wins. Its pixel rate of 76.16 GPixel/s exceeds the FirePro's 62.40 GPixel/s, suggesting better fill-rate-bound performance in some rasterisation scenarios. Its 14 nm process and higher transistor density mean it achieves this with far fewer resources, which is relevant for power and physical size. The Vega M GH is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with a 100 W TDP, while the FirePro S9300 X2 is a dual-slot card with a 300 W TDP and requires two 8-pin power connectors plus a 700 W suggested power supply. The Vega M GH has no power connectors and no suggested PSU, because it is designed for portable devices where the host system handles power delivery. For a compact or mobile platform, the Vega M GH is the only viable option.

In Vulkan, the FirePro's 18.7% lead is the deciding factor. In OpenCL, the 3.1% lead is small enough that the Vega M GH could be considered competitive in that specific API. The database also shows the Vega M GH supports Vulkan 1.3, while the FirePro supports Vulkan 1.2.170, so the newer API version is on the Vega side, yet the FirePro still wins the Vulkan benchmark decisively.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD FirePro S9300 X2, with an average score of 32540, compared to 29197 for the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH.

Q: How large is the Vulkan performance gap between the two cards?

A: The FirePro S9300 X2 scores 37109 in Geekbench Vulkan, which is 18.7% higher than the Radeon RX Vega M GH's 31268.

Q: Do both cards have the same memory capacity?

A: Yes, both have 4 GB, but the FirePro uses HBM with a 4096-bit bus and 512.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the Vega M GH uses HBM2 with a 1024-bit bus and 204.8 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The FirePro S9300 X2 has 4096 shading units, while the Radeon RX Vega M GH has 1536.

Q: What are the TDP differences?

A: The FirePro S9300 X2 has a 300 W TDP and is dual-slot, while the Radeon RX Vega M GH has a 100 W TDP and is an IGP.

Q: Which GPU supports a newer Vulkan version?

A: The Radeon RX Vega M GH supports Vulkan 1.3, whereas the FirePro S9300 X2 supports Vulkan 1.2.170, despite the FirePro winning the Vulkan benchmark.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two GPUs in the database:

• Chip: Capsaicin (FirePro) versus Polaris 22 (Vega M GH)
• Architecture: GCN 3.0 versus GCN 4.0
• Generation: FirePro Server (Sx300) versus Vega (Vega M
• Process node: 28 nm (TSMC) versus 14 nm (GlobalFoundries
• Transistors: 8,900 million versus 5,000 million
• Die size: 596 mm² versus 208 mm²
• Transistor density: 14.9M / mm² versus 24.0M / mm²
• Memory type: HBM versus HBM2
• Memory bus width: 4096 bit versus 1024 bit
• Memory bandwidth: 512.0 GB/s versus 204.8 GB/s
• Memory clock: 500 MHz (1000 Mbps effective) versus 800 MHz (1600 Mbps effective)
• Shading units: 4096 versus 1536
• TMUs: 256 versus 96
• Pixel rate: 62.40 GPixel/s versus 76.16 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 249.6 GTexel/s versus 114.2 GTexel/s
• FP32: 7.987 TFLOPS versus 3.656 TFLOPS
• FP16: Not recorded versus 3.656 TFLOPS (1:1
• TDP: 300 W versus 100 W
• Slot width: Dual-slot versus IGP
• Power connectors: 2x 8-pin versus none
• Suggested PSU: 700 W versus none
• Bus interface: PCIe 3.0 x16 versus IGP
• Display outputs: No outputs versus Portable Device Dependent
• Vulkan version: 1.2.170 versus 1.3
• Dimensions: 267 mm length, 111 mm height versus not recorded
• Release date: 2016-03-30 versus 2018-01-31
• Predecessor: FirePro Terascale versus none
• Successor: Radeon Pro GCN versus none
• Launch MSRP: 5,999 USD versus none
• Base and boost clocks: None recorded for FirePro; 1063 MHz base and 1190 MHz boost for Vega M GH

The Verdict

The data points to a straightforward conclusion for most users: the AMD FirePro S9300 X2 is the superior performer in every recorded benchmark and in most raw specification categories. Its 18.7% Vulkan lead, 3.1% OpenCL lead, 512.0 GB/s bandwidth, 7.987 TFLOPS FP32 output, 4096 shading units, 256 TMUs, 249.6 GTexel/s texture rate, 300 W TDP dual-slot design, PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, 596 mm² die size with 8,900 million transistors, HBM memory on a 4096-bit bus, 64 ROPs, 62.40 GPixel/s pixel rate, GCN 3.0 architecture, TSMC 28 nm process, 5,999 USD launch MSRP, 77th percentile, 32540 average score, and 2 wins out of 2 head-to-head matchups place it firmly ahead of the Vega M GH in virtually all compute-centric workloads. The Vega M GH wins only on pixel rate, 76.16 GPixel/s versus 62.40 GPixel/s, and FP16 support, 3.656 TFLOPS, while matching the FirePro on ROP count, 64, and memory capacity, 4 GB.

The Radeon RX Vega M GH is not without purpose. Its 100 W TDP, IGP form factor, 14 nm GlobalFoundries process, 208 mm² die, 24.0M / mm² transistor density, 1063 MHz base clock, 1190 MHz boost clock, 800 MHz memory clock, HBM2 on a 1024-bit bus, Vulkan 1.3 support, 74th percentile, 29197 average score, and lack of power connectors or external display outputs make it a specialised part for portable devices where the FirePro's dual-slot, 300 W, 267 mm length, 111 mm height, 2x 8-pin, 700 W PSU requirement is impossible to accommodate. The FirePro S9300 X2 has no display outputs, so it is strictly a compute accelerator; the Vega M GH's display outputs are portable-device dependent, meaning it serves integrated graphics duties in laptops.

For a desktop server rack or a workstation with a 700 W PSU, dual 8-pin connectors, and no display output needs, the FirePro S9300 X2 is the obvious pick. For a compact or battery-powered device with a 100 W thermal budget and integrated graphics requirements, the Radeon RX Vega M GH is the only choice. The database does not support any scenario where the Vega M GH outperforms the FirePro in a shared benchmark. The decision is therefore less about performance and more about platform constraints.