GPU Comparison

# AMD FirePro S9300 X2 vs Intel Arc Pro A30M

The benchmark data presents a single head-to-head comparison between these two very different GPUs, and the result is immediately decisive. In the only shared test, Geekbench OpenCL, the Intel Arc Pro A30M scores 31,894 against the AMD FirePro S9300 X2's 27,971, giving Intel a 12.3% advantage. This is a notable outcome because the AMD card is a dual-GPU server accelerator from 2016 with a 300 W TDP, while the Intel part is a 50 W mobile professional GPU from 2022. The data shows that the newer, far more power-efficient Intel architecture delivers the higher raw compute score in this workload, flipping the expected hierarchy based on power envelope and physical size.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The sole head-to-head benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, tells a clear story. Intel's Arc Pro A30M produces a score of 31,894, while the AMD FirePro S9300 X2 trails at 27,971. The delta is -12.3% from AMD's perspective, meaning the FirePro is more than a tenth slower in this test. This is a substantial margin in GPU benchmarking, where a 10% gap typically separates distinct performance tiers. The Intel card's victory is especially striking given its specification profile: it has 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, versus the AMD card's 4,096 shading units, 256 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. Intel achieves a higher score with a quarter of the shading units and half the ROPs, which points to architectural efficiency rather than raw resource count as the deciding factor.

Looking at how each card fares against its own nearest rivals provides additional context. The AMD FirePro S9300 X2's average benchmark score across both its OpenCL and Vulkan results is 32,540, placing it in the 77th percentile of all GPUs. Its closest competitor, the AMD Radeon RX 590 GME, scores 32,601, a mere 0.2% above the FirePro. The NVIDIA T600 Mobile sits slightly higher at 32,849, 0.9% above. The AMD Radeon RX 7900 GRE is just 0.3% below at 32,456, and the AMD FirePro S10000 lags 0.5% at 32,388. These tight margins show the FirePro S9300 X2 sits in a dense cluster of mid-range performers despite its high-end server pedigree.

The Intel Arc Pro A30M, by contrast, has an average benchmark score of 31,894, landing in the 76th percentile. Its nearest rival, the AMD Radeon Pro 570X, scores 32,176, which is 0.9% above the Intel card. The NVIDIA TITAN RTX scores 31,676, 0.7% below Intel. The NVIDIA RTX PRO 4500 Blackwell scores 31,532, 1.1% below, and the AMD FirePro S10000 scores 32,388, 1.5% above. The Intel card's position among these rivals is remarkably balanced, with all deltas within roughly 1.5% in either direction. This suggests the Arc Pro A30M delivers consistent performance across its peer group, whereas the FirePro's average is boosted by its strong Vulkan showing.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc Pro A30M wins the only directly comparable benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, with a 12.3% margin over the AMD FirePro S9300 X2. This is the single most important data point for users deciding between these two cards, as it represents the only apples-to-apples comparison available. Intel's advantage in OpenCL is likely tied to its newer Xe-HPG architecture, which is designed with modern compute workloads in mind, including machine learning and ray tracing features that did not exist in the older GCN 3.0 design.

The AMD FirePro S9300 X2, however, shows its strength in a different area. While it loses the OpenCL test, its Geekbench Vulkan score of 37,109 is substantially higher than its OpenCL score of 27,971. This 33% improvement in Vulkan suggests the card's dual-GPU configuration and GCN architecture are better optimized for the Vulkan API, which is more commonly used in gaming and real-time rendering workloads. The Intel Arc Pro A30M has no recorded Vulkan benchmark in this data, so the FirePro's Vulkan advantage cannot be directly compared, but the internal delta on the AMD card is telling.

For use cases, the Intel card wins where OpenCL compute is the primary workload, such as general-purpose GPU computing, video encoding, or professional applications that rely on OpenCL acceleration. The AMD card's Vulkan performance, while not directly compared, indicates it may be better suited for rendering tasks that leverage Vulkan's lower overhead and explicit control. The FirePro's 4 GB of HBM memory with a 4096-bit bus and 512.0 GB/s bandwidth also gives it a massive memory bandwidth advantage over the Intel card's 4 GB GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 128.0 GB/s, which could matter for memory-bandwidth-bound workloads even if the compute scores favor Intel.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs is generational and fundamental. The AMD FirePro S9300 X2 uses the Capsaicin chip built on GCN 3.0 architecture, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 8,900 million transistors onto a 596 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 14.9 million per square millimeter. The Intel Arc Pro A30M uses the DG2-128 chip on Xe-HPG architecture, fabricated on a 6 nm process, also at TSMC. It contains 7,200 million transistors on a much smaller 157 mm² die, achieving a density of 45.9 million per square millimeter. The Intel chip is more than three times denser, reflecting six years of process advancement between their respective release dates.

Memory configurations diverge sharply. The AMD card uses 4 GB of HBM with a 4096-bit bus, delivering 512.0 GB/s of bandwidth at an effective 1000 Mbps. The Intel card uses 4 GB of GDDR6 with a 64-bit bus, providing 128.0 GB/s at 16 Gbps effective. The AMD card has four times the memory bandwidth, which is expected given its server positioning and dual-GPU nature, but the Intel card's memory runs at 16 times the effective data rate per pin. The AMD card's memory clock is listed at 500 MHz base with 1000 Mbps effective, while the Intel card runs at 2000 MHz with 16 Gbps effective.

Compute resources differ by a factor of four in shading units, with AMD at 4,096 versus Intel's 1,024, and AMD has 256 TMUs against Intel's 64, and 64 ROPs against Intel's 32. The AMD card's pixel rate is 62.40 GPixel/s and texture rate is 249.6 GTexel/s, while the Intel card achieves 64.00 GPixel/s and 128.0 GTexel/s. Despite having half the ROPs, the Intel card has a slightly higher pixel rate, and despite a quarter of the TMUs, it maintains over half the texture rate. FP32 compute shows AMD at 7.987 TFLOPS versus Intel's 4.096 TFLOPS, but the Intel card additionally supports FP16 at 8.192 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, a feature the AMD card lacks entirely. The Intel card also includes 8 ray tracing cores, a hardware feature absent from the AMD GCN 3.0 design.

Process node differences are stark: 28 nm versus 6 nm. The Intel card's 6 nm process allows for dramatically higher transistor density and lower power consumption. The AMD card has a 300 W TDP and requires two 8-pin power connectors plus a 700 W suggested power supply, while the Intel card draws just 50 W and needs no external power connectors. The AMD card is a dual-slot design measuring 267 mm in length and 111 mm in height, with no display outputs, indicating its server-only role. The Intel card has no listed dimensions or slot width, uses portable device dependent outputs, and connects via PCIe 4.0 x8 versus the AMD card's PCIe 3.0 x16.

API support also differs meaningfully. The AMD card supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The Intel card supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The DirectX 12 Ultimate designation and Vulkan 1.4 support on the Intel card indicate a more modern feature set, including hardware ray tracing and mesh shaders, which the AMD card cannot provide due to its older architecture.

The Verdict

From the data alone, the Intel Arc Pro A30M is the superior choice for OpenCL-based workloads, outperforming the AMD FirePro S9300 X2 by 12.3% in the only direct benchmark comparison. The Intel card achieves this with a 50 W TDP, no external power connectors, and a 6 nm process, making it dramatically more efficient. It also offers modern features like ray tracing cores, FP16 support, DirectX 12 Ultimate, and Vulkan 1.4, all absent from the AMD card.

The AMD FirePro S9300 X2 remains relevant only for specific scenarios. Its Vulkan score of 37,109 is 33% higher than its own OpenCL score, suggesting it excels in Vulkan-based workloads, though no direct Vulkan comparison against the Intel card exists in this data. Its 512.0 GB/s memory bandwidth is four times the Intel card's 128.0 GB/s, which could provide an advantage in memory-bandwidth-bound tasks. The AMD card also has a higher FP32 compute rating at 7.987 TFLOPS versus 4.096 TFLOPS, and a higher average benchmark score of 32,540 versus 31,894, though this average includes the Vulkan result that has no Intel counterpart.

For most users, the Intel Arc Pro A30M is the pragmatic pick based on the head-to-head result. It wins the only comparable test, uses a fraction of the power, and supports newer APIs and features. The AMD FirePro S9300 X2, being end-of-life with a 5,999 USD launch MSRP, is a niche product for legacy server installations or workloads that specifically require its HBM bandwidth or Vulkan performance. The data does not support choosing AMD for general compute, given its 12.3% deficit in OpenCL. However, the lack of Vulkan benchmark data for the Intel card means the AMD card's Vulkan advantage remains unverified against this specific rival.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the only head-to-head benchmark?

A: The Intel Arc Pro A30M wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 31,894 against the AMD FirePro S9300 X2's 27,971, a 12.3% margin in Intel's favor.

Q: What is the AMD FirePro S9300 X2's Vulkan score, and how does it compare to its OpenCL score?

A: The AMD card scores 37,109 in Geekbench Vulkan, which is 33% higher than its OpenCL score of 27,971. No Vulkan score is available for the Intel Arc Pro A30M in the data.

Q: How do the two cards compare in terms of memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD FirePro S9300 X2 has 512.0 GB/s of bandwidth from 4 GB HBM on a 4096-bit bus, while the Intel Arc Pro A30M has 128.0 GB/s from 4 GB GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, giving AMD a 4:1 advantage.

Q: What are the TDP requirements for each card?

A: The AMD FirePro S9300 X2 has a 300 W TDP, requires two 8-pin power connectors and a 700 W suggested power supply, while the Intel Arc Pro A30M has a 50 W TDP and requires no external power connectors.

Q: Does the Intel Arc Pro A30M support ray tracing?

A: Yes, the Intel card includes 8 ray tracing cores and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while the AMD card has no ray tracing cores and supports only DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.2.170.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each card, and how do they rank?

A: The AMD FirePro S9300 X2 has an average score of 32,540, placing it in the 77th percentile, while the Intel Arc Pro A30M has an average score of 31,894, placing it in the 76th percentile.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD FirePro S9300 X2 | Intel Arc Pro A30M |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | GCN 3.0 | Xe-HPG |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 6 nm |

| Transistors | 8,900 million | 7,200 million |

| Die Size | 596 mm² | 157 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 14.9M / mm² | 45.9M / mm² |

| Base Clock | None | 1500 MHz |

| Boost Clock | None | 2000 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 500 MHz / 1000 Mbps effective | 2000 MHz / 16 Gbps effective |

| Memory Type | HBM | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus Width | 4096 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 512.0 GB/s | 128.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 4096 | 1024 |

| TMUs | 256 | 64 |

| ROPs | 64 | 32 |

| Ray Tracing Cores | None | 8 |

| Pixel Rate | 62.40 GPixel/s | 64.00 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 249.6 GTexel/s | 128.0 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 7.987 TFLOPS | 4.096 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | None | 8.192 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 300 W | 50 W |

| Power Connectors | 2x 8-pin | None |

| Suggested PSU | 700 W | None |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |

| Display Outputs | No outputs | Portable Device Dependent |

| DirectX Support | 12 (12_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.2.170 | 1.4 |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | None |

| Dimensions | 267 mm x 111 mm | None |

| Release Date | 2016-03-30 | 2022-08-07 |

| Launch MSRP | 5,999 USD | None |