AMD FirePro S9300 X2 vs NVIDIA A2 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a split decision. In Geekbench OpenCL, the NVIDIA A2 scores 35,357 against the AMD FirePro S9300 X2's 27,971, a 26.4% advantage. This is not a marginal gap; it is a decisive lead for the Ampere-based card in compute workloads that leverage OpenCL's general-purpose execution paths. The A2's nearest rival in aggregate scoring, the NVIDIA T1000 8 GB, sits at 34,561, just 0.4% behind the A2's average of 34,690—meaning the A2's OpenCL win over the FirePro is far larger than its typical competitive margin.

The Vulkan result flips the script. The FirePro S9300 X2 posts 37,109, while the A2 manages 34,023. That is an 8.3% deficit for the NVIDIA card. Interestingly, the FirePro's Vulkan score is its stronger benchmark, and it outpaces its own aggregate average of 32,540 by a substantial margin. The A2's Vulkan score of 34,023 falls short of its OpenCL figure, suggesting the architecture favors OpenCL execution. In aggregate, the A2's average benchmark score of 34,690 beats the FirePro's 32,540, a difference of roughly 6.6%. Both cards win one benchmark each, so the head-to-head is a tie on raw wins, but the magnitude of the A2's OpenCL victory (26.4%) dwarfs the FirePro's Vulkan edge (8.3%).

Looking at the nearest-rival context, the A2 sits at the 79th percentile among all GPUs, while the FirePro is at the 77th. The A2's closest rivals—the NVIDIA T1000 8 GB and AMD Radeon HD 7970—are within 0.4% of its average score, indicating the A2's performance class is tightly contested. The FirePro's nearest rival, the AMD Radeon RX 590 GME, is only 0.2% ahead, while the RX 7900 GRE trails by 0.3%. This suggests the FirePro's aggregate performance is competitive with much newer hardware, despite its age. The deltaPct values in both cases are small, but the head-to-head deltas between the two cards are the real story: a 26.4% OpenCL gap in favor of the A2 and an 8.3% Vulkan gap in favor of the FirePro.

Architecture Differences

The two cards represent radically different design philosophies and eras. The NVIDIA A2 uses the GA107 chip on an 8 nm Samsung process, while the AMD FirePro S9300 X2 relies on the Capsaicin chip built on TSMC's 28 nm node. Transistor counts are similar—8,700 million for the A2 versus 8,900 million for the FirePro—but the die sizes diverge sharply: 200 mm² for the A2 versus 596 mm² for the FirePro. This yields a transistor density of 43.5 million per mm² for the NVIDIA part, compared to just 14.9 million per mm² for the AMD. The FirePro's larger, older-process die packs more transistors into a much bigger area, while the A2's modern process allows for extraordinary density.

The FirePro's GCN 3.0 architecture is fundamentally different from the A2's Ampere. The FirePro has 4,096 shading units, 256 texture mapping units, and 64 render output units. The A2 has 1,280 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. Despite having roughly a third of the shading units, the A2 achieves 4.531 TFLOPS FP32, while the FirePro posts 7.987 TFLOPS—the AMD card is 76% higher in raw FP32 throughput. However, the A2 adds dedicated hardware the FirePro lacks entirely: 10 ray tracing cores and 40 tensor cores. The FirePro has no RT cores and no tensor cores, making it incapable of hardware-accelerated ray tracing or tensor-based AI workloads. The A2 also supports FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32 (4.531 TFLOPS), while the FirePro has no listed FP16 capability.

Memory configurations could not be more different. The A2 uses 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 200.1 GB/s of bandwidth. The FirePro uses 4 GB of HBM on a 4096-bit bus, delivering 512.0 GB/s. The FirePro's bandwidth advantage is 2.56x, a direct consequence of its massive bus width. The A2's memory clock is listed at 1563 MHz with 12.5 Gbps effective, while the FirePro's memory runs at 500 MHz with 1000 Mbps effective. The FirePro's HBM trades capacity for bandwidth, while the A2 prioritizes capacity for its intended workloads.

The A2's power profile is dramatically leaner: 60 W TDP versus 300 W for the FirePro. The A2 requires no power connectors and a suggested 250 W PSU, while the FirePro needs two 8-pin connectors and a 700 W PSU. The A2 is single-slot, the FirePro dual-slot. The A2 uses PCIe 4.0 x8, the FirePro PCIe 3.0 x16. Both have no display outputs, reinforcing their server/compute positioning. The A2 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4; the FirePro supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.2.170. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA A2 wins in OpenCL compute. Its 26.4% lead over the FirePro in that benchmark is substantial, and its average score of 34,690 places it above the FirePro's 32,540. The A2's tensor cores make it the clear choice for AI inference and machine learning workloads, a capability the FirePro cannot offer at all. The A2's 16 GB memory capacity is double the FirePro's 4 GB, which matters for large datasets that must reside on-card. The A2's 60 W TDP and single-slot design also make it far easier to deploy in dense server environments where power and space are constrained. The A2's modern process node and higher transistor density suggest better energy efficiency per unit of compute, though the benchmark data does not directly measure that.

The AMD FirePro S9300 X2 wins in Vulkan performance, posting 37,109 versus the A2's 34,023. Its raw FP32 throughput of 7.987 TFLOPS is 76% higher than the A2's 4.531 TFLOPS, which matters for compute workloads that scale with raw shading power rather than specialized cores. The FirePro's 512.0 GB/s memory bandwidth is 2.56x the A2's, a decisive advantage for memory-bound kernels that stream large amounts of data. The FirePro's 4,096 shading units and 256 TMUs give it massive parallel throughput for traditional rasterization-style compute. The FirePro's texture rate of 249.6 GTexel/s dwarfs the A2's 70.80 GTexel/s, and its pixel rate of 62.40 GPixel/s edges out the A2's 56.64 GPixel/s.

The use-case split is clear. For OpenCL-based general compute, AI inference (thanks to tensor cores), ray tracing (thanks to RT cores), and workloads needing large memory capacity, the A2 is superior. For Vulkan-based rendering, raw FP32 compute, and memory-bandwidth-intensive tasks, the FirePro holds the advantage. The FirePro's higher TDP and dual-slot form factor suggest it was designed for compute servers where power is not a constraint, while the A2's 60 W profile fits edge or power-sensitive deployments. The A2's 79th percentile ranking versus the FirePro's 77th indicates the NVIDIA card sits slightly higher in the overall GPU performance distribution, but the FirePro's Vulkan win shows it is not obsolete.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA A2 averages 34,690 across its benchmarks, while the AMD FirePro S9300 X2 averages 32,540. The A2 leads by roughly 6.6% in aggregate.

Q: How large is the OpenCL performance gap?

A: The NVIDIA A2 scores 35,357 in Geekbench OpenCL versus the FirePro's 27,971, a 26.4% advantage for the A2.

Q: Does the FirePro win any benchmark?

A: Yes. The FirePro S9300 X2 scores 37,109 in Geekbench Vulkan, beating the A2's 34,023 by 8.3%.

Q: What memory advantages does each card have?

A: The A2 has 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 200.1 GB/s bandwidth. The FirePro has 4 GB of HBM on a 4096-bit bus with 512.0 GB/s bandwidth, giving it 2.56x the bandwidth but a quarter of the capacity.

Q: Do either cards support ray tracing or tensor operations?

A: Only the NVIDIA A2. It has 10 RT cores and 40 tensor cores. The AMD FirePro S9300 X2 has neither RT cores nor tensor cores.

Q: What are the power requirements?

A: The A2 has a 60 W TDP, requires no power connectors, and needs a 250 W suggested PSU. The FirePro has a 300 W TDP, requires two 8-pin connectors, and needs a 700 W suggested PSU.

Specification Differences

| Field | NVIDIA A2 | AMD FirePro S9300 X2 |

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

| Process Node | 8 nm | 28 nm |

| Foundry | Samsung | TSMC |

| Die Size | 200 mm² | 596 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 43.5M / mm² | 14.9M / mm² |

| Memory Size | 16 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | HBM |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 4096 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 200.1 GB/s | 512.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1280 | 4096 |

| TMUs | 40 | 256 |

| ROPs | 32 | 64 |

| RT Cores | 10 | None |

| Tensor Cores | 40 | None |

| FP32 | 4.531 TFLOPS | 7.987 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 4.531 TFLOPS (1:1) | None |

| Pixel Rate | 56.64 GPixel/s | 62.40 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 70.80 GTexel/s | 249.6 GTexel/s |

| TDP | 60 W | 300 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | Dual-slot |

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

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | 700 W |

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

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

| Vulkan Support | 1.4 | 1.2.170 |

| Release Date | 2021-11-09 | 2016-03-30 |

| Launch MSRP | None | 5,999 USD |

| Dimensions | Not listed | 267 mm (10.5 inches) length, 111 mm (4.4 inches) height |