AMD FirePro S9300 X2 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti Comparison

The AMD FirePro S9300 X2 and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti are both end-of-life products from the 28 nm TSMC era, but they were engineered for entirely different purposes. The data in the database shows a clear split between raw compute throughput and practical graphics performance. This analysis compares their recorded benchmark results, architectural choices, and the specific workloads where each card retains an advantage.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains two direct head-to-head comparisons, both of which were won decisively by the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the GTX 980 Ti scored 43513 against the FirePro S9300 X2's 27971. This represents a 35.7% deficit for the AMD card, a substantial margin that indicates the NVIDIA architecture handles the OpenCL workload far more efficiently despite having fewer shading units.

The Vulkan results tell a similar story, though with a smaller gap. The GTX 980 Ti posted a score of 47724, while the FirePro S9300 X2 managed 37109. The 22.2% difference in Vulkan performance is still significant, but it shows that the AMD card is relatively stronger in this API than in OpenCL. The overall head-to-head record stands at 0 wins for the AMD FirePro S9300 X2 and 2 wins for the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti.

These results are notable because the FirePro card carries a much higher theoretical FP32 throughput. The AMD part is rated at 7.987 TFLOPS, while the GTX 980 Ti delivers 6.060 TFLOPS. The database shows that this raw compute advantage does not translate into benchmark victories, suggesting that driver maturity, memory subsystem behavior, and task scheduling play a larger role in real-world API performance than peak arithmetic rate alone.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural lineages. The AMD FirePro S9300 X2 uses the Capsaicin chip based on GCN 3.0, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti uses the GM200 chip based on Maxwell 2.0. Both are fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process, and both have similar transistor counts: 8,900 million for the AMD chip and 8,000 million for the NVIDIA chip. The die sizes are also close, with the Capsaicin measuring 596 mm² and the GM200 measuring 601 mm². The transistor density is slightly higher on the AMD side at 14.9M per mm² versus 13.3M per mm² for NVIDIA.

The most striking difference is in the execution resources. The FirePro S9300 X2 packs 4096 shading units, 256 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs. The GTX 980 Ti has 2816 shading units, 176 TMUs, and 96 ROPs. The AMD card has 45% more shaders and 45% more TMUs, but the NVIDIA card has 50% more ROPs. This explains the pixel rate difference: the GTX 980 Ti achieves 103.3 GPixel/s, while the FirePro S9300 X2 manages 62.40 GPixel/s. In texture rate, the AMD card leads with 249.6 GTexel/s versus 189.4 GTexel/s for the NVIDIA.

Memory architecture is where the two diverge most sharply. The FirePro S9300 X2 uses 4 GB of HBM on a 4096-bit bus, producing a bandwidth of 512.0 GB/s. The GTX 980 Ti uses 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, yielding 336.6 GB/s. The AMD card has 52% more memory bandwidth, which should benefit large data sets, but it carries half the capacity of the NVIDIA card. The memory clock for the AMD part is listed as 500 MHz (1000 Mbps effective), while the NVIDIA memory runs at 1753 MHz (7 Gbps effective). The HBM stack is much wider, which is why it achieves higher bandwidth despite lower clock speeds.

The clock speeds also differ. The GTX 980 Ti has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 1076 MHz. The FirePro S9300 X2 has no recorded base or boost clock in the database. This missing data makes direct frequency comparison impossible, but the benchmark results suggest the NVIDIA card sustains effective performance better under API workloads.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti wins in both recorded benchmark categories. Its OpenCL score of 43513 is particularly strong, placing it 35.7% ahead of the FirePro S9300 X2. The Vulkan score of 47724 is also higher by 22.2%. For any user running OpenCL compute tasks or Vulkan graphics, the GTX 980 Ti is the clear choice based on the data.

The AMD FirePro S9300 X2 does not win any recorded benchmark, but it has theoretical advantages that the database shows in its specifications. The 512.0 GB/s memory bandwidth is 52% higher than the NVIDIA card's 336.6 GB/s. This could benefit workloads that are highly bandwidth-sensitive, such as large matrix operations or data streaming. The FP32 compute rate of 7.987 TFLOPS is 31.8% higher than the 6.060 TFLOPS of the GTX 980 Ti, which suggests that compute-heavy tasks not represented in the two recorded benchmarks might favor the AMD card.

The FirePro S9300 X2 also has a higher average benchmark score in the overall database, at 32540 versus 28020 for the GTX 980 Ti. This is counterintuitive given the head-to-head results, but it reflects the full benchmark set rather than just the two shared tests. The AMD card sits at the 77th percentile among all GPUs, while the GTX 980 Ti sits at the 73rd percentile. The FirePro's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 590 GME with an average score of 32601 (0.2% higher), the AMD Radeon RX 7900 GRE at 32456 (0.3% lower), and the AMD FirePro S10000 at 32388 (0.5% lower). The GTX 980 Ti's nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon Pro W5500X at 27973 (0.2% lower), the AMD FirePro S7150 at 28117 (0.3% higher), and the AMD Radeon RX 7800M at 27883 (0.5% lower).

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every specification category. The FirePro S9300 X2 has 4096 shading units, 256 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, while the GTX 980 Ti has 2816 shading units, 176 TMUs, and 96 ROPs. The AMD card has 4 GB of HBM memory, while the NVIDIA card has 6 GB of GDDR5. The memory bus widths are 4096 bits and 384 bits, respectively. Bandwidth favors the AMD card at 512.0 GB/s versus 336.6 GB/s for NVIDIA.

The GTX 980 Ti has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 1076 MHz, while the FirePro S9300 X2 has no base or boost clock listed. The TDP differs, with the AMD card rated at 300 W and the NVIDIA card at 250 W. The power connectors reflect this: the FirePro requires 2x 8-pin, while the GTX 980 Ti uses 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin. The suggested PSU is 700 W for the AMD card and 600 W for the NVIDIA card.

Display outputs are a major differentiator. The FirePro S9300 X2 has no outputs, making it a pure compute card. The GTX 980 Ti has 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 3x DisplayPort 1.2. The NVIDIA card also has a full set of display connectivity for multi-monitor setups. The dimensions are identical in length and height at 267 mm (10.5 inches) and 111 mm (4.4 inches), but the GTX 980 Ti has a recorded width of 40 mm (1.6 inches) while the FirePro's width is not listed. Both are dual-slot cards.

The API support shows a small difference. The FirePro S9300 X2 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The GTX 980 Ti supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA card has a higher DirectX feature level and a newer Vulkan version. The launch MSRP for the FirePro S9300 X2 was 5,999 USD, while the GTX 980 Ti launched at 649 USD, but pricing is not a factor in performance analysis. The release dates are close, with the GTX 980 Ti coming out on June 1, 2015, and the FirePro S9300 X2 on March 30, 2016.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear split. For OpenCL and Vulkan workloads, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti is the superior card, winning both head-to-head tests by 35.7% and 22.2%, respectively. Its higher pixel rate of 103.3 GPixel/s and its 96 ROPs make it better suited for rasterization and graphics output. The presence of display outputs also makes it usable as a conventional graphics card, which the FirePro S9300 X2 cannot do.

The AMD FirePro S9300 X2 should be selected only for workloads that specifically benefit from its 512.0 GB/s memory bandwidth and 7.987 TFLOPS of FP32 compute. The database does not show any benchmark where this advantage converts into a win, but the theoretical headroom is there for compute tasks that are not represented in the head-to-head tests. Its higher average benchmark score of 32540 and 77th percentile ranking suggest that across a broader benchmark suite, it holds its own despite losing the two direct comparisons.

Users who need a card for general compute, graphics, or API-based workloads should choose the GTX 980 Ti based on the recorded wins. Users who require maximum memory bandwidth for data-intensive compute and do not need display output may consider the FirePro S9300 X2, but they should be aware that the database shows no benchmark victory for it. The GTX 980 Ti is the measured winner in every direct comparison available.