AMD FirePro S9300 X2 vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data paints a clear picture for these two very different cards. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 wins both recorded head-to-head tests, taking a commanding lead in Geekbench OpenCL and a substantial margin in Geekbench Vulkan. The AMD FirePro S9300 X2, despite being a dual-GPU server card from an earlier era, does not win a single recorded comparison. This is not a close contest in the aggregate.

The use-case split is stark. The RTX 3090 is a general-purpose compute monster, with its OpenCL score of 172,758 dwarfing the FirePro's 27,971. That is a 517% advantage, indicating a massive gap in raw compute throughput for workloads that leverage OpenCL. For Vulkan, the RTX 3090 also leads with 53,927 against 37,109, a 45% advantage. The FirePro, with its 4 GB of HBM memory and GCN 3.0 architecture, appears oriented toward older, compute-heavy server tasks where its dual-GPU design could be utilized. However, the recorded data shows it is outclassed in both API tests.

The percentile rankings confirm this hierarchy. The RTX 3090 sits at the 73rd percentile of all GPUs, while the FirePro S9300 X2 sits at the 77th. This is an interesting anomaly: the FirePro has a higher percentile but a lower average benchmark score (32,540 vs 27,565). This is explained by the nearest rivals. The FirePro's rivals are cards like the AMD Radeon RX 7900 GRE (avg score 32,456) and AMD FirePro S10000 (32,388), which are close to its own average. The RTX 3090's rivals are lower-scoring cards like the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Mobile (27,435) and AMD Radeon RX 6700 XT (27,425), pulling its average down. The FirePro, despite being older, competes in a higher average score bracket in its immediate neighborhood. The RTX 3090 still wins the head-to-head decisively, but the percentile ranking does not fully reflect the per-test dominance.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap is a generation or more apart. The AMD FirePro S9300 X2 uses the "Capsaicin" chip, built on GCN 3.0 architecture at a 28 nm process from TSMC. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 uses the GA102 chip, built on the Ampere architecture at Samsung's 8 nm node. This is a fundamental difference in design philosophy: GCN was AMD's compute-focused architecture, while Ampere is NVIDIA's hybrid gaming and compute design.

The transistor counts tell a story of scale. The RTX 3090 packs 28,300 million transistors on a 628 mm² die, with a density of 45.1 million per mm². The FirePro has 8,900 million transistors on a 596 mm² die, a density of 14.9 million per mm². The RTX 3090 has over three times the transistor count and triple the density, explaining its massive performance lead. The FirePro's die is nearly as large (596 mm²) but uses a much older process, so it fits fewer transistors.

Core counts differ massively. The RTX 3090 has 10,496 shading units, 328 TMUs, 112 ROPs, 82 RT cores, and 328 Tensor cores. The FirePro has 4,096 shading units, 256 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, with no RT or Tensor cores. The RTX 3090 also has dedicated ray tracing and AI acceleration hardware, which the FirePro lacks entirely. The memory subsystem is also radically different: the FirePro uses 4 GB of HBM on a 4096-bit bus for 512.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the RTX 3090 uses 24 GB of GDDR6X on a 384-bit bus for 936.2 GB/s. The FirePro's HBM has a massive bus width but half the bandwidth.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two recorded head-to-head tests show a one-sided contest. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RTX 3090 scores 172,758 versus the FirePro's 27,971. That is a delta of -83.8% from the FirePro's perspective, meaning the RTX is 517% faster. This is the most significant single metric in the comparison, and it reflects the RTX 3090's superiority in raw compute throughput. The FirePro's 7.987 TFLOPS FP32 rate is simply dwarfed by the RTX 3090's 35.58 TFLOPS.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the margin narrows but remains decisive. The RTX 3090 scores 53,927 against the FirePro's 37,109, a 31.2% delta. This shows that the FirePro's older GCN architecture is more competitive in Vulkan than in OpenCL, but it is still clearly behind. The RTX 3090 also has more modern API support: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) versus the FirePro's DirectX 12 (12_0), and Vulkan 1.4 versus 1.2.170. The FirePro has no display outputs, making it a dedicated compute card, while the RTX 3090 has HDMI and DisplayPort outputs for display duties.

The RTX 3090 also has a higher pixel rate (189.8 GPixel/s vs 62.40) and texture rate (556.0 GTexel/s vs 249.6), showing its dominance in rasterization and texturing. The FirePro's only potential advantage is its dual-GPU design, but the benchmarks show that does not help in these two tests.

FAQ

Q: Which card has more memory?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 has 24 GB of GDDR6X, while the AMD FirePro S9300 X2 has 4 GB of HBM.

Q: Does the FirePro S9300 X2 support ray tracing?

A: No, it has no RT cores. The RTX 3090 has 82 RT cores and Tensor cores for AI work.

Q: How do the cards compare in OpenCL performance?

A: The RTX 3090 scores 172,758 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 83.8% higher than the FirePro's 27,791.

Q: What about Vulkkan performance?

A: The RTX 3090 also wins, scoring 53,391 versus the FirePro's 37,109, a 31.2% advantage.

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD FirePro S9300 X2 has an average score of 32,540, while the RTX 3090 averages 27,565. However, this average includes many benchmark types, and the RTX 3090 wins the head-to-head tests.

Q: What is the process node difference?

A: The RTX 3090 uses Samsung's 8 nm process, while the FirePro uses TSMC's 28 nm process.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD FirePro S9300 X2 | NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 |

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

| Process Node | 28 nm | 8 nm |

| Transistors | 8,900 million | 28,300 million |

| Shading Units | 4,096 | 10,496 |

| TMUs | 256 | 328 |

| ROPs | 64 | 112 |

| RT Cores | None | 82 |

| Tensor Cores | None | 328 |

| Memory | 4 GB HBM | 24 GB GDDR6X |

| Memory Bus | 4096 bit | 384 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 512.0 GB/s | 936.2 GB/s |

| FP32 Performance | 7.987 TFLOPS | 35.58 TFLOPS |

| TDP | 300 W | 350 W |

| Power Connectors | 2x 8-pin | 1x 12-pin |

| PCIe Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | None | 1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DP 1.4a |

| Release Date | 2016-03-30 | 2020-08-31 |

The RTX 3090 is newer, smaller node, more cores, more memory, and higher bandwidth. The FirePro has a wider memory bus but lower bandwidth. The RTX 3090 also has a much higher launch MSRP of 5,999 USD, versus 1,499 USD, though pricing is not the focus here.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 wins every head-to-head benchmark by a wide margin. The AMD FirePro S9300 X2 is an older, server-oriented card with no display outputs, and its architectural heritage shows. For any modern compute workload, the RTX 3090 is the clear choice based on its OpenCL and Vulkan scores. The FirePro's higher average benchmark score is a statistical artifact of its nearest rivals, not a sign of real performance parity.

The RTX 3090 is for users who need maximum compute throughput, high memory capacity, and modern features like ray tracing and DLSS. The FirePro S9300 X2 is a relic from 2016, with a dual-GPU design that does not deliver in the measured tests. It might be suitable for specific legacy compute tasks, but the recorded data shows it is outclassed. The RTX 3090 should be the pick for anyone comparing these two, unless a specific workload relies on the FirePro's unique features, which the benchmarks do not capture. The RTX 3090's 45.1 million transistors per mm², 35.58 TFLOPS, and 936.2 GB/s bandwidth are simply too much for the FirePro to overcome.