AMD FirePro S9300 X2 vs NVIDIA TITAN RTX Comparison

AMD FirePro S9300 X2 vs NVIDIA TITAN RTX

The data presents a stark generational contrast: the AMD FirePro S9300 X2, a 2016 dual-GPU server card built on GCN 3.0, faces the NVIDIA TITAN RTX, a 2018 consumer/prosumer flagship built on Turing. While both cards occupy the same physical footprint and dual-slot design, the benchmark results show a decisive performance gap, with NVIDIA leading in every shared test. The TITAN RTX achieves an average benchmark score of 31,676, placing it in the 76th percentile of all GPUs, while the FirePro S9300 X2 averages 32,540 and sits in the 77th percentile—a statistical near-tie in aggregate, but one that masks wildly different performance profiles across individual workloads.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The NVIDIA TITAN RTX scores 144,858 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the AMD FirePro S9300 X2 scores 27,971. The TITAN RTX is 80.7% ahead, making this the largest single-test margin in the comparison.

Q: How do the two cards compare in Vulkan performance?

A: In Geekbench Vulkan, the TITAN RTX again dominates with 136,073 points versus the FirePro’s 37,109. The delta is 72.7% in NVIDIA’s favor, indicating a consistent API-level advantage rather than a workload-specific outlier.

Q: What are the memory configurations of each card?

A: The FirePro S9300 X2 has 4 GB of HBM memory on a 4096-bit bus, delivering 512.0 GB/s bandwidth. The TITAN RTX has 24 GB of GDDR6 on a 384-bit bus, providing 672.0 GB/s bandwidth. The NVIDIA card offers six times the capacity and 31% more bandwidth.

Q: Which card has higher raw compute throughput in FP32?

A: The TITAN RTX delivers 16.31 TFLOPS FP32, more than double the FirePro’s 7.987 TFLOPS. The NVIDIA card also offers 32.62 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1 ratio), a capability the AMD card lacks entirely.

Q: Do both cards support the same level of DirectX?

A: No. The TITAN RTX supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the FirePro S9300 X2 is limited to DirectX 12 (12_0). This reflects the newer architecture’s inclusion of hardware ray tracing and mesh shaders.

Q: How do their transistor counts and process nodes differ?

A: The FirePro uses 8,900 million transistors on a 28 nm TSMC process, while the TITAN RTX packs 18,600 million transistors on a 12 nm TSMC node. This translates to a transistor density of 14.9M per mm² for AMD versus 24.7M per mm² for NVIDIA.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA TITAN RTX is the superior performer across all measured benchmarks. It wins both head-to-head tests with deltas of -80.7% and -72.7% against the FirePro, and its raw specifications—16.31 TFLOPS FP32, 672 GB/s bandwidth, and 24 GB VRAM—position it as a far more capable general-purpose compute and graphics card. The FirePro S9300 X2, despite a slightly higher average score (32,540 vs 31,676) due to its two benchmark results being averaged together, cannot compete in any direct comparison.

However, the choice depends on context. For a buyer needing a legacy server accelerator with HBM memory and a 4096-bit bus, the FirePro might have niche appeal, but its 4 GB capacity and lack of display outputs severely limit its utility. The TITAN RTX, with its 24 GB GDDR6, 72 RT cores, and 576 tensor cores, is the clear pick for anyone needing modern features like DirectX 12 Ultimate, ray tracing, and high FP16 throughput. The TITAN RTX’s 76th percentile ranking versus the FirePro’s 77th is misleading; the FirePro’s percentile is buoyed by having only two benchmark entries, both of which it loses decisively. The verdict is simple: pick the TITAN RTX unless your workload specifically requires a FirePro server card with no video output and you can tolerate 4 GB of memory.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two cards share exactly two benchmark tests: Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. In both, the TITAN RTX wins by overwhelming margins. In OpenCL, the TITAN RTX scores 144,858 versus the FirePro’s 27,971, a delta of -80.7% from the FirePro’s perspective. This means the FirePro achieves less than one-fifth of the TITAN RTX’s compute throughput in a standard OpenCL workload. The Vulkan test shows a slightly narrower but still massive gap: TITAN RTX scores 136,073, while the FirePro manages 37,109, a -72.7% difference.

These results are not marginal wins; they are category-level differences. The TITAN RTX’s 16.31 TFLOPS FP32 and 32.62 TFLOPS FP16 give it a theoretical compute ceiling over double the FirePro’s 7.987 TFLOPS, and the benchmarks confirm that real-world API performance scales accordingly. The FirePro’s higher average benchmark score (32,540 vs 31,676) is an artifact of its sparse benchmark set—two tests averaged together—whereas the TITAN RTX has ten tests, including lower-scoring DirectX and 2D tests that drag its average down. When directly compared, the TITAN RTX is never slower.

Specification Differences

The two cards diverge on nearly every measurable specification. Memory is the most obvious: the FirePro has 4 GB HBM with a 4096-bit bus and 512.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the TITAN RTX has 24 GB GDDR6 on a 384-bit bus with 672.0 GB/s bandwidth. The TITAN RTX also has more shading units (4,608 vs 4,096), more TMUs (288 vs 256), and more ROPs (96 vs 64). Clock speeds differ radically: the FirePro lists no base or boost clocks, only a memory clock of 500 MHz (1000 Mbps effective), while the TITAN RTX runs at 1350 MHz base and 1770 MHz boost.

Process node and die size favor the TITAN RTX: 12 nm versus 28 nm, with a 754 mm² die versus 596 mm². The TITAN RTX has a higher transistor density at 24.7M / mm² versus 14.9M / mm². Power draw is similar—280 W for NVIDIA versus 300 W for AMD—but the suggested PSU is lower for the TITAN RTX (600 W vs 700 W). The TITAN RTX has full display outputs (1x HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a, 1x USB Type-C), while the FirePro has none. API support differs: TITAN RTX supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, whereas the FirePro supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.2.170. Both use PCIe 3.0 x16 and dual-slot cooling with 2x 8-pin power connectors.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap is generational. The FirePro S9300 X2 uses the Capsaicin chip built on GCN 3.0, a 28 nm design with 8,900 million transistors on a 596 mm² die. It lacks dedicated RT cores or tensor cores entirely. The TITAN RTX uses the TU102 chip on Turing architecture, a 12 nm design with 18,600 million transistors on a 754 mm² die. Turing introduces 72 RT cores and 576 tensor cores, enabling hardware-accelerated ray tracing and AI workloads. The TITAN RTX also supports FP16 at a 2:1 ratio (32.62 TFLOPS), while the FirePro lists no FP16 capability.

Memory architecture differs fundamentally: the FirePro uses HBM with a 4096-bit interface—an early high-bandwidth design—while the TITAN RTX uses GDDR6 with a narrower 384-bit bus but achieves higher bandwidth (672 vs 512 GB/s) thanks to faster effective memory clocks (14 Gbps vs 1000 Mbps). The FirePro’s GCN 3.0 architecture is a server-focused design with no display outputs, whereas Turing is a consumer architecture with full video output support. The TITAN RTX’s DirectX 12 Ultimate support (12_2) also indicates it can handle features like DirectX Raytracing and Variable Rate Shading, which the FirePro’s 12_0 implementation cannot.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA TITAN RTX wins in every benchmark category where both cards are tested. It is superior in OpenCL and Vulkan compute, with deltas exceeding 70%. Its FP32 throughput is 2.04 times higher, and its FP16 capability is exclusive to NVIDIA. For memory-intensive workloads, the TITAN RTX’s 24 GB capacity and 672 GB/s bandwidth provide a 6x capacity advantage and 31% more bandwidth compared to the FirePro’s 4 GB and 512 GB/s. The TITAN RTX also wins on connectivity, offering four display outputs versus none for the FirePro, making it usable as a workstation GPU.

The AMD FirePro S9300 X2 has no benchmark wins in this comparison. Its only theoretical advantages are its wider 4096-bit memory bus (which does not translate to higher bandwidth) and its lower launch MSRP of 5,999 USD versus the TITAN RTX’s 2,499 USD—though that price differential is not a performance win. In practical terms, the FirePro’s niche would be legacy server installations requiring a dual-GPU board with HBM, but even there, its 4 GB memory per GPU (implied by the single 4 GB listing) is a severe constraint. The data shows no scenario where the FirePro outperforms the TITAN RTX; it is a relic of an older architecture that cannot keep pace with Turing’s compute, memory, and feature set.