AMD FirePro W4300 vs AMD FirePro W5000 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL compute performance?

A: The AMD FirePro W4300 leads the AMD FirePro W5000 in the Geekbench OpenCL test, scoring 11225 versus 9803. That is a 14.5% advantage for the W4300.

Q: How does the memory configuration differ between the two cards?

A: The W4300 packs 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 96.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The W5000 offers 2 GB of GDDR5 on a wider 256-bit bus, yielding 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: Do both cards share the same process node?

A: Yes, both are built on TSMC's 28 nm process. The W4300 uses the Bonaire chip with 2,080 million transistors on a 160 mm² die, while the W5000 uses the Pitcairn chip with 2,800 million transistors on a 212 mm² die.

Q: Which card has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The W5000 wins in pixel throughput, with a pixel rate of 26.40 GPixel/s compared to 14.88 GPixel/s on the W4300. The W5000 has 32 ROPs versus 16 on the W4300.

Q: What is the thermal design power of each card?

A: The W4300 has a TDP of 50 W, while the W5000 has a TDP of 75 W. Both are single-slot cards with no power connectors and share a suggested PSU rating of 250 W.

Q: Which card supports more display outputs?

A: The W4300 provides 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs. The W5000 provides 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits cleanly along compute and rendering lines. The W4300 takes the sole recorded OpenCL test, finishing 14.5% ahead of the W5000. That makes it the pick for general-purpose GPU compute workloads, OpenCL acceleration, and any task that leans on raw shading-unit throughput.

The W5000, despite losing the compute test, holds advantages in several architectural metrics that matter for traditional rasterization. It has double the ROP count (32 vs 16) and a much higher pixel rate (26.40 GPixel/s vs 14.88 GPixel/s). The texture rate also favors the W5000 in a different way: 39.60 GTexel/s versus 44.64 GTexel/s on the W4300, so the W4300 actually wins texture throughput. The W5000's memory bandwidth is higher at 102.4 GB/s versus 96.00 GB/s, which can help in bandwidth-sensitive workloads despite the smaller 2 GB frame buffer.

For multi-display professional setups, the W4300 wins on connectivity with four mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs versus the W5000's single DVI and two DisplayPort 1.2 outputs. For raw fill-rate-bound work, the W5000's ROP advantage is the deciding factor.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different generations of AMD's Graphics Core Next design. The W4300 is built on GCN 2.0 with the Bonaire chip, while the W5000 uses GCN 1.0 with the Pitcairn chip. Both are fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process, but the transistor budgets differ substantially: the W4300 packs 2,080 million transistors into a 160 mm² die, while the W5000 packs 2,800 million transistors into a 212 mm² die. Transistor density is nearly identical, at 13.0M per mm² for the W4300 and 13.2M per mm² for the W5000.

The shading core counts are identical. Both cards feature 768 shading units and 48 texture mapping units. The divergence appears at the render output stage: the W4300 has 16 ROPs, the W5000 has 32. This explains the W5000's much higher pixel rate. Meanwhile, the W4300 achieves a higher texture rate (44.64 GTexel/s) because of its higher effective memory clock and architecture-level changes.

The memory subsystem differs in both capacity and bus width. The W4300 runs 4 GB of GDDR5 at 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective), while the W5000 runs 2 GB of GDDR5 at 800 MHz (3.2 Gbps effective). The W5000 compensates with a 256-bit bus versus 128-bit on the W4300, resulting in slightly higher bandwidth: 102.4 GB/s versus 96.00 GB/s.

API support also differs. The W4300 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the W5000 supports DirectX 12 (11_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.170. The W4300's generation is listed as FirePro GCN (Wx300), while the W5000 belongs to FirePro GCN (Wx000). The W5000 predates the W4300 in release timing, and its successor is listed as Radeon Pro Polaris, while the W4300's successor is Radeon Pro GCN.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD FirePro W4300 | AMD FirePro W5000 |

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

| Chip | Bonaire | Pitcairn |

| Architecture | GCN 2.0 | GCN 1.0 |

| Transistors | 2,080 million | 2,800 million |

| Die Size | 160 mm² | 212 mm² |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 2 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Clock | 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective) | 800 MHz (3.2 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Bandwidth | 96.00 GB/s | 102.4 GB/s |

| ROPs | 16 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 14.88 GPixel/s | 26.40 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 44.64 GTexel/s | 39.60 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 1,428.5 GFLOPS | 1,267.2 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 50 W | 75 W |

| Display Outputs | 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort 1.2 |

| Dimensions (LxH) | 171 mm x 69 mm | 183 mm x 111 mm |

| DirectX Support | 12 (12_0) | 12 (11_1) |

| Release Date | 2015-11-30 | 2012-08-06 |

| Launch MSRP | None listed | 599 USD |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only recorded head-to-head benchmark is Geekbench OpenCL. The W4300 scores 11225, the W5000 scores 9803. That gives the W4300 a 14.5% victory. Placed in context, the W4300 sits at the 50th percentile among all GPUs in the database, while the W5000 sits at the 47th percentile.

The W4300's nearest rivals in the database include the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 (11228, 0% delta), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M (11261, -0.3%), and both the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q and RTX PRO 6000D Blackwell Max-Q (11088, 1.2% delta). This shows the W4300 is effectively tied with the WX 3200, within a rounding error of the GTX 780M, and slightly ahead of the Blackwell Max-Q parts by 1.2%.

The W5000's nearest rivals paint a similar picture of tight clustering. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 scores 9780 (0.2% delta), the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M scores 9832 (-0.3%), the NVIDIA Quadro 6000 scores 9846 (-0.4%), and the NVIDIA Tesla M10 scores 9724 (0.8% delta). The W5000's 9803 score places it squarely in the middle of this group, marginally behind the Quadro M2000M and Quadro 6000, marginally ahead of the GTX 1070 and Tesla M10.

The 14.5% delta between the two FirePro cards is far larger than the deltas within each card's rival cluster. That suggests the architectural jump from GCN 1.0 to GCN 2.0, along with the higher memory clock and doubled frame buffer, delivered a real compute uplift that is not explained by shading unit count alone, since both cards have 768 shading units.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split based on workload priorities. For OpenCL compute, the AMD FirePro W4300 is the stronger card. Its 14.5% lead in Geekbench OpenCL, higher FP32 throughput (1,428.5 GFLOPS vs 1,267.2 GFLOPS), higher texture rate, and doubled memory capacity (4 GB vs 2 GB) make it the sensible choice for compute-oriented professional tasks.

The AMD FirePro W5000 holds the edge in pixel throughput. Its 26.40 GPixel/s pixel rate is 77% higher than the W4300's 14.88 GPixel/s, driven by its 32 ROPs versus 16. It also carries slightly higher memory bandwidth at 102.4 GB/s. For rasterization-heavy workloads that are fill-rate bound, the W5000's architecture is better suited. Its wider 256-bit bus and older GCN 1.0 design appear to favor pixel pushing over general compute.

Physical and power characteristics also differentiate the two. The W4300 runs cooler at 50 W TDP versus 75 W, and it is shorter (171 mm vs 183 mm) and much lower in height (69 mm vs 111 mm). The W5000 requires more vertical clearance but offers a DVI output, which may matter for legacy display connectivity. The W4300's four mini-DisplayPort outputs give it a clear advantage for multi-monitor setups.

The W5000's launch MSRP is 599 USD, while the W4300 has no listed launch MSRP. Both are end-of-life products. The W5000 predates the W4300 by over three years, which explains its older GCN 1.0 architecture and lower DirectX feature level (11_1 vs 12_0).

In practical terms, the W4300 is the better all-rounder for modern compute and multi-display workflows. The W5000 remains relevant only for workloads that specifically benefit from its ROP-heavy design and higher bandwidth per clock. Given the W4300's compute win, higher memory capacity, lower power draw, and newer architecture, the database favors the W4300 for most professional scenarios. The W5000 is the specialist choice for fill-rate-limited rendering tasks where its 32 ROPs and 26.40 GPixel/s pixel rate can be fully utilized.