AMD FirePro W4300 vs AMD FirePro W5100 Comparison

AMD FirePro W5100 and AMD FirePro W4300 are two professional workstation cards that share more than they differ. Both are built on the same Bonaire chip, use the GCN 2.0 architecture, and are produced on TSMC's 28 nm process. The database records show that they are nearly identical in raw compute specifications, yet their benchmark results and physical designs tell a slightly different story. This analysis focuses strictly on the recorded measurements and specification differences between the two.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available in the database for these two cards is the Geekbench OpenCL test. In this test, the AMD FirePro W5100 scores 11,888 points, while the AMD FirePro W4300 scores 11,225 points. The W5100 wins this head-to-head matchup with a delta of 5.9 percent.

That 5.9 percent advantage translates into a meaningful, though not overwhelming, performance gap. The W5100's average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 12,847, which places it at the 52nd percentile of all GPUs in the database. The W4300, by contrast, has an average benchmark score of 11,225 and sits at the 50th percentile. The difference in percentile ranking is small, but the raw score gap of 1,622 points is notable for two cards with otherwise identical compute specifications.

Looking at the nearest rivals helps contextualize these numbers. The W5100's average score of 12,847 puts it just 0.1 percent ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro 455 and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 590, both of which score around 12,830. It also trails the AMD Radeon 740M by 0.2 percent, which scores 12,870. The W4300, meanwhile, is essentially tied with the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200, which scores 11,228, a delta of 0 percent. It is 0.3 percent behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M and 1.2 percent ahead of the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q and the RTX PRO 6000D Blackwell Max-Q, both scoring 11,088.

The database also records a Geekbench Vulkan score for the W5100 of 13,805. No comparable Vulkan score exists for the W4300, so the OpenCL test remains the primary direct comparison point. The data clearly shows the W5100 as the faster card in compute workloads, despite the two cards sharing the same core configuration.

The Verdict

For compute performance, the choice is straightforward: the AMD FirePro W5100 is the superior card. The 5.9 percent lead in OpenCL benchmarking, combined with the higher average score of 12,847 versus 11,225, makes it the stronger option for any workload that relies on general-purpose GPU compute. The W5100 also holds a higher percentile rank at 52 versus 50, indicating it outperforms a slightly larger share of the GPU market.

The W4300 is not without its merits, but those merits are not found in raw performance. Both cards are end-of-life products, and the W4300 was released later, in November 2015, compared to the W5100's March 2014 release. The W4300 also has a more compact physical footprint, measuring 171 mm in length and 69 mm in height, versus the W5100's 173 mm length and 111 mm height. The W4300 uses mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, while the W5100 uses full-size DisplayPort 1.2 outputs.

If the task is purely about maximizing compute throughput from the data available, the W5100 wins. If the task involves fitting a card into a tighter space or preferring mini-DisplayPort outputs, the W4300 offers those specific advantages. For most workstation scenarios, the performance delta favors the W5100.

Architecture Differences

Despite being released roughly 20 months apart, the W5100 and W4300 share the exact same underlying architecture. Both use the Bonaire chip, which is built on GCN 2.0. The process node is identical at 28 nm, and both are fabricated by TSMC. The transistor count is the same at 2,080 million, and the die size is identical at 160 mm². The transistor density works out to 13.0M per mm² for both cards.

The compute configuration is also identical. Each card has 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 16 raster operations pipelines. The pixel rate is 14.88 GPixel/s for both, and the texture rate is 44.64 GTexel/s. The FP32 performance is exactly the same at 1,428.5 GFLOPS. Neither card supports FP16 operations according to the database.

The memory subsystem is a mirror image as well. Both cards feature 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, with a bandwidth of 96.00 GB/s. The memory clock is listed at 1500 MHz, which translates to 6 Gbps effective. The API support is identical too: DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170.

The only architectural-level difference that appears in the data is the generation classification. The W5100 is listed under the FirePro GCN (Wx100) generation, while the W4300 is under FirePro GCN (Wx300). This is a product family distinction rather than a hardware change, since the chip, process, and all compute metrics are identical.

Specification Differences

Since the core specifications are identical, the differences between these two cards are limited to physical and output characteristics. The W5100 measures 173 mm in length and 111 mm in height, while the W4300 is slightly shorter at 171 mm and significantly lower profile at 69 mm height. Both are single-slot cards.

The display outputs differ in connector type. The W5100 provides 4x DisplayPort 1.2 connectors, while the W4300 provides 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 connectors. This is a practical consideration for cabling and adapter needs in a workstation setup.

The power requirements are identical. Both cards have a TDP of 50 W, require no external power connectors, and suggest a 250 W power supply. The bus interface is PCIe 3.0 x16 for both.

The release dates differ, with the W5100 launching on March 30, 2014, and the W4300 on November 30, 2015. The production status for both is end-of-life. The successor lineage also differs: the W5100 lists Radeon Pro Polaris as its successor, while the W4300 lists Radeon Pro GCN. Both share the same predecessor, FirePro Terascale.

Neither card has a recorded launch MSRP in the database, so no pricing information is available for comparison.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in OpenCL compute workloads?

A: The AMD FirePro W5100 scores 11,888 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 5.9 percent higher than the W4300's score of 11,225.

Q: Do these cards use the same GPU chip?

A: Yes, both use the Bonaire chip with GCN 2.0 architecture, fabricated on TSMC's 28 nm process with 2,080 million transistors.

Q: What is the memory configuration on both cards?

A: Both cards have 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth and a memory clock of 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective).

Q: Are the power requirements different between the two cards?

A: No, both have a 50 W TDP, require no external power connectors, and suggest a 250 W power supply.

Q: What are the physical size differences?

A: The W5100 is 173 mm long and 111 mm high, while the W4300 is 171 mm long and 69 mm high. Both are single-slot cards.

Q: How do these cards compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The W5100's average score of 12,847 is 0.1 percent ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro 455 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 590, and 0.2 percent behind the AMD Radeon 740M. The W4300's average score of 11,225 is tied with the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 and 1.2 percent ahead of both NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q variants.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD FirePro W5100 wins in compute performance. The 5.9 percent OpenCL lead over the W4300 is the deciding factor for any workload that stresses general-purpose GPU compute. The W5100 also has a higher average benchmark score of 12,847 versus 11,225, and a higher percentile rank of 52 versus 50. The additional Vulkan score of 13,805 for the W5100, which the W4300 lacks entirely, suggests broader API support in the recorded data.

The AMD FirePro W4300 wins in physical adaptability. Its shorter length of 171 mm and much lower height of 69 mm make it easier to fit into compact workstation chassis. The mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs may also be preferable in dense multi-card setups where cable management is a concern. The later release date of November 2015 compared to March 2014 could indicate a longer availability window for the W4300 in the used market, though both are end-of-life products.

For a builder prioritizing raw compute, the W5100 is the clear pick from the data. For a builder with space constraints or a preference for mini-DisplayPort connectivity, the W4300 offers those specific advantages without sacrificing any compute specifications, since the core architecture is identical. The performance difference is modest at 5.9 percent, so the physical form factor may be the more important deciding factor in real-world builds.