AMD FirePro W4300 vs AMD Radeon HD 8950M Comparison

FAQ

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in overall benchmark performance?

A: The AMD Radeon HD 8950M has an average benchmark score of 13376, while the AMD FirePro W4300 records 11225. The HD 8950M leads by 22.7% in the only shared benchmark test.

Q: What is the difference in memory capacity and bandwidth?

A: The Radeon HD 8950M ships with 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 88.00 GB/s. The FirePro W4300 doubles capacity to 4 GB, also GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, with higher bandwidth at 96.00 GB/s.

Q: Which card has the higher pixel and texture fill rates?

A: The Radeon HD 8950M achieves 17.20 GPixel/s and 51.60 GTexel/s. The FirePro W4300 produces 14.88 GPixel/s and 44.64 GTexel/s. The HD 8950M is faster in both metrics.

Q: How do their power requirements differ?

A: The Radeon HD 8950M has a 100 W TDP and uses an MXM Module form factor. The FirePro W4300 consumes only 50 W, fits in a Single-slot design, has no power connectors, and suggests a 250 W PSU.

Q: What is the release date and production status for each?

A: The Radeon HD 8950M was released in May 2013 and is end-of-life. The FirePro W4300 came later, in November 2015, and is also end-of-life.

Q: Do they support the same graphics APIs?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. Neither has a listed fp16 capability.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built on GCN 2.0 architecture, fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process. The Radeon HD 8950M uses the Saturn chip, while the FirePro W4300 uses the Bonaire chip. They share identical transistor counts at 2,080 million, the same die size of 160 mm², and the same transistor density of 13.0M per mm². This means the fundamental silicon resource is equivalent; the differences come from how each product is configured and tuned.

The Radeon HD 8950M belongs to the Solar System generation (HD 8900M series), targeting mobile systems with an MXM Module slot. The FirePro W4300 is part of the FirePro GCN generation (Wx300 series), a workstation-oriented card in a Single-slot form factor. Despite the architectural sameness, their intended roles diverge sharply: one is a mobile gaming/consumer part, the other a professional workstation card.

The memory clock differs notably. The HD 8950M runs its GDDR5 at 1375 MHz, which translates to 5.5 Gbps effective. The FirePro W4300 runs memory at 1500 MHz, or 6 Gbps effective. This higher memory clock on the W4300 gives it a bandwidth advantage: 96.00 GB/s versus 88.00 GB/s. However, the HD 8950M compensates with higher core-derived rates.

Shader resources are identical: 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs on both cards. Neither card has ray tracing cores or tensor cores. The core clocks are not listed in the database, so the fill rate and FLOPs figures must be interpreted as the product of whatever clock speeds each card uses internally. The recorded pixel rate for the HD 8950M is 17.20 GPixel/s, and for the W4300 it is 14.88 GPixel/s. Texture rates are 51.60 GTexel/s versus 44.64 GTexel/s. The FP32 compute is 1.651 TFLOPS for the HD 8950M and 1,428.5 GFLOPS for the W4300.

The FirePro W4300 has dedicated display outputs: 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2. The HD 8950M's display outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent," meaning they vary with the laptop design. The bus interface is PCIe 3.0 x16 for both.

The predecessor and successor names also hint at lineage. The HD 8950M replaces the London chip and is succeeded by Gem System. The FirePro W4300 follows FirePro Terascale and leads to Radeon Pro GCN.

Where Each One Wins

The Radeon HD 8950M wins in raw compute and graphics throughput. Its FP32 performance of 1.651 TFLOPS exceeds the W4300's 1,428.5 GFLOPS by roughly 15.6%. Its pixel fill rate is 15.6% higher, and its texture fill rate is 15.6% higher as well. In the OpenCL benchmark, the HD 8950M scores 13772 versus 11225, a 22.7% advantage. This makes it the stronger choice for any workload that stresses shader throughput, pixel output, or general compute tasks like rendering or physics simulations.

The FirePro W4300 wins in memory capacity and bandwidth efficiency. It offers 4 GB of GDDR5, double the HD 8950M's 2 GB. This matters for large datasets, high-resolution textures, or multi-monitor workstation setups where memory exhaustion becomes a bottleneck. Its bandwidth of 96.00 GB/s is 9.1% higher than the HD 8950M's 88.00 GB/s, despite the same 128-bit bus. The W4300 also consumes half the power: 50 W TDP versus 100 W. It requires no power connectors and only a 250 W suggested PSU, making it easier to integrate into compact workstations. The Single-slot form factor and 171 mm length (6.7 inches) with 69 mm height (2.7 inches) further simplify installation.

For mobile users, the HD 8950M is the only option because it is an MXM Module. The W4300 is a desktop PCIe card. So the use case split is sharp: the HD 8950M is for laptops needing compute punch, the W4300 is for desktop workstations needing capacity, efficiency, and professional display support.

Specification Differences

The two cards share many specifications: both are 28 nm, TSMC, 2,080 million transistors, 160 mm² die size, 13.0M / mm² density, 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, 16 ROPs, no ray tracing or tensor cores, PCIe 3.0 x16, and identical API support (DirectX 12, OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.2.170). The differences are as follows:

• Chip: Saturn (HD 8950M) versus Bonaire (W4300)
• Generation: Solar System (HD 8900M) versus FirePro GCN (Wx300)
• Memory clock: 1375 MHz / 5.5 Gbps effective versus 1500 MHz / 6 Gbps effective
• Memory size: 2 GB versus 4 GB
• Bandwidth: 88.00 GB/s versus 96.00 GB/s
• Pixel rate: 17.20 GPixel/s versus 14.88 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 51.60 GTexel/s versus 44.64 GTexel/s
• FP32 compute: 1.651 TFLOPS versus 1,428.5 GFLOPS
• TDP: 100 W versus 50 W
• Slot width: MXM Module versus Single-slot
• Power connectors: None listed for HD 8950M, None for W4300 (but W4300 has a 250 W suggested PSU)
• Display outputs: Portable Device Dependent versus 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2
• Dimensions: HD 8950M has no listed length/height; W4300 is 171 mm (6.7 inches) long and 69 mm (2.7 inches) high
• Release date: May 2013 versus November 2015
• Predecessor: London versus FirePro Terascale
• Successor: Gem System versus Radeon Pro GCN

The launch MSRP is not available for either card, so no pricing comparison is possible.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database includes one direct comparison: Geekbench OpenCL. The Radeon HD 8950M scores 13772, the FirePro W4300 scores 11225. The HD 8950M wins with a 22.7% margin. This is a substantial gap, indicating that in OpenCL compute tasks, the HD 8950M delivers significantly more throughput per operation.

Looking at the nearest rivals for context, the HD 8950M sits at the 54th percentile of all GPUs. Its average score of 13376 is within 0.2% of the AMD Radeon RX 5500M (13356) and the AMD FirePro M6100 (13354). It is 0.2% behind the AMD Radeon Pro 555 (13407) and 0.4% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro 555X (13321). So the HD 8950M is essentially tied with a cluster of mid-range mobile GPUs, all within a fraction of a percentage point.

The FirePro W4300 sits at the 50th percentile. Its average score of 11225 is nearly identical to the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 (11228), with a 0% difference. It trails the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M (11261) by 0.3%, but leads both the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q and the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000D Blackwell Max-Q (11088 each) by 1.2%. This places the W4300 in a lower performance tier than the HD 8950M, despite its workstation branding.

The delta of 22.7% between the two cards is larger than any delta between either card and its nearest rivals. That suggests the HD 8950M and W4300 are not direct competitors in the same performance class; rather, they serve different market segments with different priorities.

There are no other head-to-head benchmarks recorded for these two cards. The database shows 1 win for the HD 8950M and 0 for the W4300. The HD 8950M also has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 12979, though no corresponding Vulkan score exists for the W4300, so that test cannot be compared directly.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear performance hierarchy. The AMD Radeon HD 8950M is the faster card in compute terms, delivering 22.7% higher OpenCL scores, 15.6% higher FP32 throughput, and higher pixel and texture fill rates. For anyone running OpenCL-heavy workloads, shader-bound graphics, or general-purpose GPU compute, the HD 8950M is the stronger choice. Its 54th percentile ranking among all GPUs, with an average score of 13376, places it in the company of mid-range mobile parts like the RX 5500M and Radeon Pro 555.

The AMD FirePro W4300 is not a performance leader in raw compute. Its 50th percentile ranking and 11225 average score put it behind the HD 8950M by a wide margin. However, the W4300 offers 4 GB of memory, twice the HD 8950M's capacity, along with higher bandwidth (96.00 GB/s versus 88.00 GB/s) despite a lower core throughput. It also consumes only 50 W, half the HD 8950M's 100 W, and requires no auxiliary power connectors. Its Single-slot, 171 mm long (6.7 inches) design with four mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs makes it a practical fit for professional workstations where multiple monitors, large memory footprints, and power efficiency are priorities.

The choice between them depends on the workload. If the task is compute-intensive and shader-limited, the HD 8950M wins decisively. If the task involves large datasets, multi-display setups, or constrained power budgets, the W4300's memory capacity and efficiency become decisive. The HD 8950M's MXM Module form factor restricts it to laptops, while the W4300 is a desktop card. Both are end-of-life products, so availability and driver support are limited, but the benchmark data provides a clear picture: the HD 8950M is the performance pick, the W4300 is the capacity and efficiency pick.