GPU Comparison

The Verdict

The data presents a straightforward choice for two very different use cases. The AMD FirePro W4300 is the stronger compute performer, decisively winning the only head-to-head benchmark available with a 24.7% lead over the AMD Radeon Pro 450 in Geekbench OpenCL. For any workload that relies on raw OpenCL compute, the FirePro W4300 is the clear pick. However, the Radeon Pro 450 is not obsolete; its benchmark profile shows a more versatile software stack, with scores across Metal, OpenCL, and Vulkan. The FirePro W4300, by contrast, only has an OpenCL score on record.

The FirePro W4300’s average benchmark score of 11,225 places it in the 50th percentile of all GPUs, while the Radeon Pro 450’s average of 10,804 puts it in the 49th percentile. These are nearly identical overall positions, but the FirePro W4300 achieves its rank with a single strong OpenCL result, whereas the Radeon Pro 450’s average is pulled down by its weaker OpenCL score of 9,002, despite stronger showings in Metal (12,893) and Vulkan (10,518). The choice between them hinges on the specific API and workload in question.

For users on a standardized desktop workflow where OpenCL is the primary language, the FirePro W4300 is the safer bet, offering a 24.7% performance advantage in that specific test. For users in a portable or Mac-centric environment where Metal and Vulkan are available, the Radeon Pro 450 offers more balanced performance across multiple APIs, even if its peak compute score is lower. The FirePro W4300 is a single-slot, 50 W desktop card; the Radeon Pro 450 is a 35 W MXM module, indicating a design for laptops or all-in-one systems. The physical form factor alone will likely dictate the choice for many system builders.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD FirePro W4300 wins exclusively in the OpenCL compute arena based on the available data. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 11,225 is 24.7% higher than the Radeon Pro 450’s 9,002. This suggests the FirePro W4300 is better suited for tasks that are heavily parallel and use OpenCL for acceleration, such as rendering, scientific computation, or video processing that leverages that specific API. The FirePro W4300 also has a larger memory footprint of 4 GB versus 2 GB, which could be a factor in larger datasets.

The AMD Radeon Pro 450 wins in the realm of API versatility and modern feature support. It has benchmark scores across three different APIs, with its Metal score of 12,893 being the highest single benchmark result between the two cards. This indicates a significant advantage in Apple-centric applications that use Metal. Additionally, the Radeon Pro 450 supports Vulkan 1.3, while the FirePro W4300 is limited to Vulkan 1.2.170. This newer API version support makes the Radeon Pro 450 more future-proof for cross-platform graphics and compute workloads. Its lower power draw of 35 W versus 50 W also makes it the more efficient choice for thermally constrained environments.

Architecture Differences

The two cards represent different generations of AMD’s Graphics Core Next (GCN) architecture. The FirePro W4300 is built on GCN 2.0, while the Radeon Pro 450 is built on the newer GCN 4.0. This generational leap is reflected in the manufacturing process: the FirePro W4300 uses a 28 nm process at TSMC, while the Radeon Pro 450 uses a more advanced 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The newer process node allows the Radeon Pro 450 to pack 3,000 million transistors into a smaller 123 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 24.4M / mm². The FirePro W4300 has 2,080 million transistors on a larger 160 mm² die, for a density of 13.0M / mm².

The compute resources differ as well. The FirePro W4300 has 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 16 render output units (ROPs). The Radeon Pro 450 has fewer of these: 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Consequently, the FirePro W4300 has higher theoretical peak rates, including a pixel rate of 14.88 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 44.64 GTexel/s, compared to the Radeon Pro 450’s 12.80 GPixel/s and 32.00 GTexel/s. The FirePro W4300 also leads in FP32 compute with 1,428.5 GFLOPS versus the Radeon Pro 450’s 1,024.0 GFLOPS. Notably, the Radeon Pro 450 achieves a 1:1 FP16 rate of 1,024.0 GFLOPS, a feature absent from the FirePro W4300’s specifications.

Memory configurations also differ. The FirePro W4300 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 96.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The Radeon Pro 450 has half the capacity at 2 GB but uses the same 128-bit bus width, achieving 81.28 GB/s. Memory clocks are 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective) for the FirePro W4300 and 1270 MHz (5.1 Gbps effective) for the Radeon Pro 450. The bus interface differs too: the FirePro W4300 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the Radeon Pro 450 uses PCIe 3.0 x8. The FirePro W4300 is a single-slot card with no power connectors, while the Radeon Pro 450 is an MXM module with no listed power connectors. The FirePro W4300 offers four mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, whereas the Radeon Pro 450’s display outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent."

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD FirePro W4300 has a slightly higher average benchmark score of 11,225, compared to the AMD Radeon Pro 450’s average of 10,804. This places the FirePro W4300 in the 50th percentile of all GPUs and the Radeon Pro 450 in the 49th percentile.

Q: How does the FirePro W4300 compare to the Radeon Pro 450 in OpenCL?

A: The FirePro W4300 is significantly faster in the Geekbench OpenCL test, scoring 11,225 against the Radeon Pro 450’s 9,002. This represents a 24.7% advantage for the FirePro W4300.

Q: Does the Radeon Pro 450 have any performance advantages?

A: Yes. The Radeon Pro 450 posts a Geekbench Metal score of 12,893, which is higher than any score recorded for the FirePro W4300. It also has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 10,518, while no Vulkan benchmark is listed for the FirePro W4300.

Q: What are the key architectural differences between the two cards?

A: The FirePro W4300 uses the older GCN 2.0 architecture on a 28 nm process, while the Radeon Pro 450 uses GCN 4.0 on a 14 nm process. The Radeon Pro 450 has a higher transistor density (24.4M / mm² vs 13.0M / mm²) but fewer shading units (640 vs 768) and lower peak FP32 performance (1,024.0 GFLOPS vs 1,428.5 GFLOPS).

Q: What are the power and form factor differences?

A: The FirePro W4300 is a single-slot card with a 50 W TDP and a suggested power supply of 250 W. The Radeon Pro 450 is an MXM module with a lower 35 W TDP and no suggested PSU listed. The FirePro W4300 is 171 mm long, while the Radeon Pro 450 has no listed dimensions.

Q: Which card supports newer software standards?

A: The Radeon Pro 450 supports Vulkan 1.3, which is newer than the Vulkan 1.2.170 supported by the FirePro W4300. Both cards support DirectX 12 (12_0) and OpenGL 4.6.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct head-to-head benchmark in the data is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and it is a decisive victory for the AMD FirePro W4300. The FirePro W4300 scores 11,225, while the AMD Radeon Pro 450 scores 9,002. This is a 24.7% delta in favor of the FirePro W4300, a substantial margin that indicates a clear compute advantage for the older card. This result is consistent with the FirePro W4300’s higher shader count (768 vs 640), higher texture fill rate (44.64 GTexel/s vs 32.00 GTexel/s), and higher FP32 throughput (1,428.5 GFLOPS vs 1,024.0 GFLOPS).

While this is the only direct comparison, the Radeon Pro 450’s other benchmark scores provide context for its strengths. Its Geekbench Metal score of 12,893 is 14.9% higher than the FirePro W4300’s OpenCL score of 11,225, though comparing across different APIs is not a direct apples-to-apples measurement. Similarly, the Radeon Pro 450’s Vulkan score of 10,518 is close to the FirePro W4300’s OpenCL result, but again, this is a cross-API comparison. The data shows that the FirePro W4300 is the definitive winner in OpenCL, but the Radeon Pro 450 has a more diversified benchmark profile that suggests it may be a better all-rounder in mixed-API environments, especially those leveraging Metal. The FirePro W4300’s lead in its sole benchmark is significant, but the lack of data for other APIs leaves its performance in those areas unknown.