AMD FirePro W4300 vs AMD Radeon Pro 5300M Comparison

# AMD FirePro W4300 vs AMD Radeon Pro 5300M

The AMD Radeon Pro 5300M is the decisive winner in this comparison, delivering a 160.6% higher OpenCL score than the AMD FirePro W4300. The data shows a generational leap in compute performance, with the 5300M achieving 29,252 points versus the W4300's 11,225 in Geekbench OpenCL. This is not a close contest; the 5300M's RDNA architecture and modern process node fundamentally outclass the older GCN-based W4300, even though both cards target professional workloads with 4 GB of memory.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only shared benchmark between these two cards is Geekbench OpenCL, and the result is lopsided. The AMD Radeon Pro 5300M scores 29,252, while the AMD FirePro W4300 scores 11,225 — a delta of -61.6% from the 5300M's perspective, meaning the W4300 trails by over 160%. This single data point encapsulates the performance gap: the 5300M delivers roughly 2.6 times the OpenCL compute throughput of the W4300. For context, the W4300's nearest rival, the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200, scores 11,228 (0% delta), placing the W4300 in the same performance tier as entry-level professional GPUs from its own generation. The 5300M, meanwhile, sits among rivals like the NVIDIA Quadro K5100M (10,043, -0.3% delta) and the AMD Radeon R9 M375 (10,070, -0.6% delta), but it outpaces all of them by a wide margin.

Looking at the broader benchmark suite for the 5300M, its strengths extend beyond OpenCL. It scores 33,626 in Geekbench Metal, 27,912 in Geekbench Vulkan, and 5,918 in Passmark G3D. The W4300 has no corresponding results in these tests, so a direct comparison is impossible, but the pattern is clear: the 5300M's compute scores are consistently in the thousands, suggesting strong multi-API performance. The W4300's single OpenCL score of 11,225 places it at the 50th percentile among all GPUs, while the 5300M sits at the 48th percentile — a seemingly small difference, but one that masks the 5300M's much higher absolute scores. This paradox arises because the 5300M's average benchmark score (10,013) is dragged down by low Passmark DirectX scores (25-80 range), which are likely laptop-specific anomalies rather than indicators of weak compute.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs is stark. The FirePro W4300 uses the Bonaire chip built on GCN 2.0 architecture, fabricated on TSMC's 28 nm process with 2,080 million transistors on a 160 mm² die. In contrast, the Radeon Pro 5300M uses the Navi 14 chip on RDNA 1.0 architecture, built on TSMC's 7 nm process with 6,400 million transistors on a 158 mm² die. The process shrink is transformative: the 5300M packs over three times as many transistors into a slightly smaller area, achieving a transistor density of 40.5M per mm² versus the W4300's 13.0M per mm².

The compute resources differ accordingly. The 5300M has 1,280 shading units, 80 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs, while the W4300 has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This 67% increase in shading units and 100% increase in ROPs directly explains the 5300M's superior fill rates: 40.00 GPixel/s and 100.0 GTexel/s versus the W4300's 14.88 GPixel/s and 44.64 GTexel/s. The 5300M also supports FP16 compute at 6.400 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), a feature the W4300 lacks entirely — its FP16 field is null. FP32 output is likewise higher on the 5300M at 3.200 TFLOPS versus 1,428.5 GFLOPS on the W4300.

Memory technology also diverges. The W4300 uses GDDR5 at 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective) with a 128-bit bus, yielding 96.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The 5300M uses GDDR6 at the same 1500 MHz base but with 12 Gbps effective speed, doubling bandwidth to 192.0 GB/s on the same 128-bit bus. Both cards have 4 GB of memory, but the 5300M's higher bandwidth is crucial for memory-intensive professional workloads. The 5300M also supports newer API standards: DirectX 12 (12_1) versus the W4300's DirectX 12 (12_0), and Vulkan 1.4 versus 1.2.170. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Pro 5300M wins on every measurable compute benchmark, but its advantages are most pronounced in OpenCL and cross-API performance. The 5300M's 29,252 OpenCL score indicates strong general-purpose GPU compute, suitable for rendering, simulation, and data-parallel tasks. Its Metal score of 33,626 and Vulkan score of 27,912 further confirm versatility across modern APIs, making it a better fit for macOS or cross-platform development environments. The 5300M's 192 GB/s memory bandwidth and 3.2 TFLOPS FP32 throughput suggest it can handle larger datasets and more complex shaders without bottlenecking.

The FirePro W4300's only "win" is its lower power draw: 50 W TDP versus the 5300M's 85 W. This makes the W4300 a plausible choice for space-constrained or thermally limited systems, especially given its single-slot design and lack of power connectors. The W4300 also offers four mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, while the 5300M's display outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent" — meaning the 5300M is designed for mobile integration, not standalone multi-monitor setups. For a workstation requiring multiple displays from a single low-power card, the W4300 retains a niche advantage.

However, the W4300's performance ceiling is low. Its 1,428.5 GFLOPS FP32 and 96 GB/s bandwidth are roughly one-third and one-half of the 5300M's figures, respectively. In any workload that stresses compute — 3D rendering, video encoding, scientific simulation — the 5300M will finish significantly faster. The W4300's 50th percentile ranking versus the 5300M's 48th percentile is misleading; the 5300M's average score is dragged down by low Passmark DirectX results (25 in DirectX 12, 36 in DirectX 10, 37 in DirectX 11, 80 in DirectX 9), which likely reflect driver or thermal limitations in a laptop form factor, not raw capability.

The Verdict

The data unequivocally favors the AMD Radeon Pro 5300M for any compute-focused task. Its OpenCL score is 160% higher, its FP32 throughput is more than double, its memory bandwidth is twice as high, and it supports modern APIs like Vulkan 1.4 and DirectX 12_1 that the W4300 cannot match. The 5300M is the clear choice for GPU-accelerated workflows, 3D content creation, or any professional application that leverages OpenCL, Metal, or Vulkan. Its 7 nm process and RDNA architecture represent a generational leap that the W4300's GCN 2.0 simply cannot bridge.

The FirePro W4300 is only defensible in specific edge cases: if the system requires a single-slot card with four mini-DisplayPort outputs, or if power consumption must stay below 50 W. The W4300's 50 W TDP and lack of power connectors make it easier to integrate into legacy workstations, and its 171 mm length fits compact chassis. But these are form-factor advantages, not performance ones. In every benchmark where both cards have data, the 5300M wins decisively. The W4300's nearest rivals — the Radeon Pro WX 3200 (11,228) and GTX 780M (11,261) — are all in the same performance tier, confirming that the W4300 is rooted in an older generation. The 5300M, by contrast, sits above its nearest rivals (Quadro K5100M at 10,043) by a substantial 190% margin in OpenCL.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher OpenCL performance?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 5300M scores 29,252 in Geekbench OpenCL, versus 11,225 for the AMD FirePro W4300 — a 160.6% difference in favor of the 5300M.

Q: What are the memory bandwidth differences?

A: The 5300M has 192.0 GB/s bandwidth using GDDR6 at 12 Gbps effective, while the W4300 has 96.00 GB/s using GDDR5 at 6 Gbps effective. Both use a 128-bit bus.

Q: Do both cards support DirectX 12?

A: Yes, but at different feature levels. The W4300 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the 5300M supports DirectX 12 (12_1). The 5300M also supports Vulkan 1.4, versus 1.2.170 on the W4300.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The 5300M has 1,280 shading units, while the W4300 has 768. The 5300M also has 80 TMUs and 32 ROPs, versus 48 TMUs and 16 ROPs on the W4300.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The W4300 has a 50 W TDP, while the 5300M has an 85 W TDP. The W4300 is single-slot with no power connectors, while the 5300M's slot width is not specified.

Q: Which card is better for multi-monitor setups?

A: The W4300 offers four mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, while the 5300M's display outputs are "Portable Device Dependent," meaning it is designed for mobile integration rather than standalone multi-display use.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD FirePro W4300 | AMD Radeon Pro 5300M |

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

| Architecture | GCN 2.0 | RDNA 1.0 |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 7 nm |

| Transistors | 2,080 million | 6,400 million |

| Die Size | 160 mm² | 158 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 13.0M / mm² | 40.5M / mm² |

| Base Clock | Null | 1000 MHz |

| Boost Clock | Null | 1250 MHz |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |

| Memory Speed | 6 Gbps effective | 12 Gbps effective |

| Memory Bandwidth | 96.00 GB/s | 192.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 768 | 1,280 |

| TMUs | 48 | 80 |

| ROPs | 16 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 14.88 GPixel/s | 40.00 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 44.64 GTexel/s | 100.0 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 1,428.5 GFLOPS | 3.200 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | Null | 6.400 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 50 W | 85 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |

| Display Outputs | 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 | Portable Device Dependent |

| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 (12_1) |

| Vulkan | 1.2.170 | 1.4 |

| OpenCL Score | 11,225 | 29,252 |

| Production Status | End-of-life | End-of-life |

| Release Date | 2015-11-30 | 2019-11-12 |