AMD FirePro W4300 vs AMD Radeon Pro 5500M Comparison

The Verdict

The benchmark data draws a clear line between these two AMD professional GPUs. The AMD Radeon Pro 5500M is the decisive winner in the only directly comparable test, delivering a Geekbench OpenCL score of 31,088 against the AMD FirePro W4300’s 11,225 — a 177% advantage. The Radeon Pro 5500M also holds a wider benchmark portfolio, with results across Geekbench Metal, Vulkan, and multiple Passmark tests, while the FirePro W4300 only has a single OpenCL score recorded. For any workload that relies on raw compute throughput, the Radeon Pro 5500M is the only rational choice from this dataset.

The FirePro W4300, however, is not without a niche. Its 50 W TDP and single-slot form factor, paired with four mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, make it a compact, low-power option for multi-display professional setups where space and thermals are constrained. The Radeon Pro 5500M, with an 85 W TDP and portable-device-dependent display outputs, is clearly oriented toward mobile workstations rather than fixed desktop configurations. Users needing a small, power-efficient desktop card with multiple outputs may still find the W4300 relevant, but they must accept a massive compute deficit.

In short: the Radeon Pro 5500M wins on performance by an overwhelming margin; the FirePro W4300 wins on physical footprint and power draw. Neither card is current — both are end-of-life — but the data suggests the 5500M is the superior investment for compute-heavy tasks, while the W4300 suits basic professional display work.

Where Each One Wins

AMD Radeon Pro 5500M — Compute and API Coverage. The 5500M wins the sole head-to-head benchmark by 177% in Geekbench OpenCL. It also posts strong scores in other tests: 38,235 in Geekbench Metal, 35,134 in Geekbench Vulkan, and 6,732 in Passmark G3D. Its Passmark GPU Compute score of 3,240 further indicates solid general-purpose compute performance. The card supports DirectX 12_1, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, giving it broader modern API compatibility than the W4300’s DirectX 12_0 and Vulkan 1.2.170.

AMD FirePro W4300 — Physical Design and Efficiency. The W4300 draws only 50 W compared to the 5500M’s 85 W, and its single-slot, 171 mm length (6.7 inches) and 69 mm height (2.7 inches) make it far easier to fit into compact chassis. Its four mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs are explicitly listed, whereas the 5500M’s display outputs are “Portable Device Dependent,” meaning the W4300 is the only one of the two with a fixed, multi-monitor desktop output configuration. The W4300 also requires no power connector and suggests a 250 W PSU, while the 5500M also lists no power connector — but the latter’s higher TDP implies a more demanding power envelope.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural eras. The Radeon Pro 5500M is built on Navi 14, using the RDNA 1.0 architecture, fabricated on TSMC’s 7 nm process. It packs 6,400 million transistors into a 158 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 40.5 million per mm². The FirePro W4300 uses the Bonaire chip, based on the older GCN 2.0 architecture, on a 28 nm process. It contains 2,080 million transistors on a 160 mm² die, with a density of just 13.0 million per mm². The 7 nm node gives the 5500M a 3x density advantage on a nearly identical die size.

The compute resources differ sharply. The 5500M has 1,536 shading units, 96 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The W4300 has half the shading units (768), half the TMUs (48), and half the ROPs (16). Pixel throughput tells the story: 46.40 GPixel/s for the 5500M versus 14.88 GPixel/s for the W4300. Texture rate is 139.2 GTexel/s versus 44.64 GTexel/s. Floating-point performance is 4.454 TFLOPS (FP32) for the 5500M, against 1,428.5 GFLOPS for the W4300 — a 3.1x difference. The 5500M also adds FP16 capability at 8.909 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio); the W4300 lists no FP16 support.

Memory is another generational leap. The 5500M uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, with 1500 MHz memory clock and 12 Gbps effective, yielding 192.0 GB/s bandwidth. The W4300 uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on the same 128-bit bus, at 1500 MHz and 6 Gbps effective, for 96.00 GB/s — exactly half the bandwidth. The 5500M also runs on PCIe 4.0 x8, while the W4300 uses PCIe 3.0 x16. Both support OpenGL 4.6, but the 5500M’s newer architecture supports DirectX 12_1 and Vulkan 1.4, versus 12_0 and 1.2.170 for the W4300.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 5500M. It delivers 4.454 TFLOPS FP32, while the FirePro W4300 delivers 1,428.5 GFLOPS — a 3.1x difference. In the only shared benchmark (Geekbench OpenCL), the 5500M scores 31,088 versus 11,225, a 177% lead.

Q: Which card uses less power?

A: The AMD FirePro W4300, with a 50 W TDP versus 85 W for the Radeon Pro 5500M. The W4300 also suggests a 250 W PSU, while the 5500M lists no suggested PSU.

Q: Can the FirePro W4300 handle modern APIs like Vulkan?

A: Yes, but at an older revision. The W4300 supports Vulkan 1.2.170 and DirectX 12_0. The Radeon Pro 5500M supports Vulkan 1.4 and DirectX 12_1.

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

A: The FirePro W4300 is the clear choice for fixed desktop output, with four mini-DisplayPort 1.2 connectors. The Radeon Pro 5500M's display outputs are listed as “Portable Device Dependent,” indicating it is designed for mobile or integrated solutions.

Q: How do their memory subsystems compare?

A: The 5500M has 8 GB GDDR6 with 192.0 GB/s bandwidth; the W4300 has 4 GB GDDR5 with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth. Both use a 128-bit bus.

Q: Are both GPUs still in production?

A: No. Both are listed as end-of-life. The Radeon Pro 5500M was released in 2019-11-12; the FirePro W4300 in 2015-11-30.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is Geekbench OpenCL, and it is lopsided. The Radeon Pro 5500M scores 31,088, while the FirePro W4300 scores 11,225. The 177% delta is the single largest margin in this matchup, and it aligns with the architectural gap: the 5500M has double the shading units, double the TMUs, double the ROPs, double the memory bandwidth, and triple the FP32 throughput.

Beyond the shared test, the 5500M’s other scores put it in a different performance class. Its Geekbench Metal score of 38,235 and Vulkan score of 35,134 both exceed its own OpenCL result, suggesting strong cross-API consistency. In Passmark, the 5500M achieves 6,732 in G3D, 648 in G2D, and 3,240 in GPU Compute. Its legacy DirectX results are lower — 96 in DirectX 9, 42 in DirectX 11, 36 in DirectX 10, 29 in DirectX 12 — but these are older API tests on a modern architecture.

The FirePro W4300 has no comparable scores outside OpenCL. Its average benchmark score is 11,225, which places it at the 50th percentile of all GPUs. The 5500M’s average is 11,528, at the 51st percentile. That near-identical average is misleading because the 5500M’s average is pulled down by its weak Passmark DirectX scores (29–96), while its compute-focused results are far higher. In terms of nearest rivals, the 5500M sits within 1.3% of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 (average 11,680) and 0.8% of the AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT (11,627), while being 2.4% ahead of the GTX 780M (11,261). The W4300 matches the Radeon Pro WX 3200 exactly (0% delta, 11,228) and trails the GTX 780M by 0.3%.

The wins tally confirms the story: the 5500M wins 1 head-to-head benchmark, the W4300 wins 0. Every measurable compute metric favors the newer card. The W4300’s only advantages are physical: lower TDP, single-slot design, and dedicated multi-display outputs. For anyone choosing between these two solely on benchmark data, the Radeon Pro 5500M is the superior GPU in every performance category, while the FirePro W4300 remains a viable low-power display adapter for legacy professional workstations.