AMD FirePro W4300 vs AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a single head-to-head benchmark between these two workstation cards, and it is a decisive victory for the older AMD FirePro W4300. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the FirePro W4300 scores 11,225 points against the Radeon Pro WX 2100’s 8,536 points. That is a 31.5% advantage for the FirePro W4300, a substantial gap in raw compute throughput for OpenCL workloads.

The database also tracks an average benchmark score for each card across all recorded tests. The FirePro W4300 averages 11,225, while the Radeon Pro WX 2100 averages 9,653. The WX 2100 has an additional Geekbench Vulkan score of 10,770, which is not part of the head-to-head comparison but does indicate that its Vulkan performance lands closer to its rival than its OpenCL result would suggest.

Looking at the percentile rankings, the FirePro W4300 sits at the 50th percentile among all GPUs in the database, while the WX 2100 sits at the 46th percentile. This is a narrow overall positioning gap, but the OpenCL delta tells a different story than the percentile spread might imply. The FirePro W4300’s nearest rivals in the database include the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 at 11,228 (a 0% delta), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M at 11,261 (0.3% behind the FirePro), and both NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q variants at 11,088 (1.2% behind). In other words, the FirePro W4300 lands in a tightly packed cluster of GPUs scoring around the 11,000 to 11,300 mark, and its performance is essentially indistinguishable from its closest competitor, the WX 3200.

The Radeon Pro WX 2100’s nearest rivals cluster around the 9,600 to 9,700 range. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M scores 9,645 (0.1% ahead of the WX 2100), the NVIDIA Quadro P4000 scores 9,665 (0.1% behind), the NVIDIA Quadro K5000 scores 9,637 (0.2% ahead), and the NVIDIA Tesla C2070 scores 9,716 (0.6% behind). The WX 2100 is thus firmly placed in a performance tier roughly 1,500 points below the FirePro W4300’s tier in OpenCL compute.

The wins tally in the database shows the FirePro W4300 with 1 win and the WX 2100 with 0 wins in their direct head-to-head record. That single win is the OpenCL benchmark, and it is a large one. The data does not include any gaming, rendering, or other compute tests in the head-to-head set, so the conclusion is limited to what the recorded measurements cover. Still, for OpenCL tasks, the FirePro W4300 is the clear choice based on numbers alone.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different generations of AMD’s Graphics Core Next architecture. The FirePro W4300 uses the Bonaire chip built on GCN 2.0, while the Radeon Pro WX 2100 uses the Lexa chip built on GCN 4.0. The process node also differs: the FirePro W4300 is fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC, whereas the WX 2100 uses a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The smaller node gives the WX 2100 a higher transistor density of 21.4 million transistors per square millimeter, compared to 13.0 million for the FirePro W4300.

Transistor counts are close: the FirePro W4300 has 2,080 million transistors on a 160 mm² die, while the WX 2100 has 2,200 million transistors on a much smaller 103 mm² die. The die size difference is notable, as the WX 2100 packs more transistors into roughly two-thirds of the physical area.

The compute resources differ significantly. The FirePro W4300 has 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The WX 2100 has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Despite having fewer shading units and TMUs, the WX 2100 achieves a higher pixel rate of 19.50 GPixel/s compared to the FirePro W4300’s 14.88 GPixel/s. The texture rate tells a different story: the FirePro W4300 reaches 44.64 GTexel/s, while the WX 2100 manages 39.01 GTexel/s.

Floating-point performance follows the shading unit count. The FirePro W4300 delivers 1,428.5 GFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the WX 2100 delivers 1,248.3 GFLOPS. The WX 2100 also lists FP16 performance at 1,248.3 GFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, while the FirePro W4300 has no recorded FP16 figure in the database.

Memory configurations are another major divider. The FirePro W4300 has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 96.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The WX 2100 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus, delivering 48.00 GB/s. Both cards run their memory at 1500 MHz with 6 Gbps effective data rate, but the wider bus on the FirePro W4300 doubles the bandwidth.

Clock behavior differs as well. The WX 2100 has recorded base and boost clocks of 925 MHz and 1219 MHz respectively, while the FirePro W4300 has no base or boost clocks listed in the database. The WX 2100’s boost clock helps it close some of the gap in pixel throughput despite its smaller core configuration.

The bus interface also differs. The FirePro W4300 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the WX 2100 uses PCIe 3.0 x8. For bandwidth-sensitive workloads, the full x16 link on the older card is an advantage, though the database does not include a benchmark that isolates PCIe throughput effects.

API support shows a split. Both cards support DirectX 12 (12_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The Vulkan support differs: the FirePro W4300 lists Vulkan 1.2.170, while the WX 2100 lists Vulkan 1.3. The newer Vulkan version on the WX 2100 is consistent with its newer architecture generation.

Display outputs differ in both count and version. The FirePro W4300 has four mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs. The WX 2100 has one DisplayPort 1.4a and two mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The FirePro W4300 supports more simultaneous displays, but the WX 2100 supports newer DisplayPort features.

Power consumption also favors the newer card. The FirePro W4300 has a TDP of 50 W with a suggested PSU of 250 W, while the WX 2100 has a TDP of 35 W with a suggested PSU of 200 W. Both are single-slot cards with no power connectors, so installation requirements are modest for either.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in OpenCL compute?

A: The AMD FirePro W4300 scores 11,225 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 31.5% higher than the Radeon Pro WX 2100’s 8,536 in the same test.

Q: Does the Radeon Pro WX 2100 have any performance advantage?

A: The database does not record a head-to-head win for the WX 2100. It does achieve a higher pixel rate at 19.50 GPixel/s versus 14.88 GPixel/s for the FirePro W4300, and it has a recorded Vulkan score of 10,770, but no direct benchmark victory is listed.

Q: How much memory does each card have, and does it matter?

A: The FirePro W4300 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth. The WX 2100 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus with 48.00 GB/s bandwidth. The FirePro W4300 offers double the memory and double the bandwidth.

Q: Which card is more power efficient?

A: The WX 2100 has a lower TDP at 35 W compared to the FirePro W4300’s 50 W, and it also has a lower suggested PSU rating of 200 W versus 250 W.

Q: Do both cards support the same APIs?

A: Both support DirectX 12 (12_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The FirePro W4300 supports Vulkan 1.2.170, while the WX 2100 supports the newer Vulkan 1.3.

Q: Which card has newer display outputs?

A: The WX 2100 has DisplayPort 1.4a outputs (one full-size, two mini), while the FirePro W4300 has four mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs. The WX 2100 supports a newer DisplayPort version but has fewer total outputs.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split based on workload priorities. For OpenCL compute performance, the FirePro W4300 is the stronger card. Its 31.5% lead in Geekbench OpenCL is substantial, and its 4 GB memory configuration with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth gives it a major capacity and throughput advantage over the WX 2100’s 2 GB and 48.00 GB/s. The FirePro W4300 also sits at the 50th percentile among all GPUs, four points above the WX 2100’s 46th percentile.

For users prioritizing lower power draw and newer features, the WX 2100 has its own case. It draws 35 W versus 50 W, supports Vulkan 1.3 versus 1.2.170, and offers DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. Its smaller 103 mm² die on a 14 nm process is a more modern design, and its boost clock of 1219 MHz helps it achieve a higher pixel rate than the FirePro W4300.

However, the benchmark data does not reward the newer architecture with better compute results. The FirePro W4300’s larger shading unit count (768 versus 512), higher FP32 throughput (1,428.5 GFLOPS versus 1,248.3 GFLOPS), and double memory bandwidth make it the more capable compute card in the recorded tests. The WX 2100’s Vulkan score of 10,770 is respectable, but it does not translate into a head-to-head win in the database.

A user whose work relies on OpenCL compute, large textures, or memory bandwidth should choose the FirePro W4300. A user with strict power limits, a preference for newer display connections, or workloads that benefit from Vulkan 1.3 support should consider the WX 2100. The FirePro W4300’s launch date predates the WX 2100 by roughly a year and a half, and its production status is end-of-life, same as the WX 2100. Neither card is current, but the FirePro W4300 remains the stronger performer in the measured benchmark.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD FirePro W4300 | AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 |

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

| Chip | Bonaire | Lexa |

| Architecture | GCN 2.0 | GCN 4.0 |

| Process node | 28 nm | 14 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | GlobalFoundries |

| Transistors | 2,080 million | 2,200 million |

| Die size | 160 mm² | 103 mm² |

| Transistor density | 13.0M / mm² | 21.4M / mm² |

| Base clock | Not recorded | 925 MHz |

| Boost clock | Not recorded | 1219 MHz |

| Shading units | 768 | 512 |

| TMUs | 48 | 32 |

| ROPs | 16 | 16 |

| Pixel rate | 14.88 GPixel/s | 19.50 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 44.64 GTexel/s | 39.01 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 1,428.5 GFLOPS | 1,248.3 GFLOPS |

| FP16 | Not recorded | 1,248.3 GFLOPS (1:1) |

| Memory size | 4 GB | 2 GB |

| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |

| Memory bus | 128 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory bandwidth | 96.00 GB/s | 48.00 GB/s |

| TDP | 50 W | 35 W |

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | 200 W |

| Bus interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |

| Display outputs | 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 | 1x DisplayPort 1.4a, 2x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a |

| Vulkan | 1.2.170 | 1.3 |

| Release date | 2015-11-30 | 2017-06-03 |

| Predecessor | FirePro Terascale | Radeon Pro GCN |

| Successor | Radeon Pro GCN | Radeon Pro Vega |

| Launch MSRP | Not recorded | 149 USD |

| Geekbench OpenCL | 11,225 | 8,536 |

| Geekbench Vulkan | Not recorded | 10,770 |

| Average benchmark score | 11,225 | 9,653 |

| Percentile vs all GPUs | 50 | 46 |