AMD FirePro W4300 vs AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 Comparison

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 and AMD FirePro W4300 are two professional workstation graphics cards separated by generations, but the benchmark data shows they land in nearly the same performance tier. Both cards sit at the 50th percentile among all GPUs, with the WX 3200 edging out the older FirePro W4300 by a razor-thin margin in the only head-to-head test available. The Geekbench OpenCL scores are 11,228 for the WX 3200 versus 11,225 for the FirePro W4300, a delta of just 0%. This near-identical performance makes the architectural differences between the two all the more telling, as the newer 14 nm Polaris chip fights to a draw against the older 28 nm Bonaire design.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The sole benchmark comparison is Geekbench OpenCL, and the results are remarkably close. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 scores 11,228, while the AMD FirePro W4300 scores 11,225 — a difference of only three points, which rounds to a 0% delta. In practical terms, this means the two cards are functionally equivalent in raw compute throughput for OpenCL workloads. The WX 3200 wins the comparison, but the margin is statistically negligible.

When placed against the wider field of rivals, both cards perform identically relative to their peers. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M scores 11,261, which puts it 0.3% ahead of the WX 3200 and 0.3% ahead of the FirePro W4300. Interestingly, both AMD cards beat the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q and RTX PRO 6000D Blackwell Max-Q, which score 11,088 each. The WX 3200 leads those two NVIDIA cards by 1.3%, while the FirePro W4300 leads them by 1.2%. The data suggests that in this specific OpenCL benchmark, these older AMD workstation cards outperform much newer NVIDIA professional silicon.

The benchmark results indicate that generation-on-generation improvements did not translate into a meaningful compute advantage for the WX 3200. Despite a newer architecture, a smaller process node, and a different chip design, the WX 3200's score of 11,228 is effectively tied with the FirePro W4300's 11,225. For users upgrading from the FirePro W4300 to the Radeon Pro WX 3200, the performance gain in OpenCL compute is essentially zero.

Architecture Differences

The Radeon Pro WX 3200 is built on the Polaris 23 chip, which uses AMD's GCN 4.0 architecture. The FirePro W4300, by contrast, uses the Bonaire chip with the older GCN 2.0 architecture. This represents a two-generation leap in GPU design, though the benchmark results show the architectural advancements did not yield higher OpenCL scores.

The manufacturing process differs significantly. The WX 3200 uses a 14 nm process fabricated by GlobalFoundries, while the FirePro W4300 uses a 28 nm process from TSMC. The smaller node allows the WX 3200 to pack 2,200 million transistors into a die size of 103 mm², yielding a transistor density of 21.4M per mm². The FirePro W4300, with 2,080 million transistors spread across a 160 mm² die, has a density of just 13.0M per mm². This is a substantial efficiency improvement for the newer card, even if raw performance is unchanged.

The shading unit counts tell an interesting story. The FirePro W4300 actually has more shading units — 768 versus the WX 3200's 640. Similarly, the FirePro W4300 has 48 texture mapping units (TMUs) compared to 32 on the WX 3200. Both cards have 16 raster operations pipelines (ROPs). The FirePro W4300's higher shading unit count helps it compensate for its older architecture and slower clock-derived rates.

Raw throughput rates differ in both directions. The WX 3200 achieves a pixel rate of 20.72 GPixel/s, which is significantly higher than the FirePro W4300's 14.88 GPixel/s. However, the FirePro W4300 counters with a texture rate of 44.64 GTexel/s, slightly ahead of the WX 3200's 41.44 GTexel/s. In floating-point performance, the WX 3200 delivers 1.658 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the FirePro W4300 delivers 1,428.5 GFLOPS — the WX 3200 is roughly 16% ahead. The WX 3200 also supports FP16 at a 1:1 ratio (1.658 TFLOPS), while the FirePro W4300 has no listed FP16 capability.

Where Each One Wins

The Radeon Pro WX 3200 wins the only benchmark recorded, though the margin is negligible. Its strengths lie in newer features and efficiency rather than raw OpenCL performance. The WX 3200's 14 nm process and higher transistor density mean it achieves comparable compute with fewer shading units, which translates to a lower power draw in a different configuration. The card supports Vulkan 1.3, while the FirePro W4300 is limited to Vulkan 1.2.170. Display outputs also favor the WX 3200, which offers four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a connectors versus the FirePro W4300's four mini-DisplayPort 1.2 connectors.

The FirePro W4300 wins on raw shading resources. Its 768 shading units and 48 TMUs give it a texture rate of 44.64 GTexel/s, which is 7.7% higher than the WX 3200's 41.44 GTexel/s. For workloads that are texture-bound rather than pixel-bound, the older card has a theoretical advantage. The FirePro W4300 also has a higher transistor count in absolute terms (2,080 million versus 2,200 million is actually lower, but the die is larger), and its GCN 2.0 architecture may have different scheduling characteristics for specific professional applications.

In practical use-case terms, the WX 3200 is better suited for modern API adoption. Its Vulkan 1.3 support and DisplayPort 1.4a outputs make it more future-proof for current software and high-resolution displays. The FirePro W4300's higher TMU count could benefit traditional 3D rendering workloads that rely heavily on texture sampling, though the benchmark data does not confirm this advantage in practice. The pixel rate difference is notable: the WX 3200's 20.72 GPixel/s is 39% higher than the FirePro W4300's 14.88 GPixel/s, suggesting better fill-rate performance for pixel-heavy operations.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in several key specification areas. The most obvious is the manufacturing process: the WX 3200 uses 14 nm GlobalFoundries fabrication, while the FirePro W4300 uses 28 nm TSMC. This leads to a significant die size difference — 103 mm² for the WX 3200 versus 160 mm² for the FirePro W4300. Transistor density is 21.4M per mm² on the WX 3200 versus 13.0M per mm² on the FirePro W4300.

The shading unit count differs, with the FirePro W4300 fielding 768 units against the WX 3200's 640. TMUs also favor the FirePro W4300 at 48 versus 32, while ROPs are equal at 16. The FP32 compute is higher on the WX 3200 at 1.658 TFLOPS, compared to 1,428.5 GFLOPS on the FirePro W4300. The WX 3200 supports FP16 at 1.658 TFLOPS, while the FirePro W4300 has no FP16 specification. Pixel rate is 20.72 GPixel/s on the WX 3200 versus 14.88 GPixel/s on the FirePro W4300, but texture rate is 41.44 GTexel/s versus 44.64 GTexel/s respectively.

Power consumption differs: the WX 3200 has a TDP of 65 W, while the FirePro W4300 is rated at 50 W. Both are single-slot cards with no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The bus interface differs, with the WX 3200 using PCIe 3.0 x8 and the FirePro W4300 using PCIe 3.0 x16. Physical dimensions are nearly identical, with the WX 3200 at 167 mm in length and the FirePro W4300 at 171 mm; both are 69 mm in height. Display outputs are four mini-DisplayPort connectors on both, but the WX 3200 uses version 1.4a while the FirePro W4300 uses version 1.2. API support shows the WX 3200 with Vulkan 1.3 versus the FirePro W4300's Vulkan 1.2.170; both support DirectX 12 (12_0) and OpenGL 4.6. Memory specifications are identical: 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth and 1500 MHz memory clock (6 Gbps effective).

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 scores 11,228, which is three points higher than the AMD FirePro W4300's 11,225. This amounts to a 0% delta, making them effectively tied.

Q: How do these cards compare to NVIDIA rivals in OpenCL?

A: Both AMD cards outperform the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q and RTX PRO 6000D Blackwell Max-Q, which score 11,088. The WX 3200 leads by 1.3% and the FirePro W4300 by 1.2%. However, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M scores 11,261, placing it 0.3% ahead of both AMD cards.

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

A: The WX 3200 uses the Polaris 23 chip with GCN 4.0 architecture on a 14 nm GlobalFoundries process, while the FirePro W4300 uses the Bonaire chip with GCN 2.0 architecture on a 28 nm TSMC process. The WX 3200 has a smaller die (103 mm² versus 160 mm²) but higher transistor density (21.4M per mm² versus 13.0M per mm²).

Q: Which card has more shading units and TMUs?

A: The FirePro W4300 has more of both: 768 shading units versus 640 on the WX 3200, and 48 TMUs versus 32. The WX 3200 does have a higher pixel rate at 20.72 GPixel/s versus 14.88 GPixel/s, but the FirePro W4300 has a higher texture rate at 44.64 GTexel/s versus 41.44 GTexel/s.

Q: Do the cards support the same display outputs and APIs?

A: Both have four mini-DisplayPort connectors, but the WX 3200 uses version 1.4a while the FirePro W4300 uses version 1.2. The WX 3200 supports Vulkan 1.3, while the FirePro W4300 supports Vulkan 1.2.170. Both support DirectX 12 (12_0) and OpenGL 4.6.

Q: What are the power and interface differences?

A: The WX 3200 has a TDP of 65 W, while the FirePro W4300 has a TDP of 50 W. Both are single-slot cards with no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The WX 3200 uses a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface, while the FirePro W4300 uses PCIe 3.0 x16.