AMD FirePro W4300 vs AMD Radeon R9 M275X Comparison

The AMD FirePro W4300 and AMD Radeon R9 M275X are both end-of-life graphics solutions from AMD, but they target fundamentally different use cases. The data shows a near-tie in raw OpenCL compute performance, yet the architectural and specification differences create clear separation in suitability. The FirePro W4300 is a professional workstation card with a broader feature set, while the R9 M275X is a mobile-class part with a specific, if narrow, performance profile. This analysis breaks down where each card wins based solely on the benchmark and specification data.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark results indicate a razor-thin margin in compute performance. In the only head-to-head test available, Geekbench OpenCL, the FirePro W4300 scores 11225 against the R9 M275X's 11200, a delta of just 0.2%. This effectively makes them equals in raw compute throughput for OpenCL workloads. However, the R9 M275X has an additional data point: a Geekbench Vulkan score of 9964, which the FirePro W4300 lacks. This suggests the R9 M275X is the only one of the two with verified Vulkan compute capability in this dataset.

The FirePro W4300 wins on the basis of its professional feature set and memory configuration. It offers 4 GB of GDDR5 memory compared to the R9 M275X's 2 GB, and its memory bandwidth is 96.00 GB/s versus 72.00 GB/s. This gives the FirePro a clear advantage in workloads that are memory-capacity or bandwidth-sensitive. The FirePro also has a higher transistor count (2,080 million vs 1,500 million), more shading units (768 vs 640), and more texture mapping units (48 vs 40), which explains its slight edge in raw compute.

The R9 M275X, despite being the older architecture, wins in the specific category of having a confirmed Vulkan benchmark score. Its 9964 Vulkan score demonstrates a functional capability that the FirePro W4300 does not show in the data. Furthermore, the R9 M275X has a base clock of 900 MHz and a boost clock of 925 MHz, while the FirePro W4300 has no listed base or boost clock. This means the R9 M275X has a defined clock speed profile for sustained performance, whereas the FirePro's clock behavior is unspecified.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear verdict: choose the AMD FirePro W4300 for professional workstation tasks requiring higher memory capacity and bandwidth, and choose the AMD Radeon R9 M275X only if you specifically need a confirmed Vulkan compute path. The FirePro W4300 is the more capable card overall, with a 0.2% lead in OpenCL and a 2 GB memory advantage. Its 96.00 GB/s bandwidth is 33.3% higher than the R9 M275X's 72.00 GB/s, a substantial difference for memory-bound professional applications.

The FirePro W4300 also carries the newer GCN 2.0 architecture versus the R9 M275X's GCN 1.0, and it supports DirectX 12 (12_0) compared to the R9 M275X's DirectX 12 (11_1). This indicates better API compliance and future-proofing for the FirePro. The FirePro's 50 W TDP and single-slot design with 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs make it a practical choice for multi-display professional setups, whereas the R9 M275X has no listed display outputs, slot width, or power connectors, suggesting it is a mobile or OEM part.

For users who prioritize compute performance in OpenCL, the two cards are statistically identical. However, the FirePro W4300's memory advantage and newer architecture make it the superior choice for any workload that stresses memory or requires modern API features. The R9 M275X's only unique selling point is its Vulkan score of 9964, which may be relevant for specific applications or games that leverage Vulkan compute. Otherwise, the FirePro W4300 is the verdict winner based on the data.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single head-to-head benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, shows a virtual tie. The FirePro W4300 scores 11225, while the R9 M275X scores 11200. The delta is 0.2%, which is within the margin of error for most benchmark runs. This result is consistent with the underlying specification differences: the FirePro has 768 shading units and a texture rate of 44.64 GTexel/s, while the R9 M275X has 640 shading units and a texture rate of 37.00 GTexel/s. The FirePro's FP32 performance of 1,428.5 GFLOPS is 20.6% higher than the R9 M275X's 1,184.0 GFLOPS, yet the OpenCL scores do not reflect this gap, suggesting the benchmark is not purely compute-bound.

The pixel rates are nearly identical: 14.88 GPixel/s for the FirePro versus 14.80 GPixel/s for the R9 M275X, a difference of less than 1%. This is expected since both have 16 ROPs. The memory bandwidth difference is more pronounced, with the FirePro's 96.00 GB/s being a full 33.3% higher than the R9 M275X's 72.00 GB/s. This bandwidth advantage does not translate into a significant OpenCL score difference, indicating that the R9 M275X's lower bandwidth is not a bottleneck in this specific test.

The R9 M275X's Vulkan score of 9964 provides a second data point that the FirePro lacks. While we cannot compare this directly, its existence suggests the R9 M275X can handle Vulkan compute workloads. The FirePro W4300's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 (score 11228, delta 0%) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M (score 11261, delta -0.3%), placing it in the 50th percentile of all GPUs. The R9 M275X's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 6600S (score 10629, delta -0.4%) and the NVIDIA Quadro K2200 (score 10761, delta -1.7%), placing it in the 49th percentile.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher raw compute performance in OpenCL?

A: The AMD FirePro W4300 leads by a marginal 0.2% in Geekbench OpenCL, scoring 11225 versus the R9 M275X's 11200. This is a negligible difference in practical terms.

Q: Does the Radeon R9 M275X support Vulkan?

A: Yes, the R9 M275X has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 9964. The FirePro W4300 does not have a Vulkan benchmark score listed in the data.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference between the two?

A: The FirePro W4300 has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory, double the R9 M275X's 2 GB. The FirePro also has a higher memory bandwidth of 96.00 GB/s versus 72.00 GB/s.

Q: Which card has a newer architecture?

A: The FirePro W4300 uses GCN 2.0, while the R9 M275X uses GCN 1.0. Both are built on a 28 nm process from TSMC.

Q: What are the DirectX support levels?

A: The FirePro W4300 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the R9 M275X supports DirectX 12 (11_1). This gives the FirePro a more complete DirectX 12 feature set.

Q: Which card is better for a multi-display professional setup?

A: The FirePro W4300 is the clear choice, as it features 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs and a single-slot design. The R9 M275X has no listed display outputs.

Architecture Differences

The two cards represent different generations of AMD's Graphics Core Next (GCN) architecture. The FirePro W4300 is based on GCN 2.0, while the R9 M275X is based on GCN 1.0. This generational gap is significant, as GCN 2.0 introduced architectural refinements over the original GCN design. The FirePro W4300 uses the "Bonaire" chip, which contains 2,080 million transistors on a 160 mm² die. The R9 M275X uses the "Venus" chip, with 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die. The transistor density is slightly higher on the FirePro at 13.0M / mm² versus 12.2M / mm².

The FirePro W4300 has a more robust compute configuration: 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The R9 M275X has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This gives the FirePro a 20% advantage in shading units and TMUs, which translates to higher theoretical texture and FP32 rates. The FirePro's FP32 performance is 1,428.5 GFLOPS, and its texture rate is 44.64 GTexel/s. The R9 M275X's FP32 performance is 1,184.0 GFLOPS, and its texture rate is 37.00 GTexel/s.

Both cards are built by TSMC on a 28 nm process, but the FirePro's larger die and higher transistor count suggest a more complex design. The FirePro W4300 is part of the FirePro GCN (Wx300) generation, while the R9 M275X is part of the Gem System (R9 M200) generation. This places them in different product families: the FirePro is a professional workstation card, while the R9 M275X is a mobile/consumer part. The FirePro's predecessor is FirePro Terascale, and its successor is Radeon Pro GCN. The R9 M275X's predecessor is Solar System, and its successor is Polaris Mobile.

Specification Differences

The specification differences are substantial and define the cards' distinct roles. The most obvious difference is memory: the FirePro W4300 has 4 GB of GDDR5 with a 128-bit bus and 96.00 GB/s bandwidth. The R9 M275X has 2 GB of GDDR5 with a 128-bit bus and 72.00 GB/s bandwidth. The memory clock differs as well: the FirePro runs at 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective), while the R9 M275X runs at 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective).

Clock speeds are another point of divergence. The R9 M275X has a base clock of 900 MHz and a boost clock of 925 MHz. The FirePro W4300 has no listed base or boost clock, which is unusual and may indicate a fixed clock profile or a lack of published data. The FirePro W4300 has a TDP of 50 W and a suggested PSU of 250 W, while the R9 M275X has no TDP or PSU listing. The FirePro is a single-slot card measuring 171 mm (6.7 inches) in length and 69 mm (2.7 inches) in height, with no power connectors required. The R9 M275X has no dimensions or power connector information.

The FirePro W4300 offers 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, making it suitable for multi-monitor professional use. The R9 M275X has no display outputs listed, reinforcing its mobile/OEM nature. Both cards use a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface. The FirePro supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The R9 M275X supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The FirePro's DirectX 12 (12_0) support is a higher feature level than the R9 M275X's (11_1). The FirePro W4300 was released on 2015-11-30, while the R9 M275X was released earlier on 2014-01-27. Both are end-of-life products.