AMD FirePro W4300 vs AMD Radeon R9 M375 Comparison

The AMD FirePro W4300 and AMD Radeon R9 M375 are both end-of-life mobile and workstation graphics solutions from AMD, built on the same 28 nm TSMC process. Despite sharing a manufacturer and process node, the data reveals they are distinctly different products targeting different use cases. The FirePro W4300 is a professional workstation card, while the Radeon R9 M375 is a mainstream mobile GPU. This analysis breaks down their benchmark performance, architectural differences, and specification gaps.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the results show a clear, albeit modest, victory for the AMD FirePro W4300. The FirePro W4300 scores 11,225, while the Radeon R9 M375 scores 10,457, giving the FirePro a 7.3% lead in this compute-oriented workload.

This 7.3% advantage is significant in the context of their respective competitive positions. The FirePro W4300’s score places it in the 50th percentile of all GPUs, with its nearest rival being the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200, which scores 11,228 — a negligible 0% difference. This means the W4300 is essentially performance-equivalent to the WX 3200. In contrast, the R9 M375 sits in the 48th percentile, and its closest competitor is the NVIDIA Quadro K5100M, which scores 10,043, a 0.3% difference. The R9 M375 also edges out the AMD Radeon Pro 5300M (10,013) by 0.6% and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 870M (9,959) by 1.1%.

The delta between the two cards is consistent with their architectural and specification differences. The FirePro W4300’s raw compute output, measured at 1,428.5 GFLOPS FP32, is 9.9% higher than the R9 M375’s 1,299.2 GFLOPS. This close correlation between the FP32 rating and the OpenCL score suggests that the benchmark is heavily compute-bound, favoring the card with more shading units and higher raw throughput. The R9 M375 does have a higher pixel rate at 16.24 GPixel/s versus 14.88 GPixel/s for the W4300, but this does not translate into a win in the OpenCL test, which prioritizes general-purpose compute over pixel fill.

In the broader context of the database, the FirePro W4300’s 11,225 score is far ahead of its own rival list’s lower end, showing it is 1.2% faster than the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q (11,088). The R9 M375, meanwhile, is 2% slower than the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A (10,273), which is its closest higher-scoring rival. These placements reinforce that while the FirePro is a solid mid-pack performer, the R9 M375 is a step down in compute capability.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on different generations of AMD’s Graphics Core Next (GCN) architecture. The FirePro W4300 is based on the newer GCN 2.0, while the Radeon R9 M375 uses the original GCN 1.0. This generational gap is a core differentiator in their design philosophy.

The FirePro W4300 utilizes the Bonaire chip, which packs 2,080 million transistors into a 160 mm² die. This results in a transistor density of 13.0M per mm². The R9 M375 uses the Tropo chip, which has 1,500 million transistors on a smaller 123 mm² die, yielding a lower density of 12.2M per mm². The larger transistor budget on the W4300 directly supports its higher core counts.

In terms of execution resources, the FirePro W4300 has 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 16 render output units (ROPs). The R9 M375 has fewer of each: 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The extra 128 shading units and 8 TMUs on the W4300 are the primary drivers of its higher texture rate (44.64 GTexel/s vs. 40.60 GTexel/s) and FP32 output.

Memory architecture also differs significantly. The FirePro W4300 is equipped with 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering a bandwidth of 96.00 GB/s. The R9 M375 has only 2 GB of DDR3 memory on the same 128-bit bus, resulting in a much lower bandwidth of 28.80 GB/s. The W4300’s memory clock is 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective), while the R9 M375’s is 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective). This massive 3.3x bandwidth advantage for the W4300 is a critical architectural difference, especially for memory-intensive professional workloads.

The R9 M375 does have explicit base and boost clocks of 1000 MHz and 1015 MHz, respectively, while the FirePro W4300’s core clocks are not listed in the data. The R9 M375 also carries a DirectX 12 feature level of 12 (11_1), whereas the W4300 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), indicating a higher feature set on the professional card. Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.170.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher raw compute performance?

A: The AMD FirePro W4300 has a higher FP32 rating at 1,428.5 GFLOPS, compared to the Radeon R9 M375’s 1,299.2 GFLOPS. This translates to a 7.3% higher score in the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark.

Q: Are there any benchmark tests where the Radeon R9 M375 wins?

A: No. In the single head-to-head benchmark test available (Geekbench OpenCL), the FirePro W4300 wins with a score of 11,225 versus the R9 M375’s 10,457. The data shows 1 win for the FirePro W4300 and 0 wins for the R9 M375.

Q: How do the memory configurations differ?

A: The FirePro W4300 has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory with a 128-bit bus and 96.00 GB/s bandwidth. The Radeon R9 M375 has 2 GB of DDR3 memory with a 128-bit bus and 28.80 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What are the transistor counts and die sizes for each chip?

A: The FirePro W4300 uses the Bonaire chip with 2,080 million transistors on a 160 mm² die. The Radeon R9 M375 uses the Tropo chip with 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same API feature levels?

A: No. The FirePro W4300 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the Radeon R9 M375 supports DirectX 12 (11_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.170.

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The Radeon R9 M375 has a higher pixel rate at 16.24 GPixel/s, compared to the FirePro W4300’s 14.88 GPixel/s, despite having fewer shading units.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the AMD FirePro W4300 and the AMD Radeon R9 M375:

• Chip: Bonaire (FirePro W4300) vs. Tropo (R9 M375)
• Architecture: GCN 2.0 (FirePro W4300) vs. GCN 1.0 (R9 M375)
• Transistors: 2,080 million (FirePro W4300) vs. 1,500 million (R9 M375)
• Die Size: 160 mm² (FirePro W4300) vs. 123 mm² (R9 M375)
• Transistor Density: 13.0M / mm² (FirePro W4300) vs. 12.2M / mm² (R9 M375)
• Memory Clock: 1500 MHz / 6 Gbps effective (FirePro W4300) vs. 900 MHz / 1800 Mbps effective (R9 M375)
• Base Clock: Not listed (FirePro W4300) vs. 1000 MHz (R9 M375)
• Boost Clock: Not listed (FirePro W4300) vs. 1015 MHz (R9 M375)
• Memory Size: 4 GB (FirePro W4300) vs. 2 GB (R9 M375)
• Memory Type: GDDR5 (FirePro W4300) vs. DDR3 (R9 M375)
• Memory Bandwidth: 96.00 GB/s (FirePro W4300) vs. 28.80 GB/s (R9 M375)
• Shading Units: 768 (FirePro W4300) vs. 640 (R9 M375)
• TMUs: 48 (FirePro W4300) vs. 40 (R9 M375)
• Pixel Rate: 14.88 GPixel/s (FirePro W4300) vs. 16.24 GPixel/s (R9 M375)
• Texture Rate: 44.64 GTexel/s (FirePro W4300) vs. 40.60 GTexel/s (R9 M375)
• FP32: 1,428.5 GFLOPS (FirePro W4300) vs. 1,299.2 GFLOPS (R9 M375)
• TDP: 50 W (FirePro W4300) vs. Not listed (R9 M375)
• Slot Width: Single-slot (FirePro W4300) vs. Not listed (R9 M375)
• Power Connectors: None (FirePro W4300) vs. Not listed (R9 M375)
• Suggested PSU: 250 W (FirePro W4300) vs. Not listed (R9 M375)
• Display Outputs: 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 (FirePro W4300) vs. Not listed (R9 M375)
• Dimensions: 171 mm / 6.7 inches length, 69 mm / 2.7 inches height (FirePro W4300) vs. Not listed (R9 M375)
• DirectX Support: 12 (12_0) (FirePro W4300) vs. 12 (11_1) (R9 M375)
• Release Date: 2015-11-30 (FirePro W4300) vs. 2015-05-04 (R9 M375)
• Predecessor: FirePro Terascale (FirePro W4300) vs. Solar System (R9 M375)
• Successor: Radeon Pro GCN (FirePro W4300) vs. Polaris Mobile (R9 M375)

Where Each One Wins

The AMD FirePro W4300 wins decisively in compute and memory-bound scenarios. Its 4 GB GDDR5 frame buffer with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth is a substantial advantage over the R9 M375’s 2 GB DDR3 at 28.80 GB/s. For professional applications like CAD, scientific simulation, or any workload that relies on OpenCL compute, the W4300’s higher FP32 throughput (1,428.5 GFLOPS) and 7.3% benchmark lead make it the clear choice. Its single-slot design, 50 W TDP, and four mini-DisplayPort outputs also position it as a dedicated workstation card for multi-display professional setups.

The AMD Radeon R9 M375 has a narrow advantage in pixel fill rate, achieving 16.24 GPixel/s compared to the W4300’s 14.88 GPixel/s. This suggests it could have a slight edge in specific pixel-bound rendering tasks, but this is largely overshadowed by its lower compute and memory performance. The R9 M375 also has defined base and boost clocks (1000 MHz / 1015 MHz), whereas the W4300’s clocks are unlisted, which may indicate a more predictable power profile for the R9 M375 in mobile implementations. However, with no benchmark wins in the head-to-head data, this pixel rate advantage does not translate into a tangible victory.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD FirePro W4300 is the superior GPU for compute-heavy tasks. Its 7.3% lead in Geekbench OpenCL, coupled with a 3.3x memory bandwidth advantage and higher FP32 throughput, makes it the appropriate choice for professional workstation users who need reliable, high-throughput compute performance in a low-profile, single-slot package. The W4300’s 50th percentile standing and equivalence to the Radeon Pro WX 3200 further cement its position as a competent entry-level professional card.

The AMD Radeon R9 M375, with its 48th percentile ranking, is positioned as a mainstream mobile GPU. Its lower transistor count, older GCN 1.0 architecture, and DDR3 memory limit its appeal to less demanding consumer applications. The only specification where it leads is pixel rate, which offers no benchmark victory. Given its end-of-life status and the availability of the faster W4300, the R9 M375 is best suited for legacy systems or basic mobile graphics where its lower memory footprint and defined clock speeds are acceptable trade-offs. For anyone choosing between these two based on performance data, the FirePro W4300 is the only rational pick.