AMD FirePro W4300 vs AMD Radeon RX 550 Comparison

The AMD FirePro W4300 and AMD Radeon RX 550 are both end-of-life, low-profile graphics cards from AMD, but they target very different use cases despite their similar 50 W TDP. The FirePro W4300 is a workstation card built on the older GCN 2.0 architecture, while the RX 550 is a consumer Polaris card. The benchmark data shows a near-tie in raw compute, but the specification sheets reveal significant differences in memory capacity, interface bandwidth, and API support that dictate where each card belongs.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available in the data is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and it is remarkably close. The AMD FirePro W4300 scores 11,225, while the AMD Radeon RX 550 scores 11,063. This gives the FirePro W4300 a 1.5% lead. In practical terms, that is a negligible difference for most workloads; a 1.5% delta falls well within run-to-run variance for OpenCL benchmarks. The data shows the FirePro W4300 winning this head-to-head, but the margin is so thin that it should not be a deciding factor for any purchase.

Looking at the broader context of the nearest rivals, both cards sit at the 50th percentile among all GPUs. The FirePro W4300's nearest rival is the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200, which scores 11,228, a 0% delta. This means the FirePro W4300 is effectively performance-identical to the newer Pro WX 3200 in OpenCL. Meanwhile, the RX 550's nearest rival is the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q, scoring 11,088, a -0.1% delta. The RX 550 is also within 0.3% of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER (11,047). This clustering suggests that both cards are firmly in the same performance tier for compute tasks, despite their architectural differences.

The RX 550 has additional benchmark data beyond OpenCL. It scores 20,838 in Geekbench Metal, 12,270 in Geekbench Vulkan, and 127 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12. The Metal score is notably strong, indicating that the RX 550 handles Apple's compute API well, but the 3DMark DX12 score of 127 is very low, suggesting that modern gaming workloads are not this card's strength. The FirePro W4300 has no comparable gaming or Metal data in the pack, so the analysis must rely on the single OpenCL result for direct comparison.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD FirePro W4300 wins on raw OpenCL compute throughput, albeit by a hair. Its 1.5% lead over the RX 550 translates to a slight edge in any application that leverages OpenCL for general-purpose compute. The data also shows that the FirePro W4300 matches the Radeon Pro WX 3200, which is a workstation card from a later generation. This suggests that for professional compute tasks that are not gaming-oriented, the FirePro W4300 holds its own.

The AMD Radeon RX 550 wins on API versatility. It supports Vulkan 1.3, whereas the FirePro W4300 is limited to Vulkan 1.2.170. The RX 550 also has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 12,270, which is 10.9% higher than its OpenCL score of 11,063. This indicates that the RX 550 is better optimized for Vulkan workloads. Additionally, the RX 550's Metal score of 20,838 is nearly double its OpenCL score, making it the clear winner for any macOS or Metal-based compute environment. The RX 550 also has a functional DX12 score, while the FirePro W4300 has no DX12 benchmark data in the pack, implying that the RX 550 is more viable for DirectX 12 applications.

In gaming, the RX 550's 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 127 is low, but it exists at all. The FirePro W4300 has no gaming benchmark data, which is consistent with its workstation positioning. The data suggests the RX 550 is the better choice for hybrid workloads that mix compute with graphics API calls, while the FirePro W4300 is the purer compute card.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in OpenCL compute?

A: The AMD FirePro W4300 scores 11,225 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 1.5% higher than the RX 550's 11,063. The FirePro W4300 wins this test, but the margin is small enough to be considered a statistical tie.

Q: Does the RX 550 support newer graphics APIs?

A: Yes. The RX 550 supports Vulkan 1.3, while the FirePro W4300 is limited to Vulkan 1.2.170. Both cards support DirectX 12 (12_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but the RX 550 has a higher Vulkan revision.

Q: How do these cards compare to other GPUs in their performance tier?

A: The FirePro W4300 is performance-identical to the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200, with a 0% delta in average score. The RX 550 is within 0.3% of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER and within 0.1% of the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q. Both cards sit at the 50th percentile among all GPUs.

Q: Which card has more memory bandwidth?

A: The RX 550 has higher memory bandwidth at 112.0 GB/s, compared to the FirePro W4300's 96.00 GB/s. However, the FirePro W4300 has double the memory capacity at 4 GB versus 2 GB.

Q: Can the RX 550 handle DirectX 12 gaming?

A: The RX 550 has a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 127, which is very low. It can technically run DX12 workloads, but the performance is minimal. The FirePro W4300 has no DX12 benchmark data in the pack.

Q: What is the launch MSRP of the RX 550?

A: The RX 550 has a launch MSRP of 79 USD. The FirePro W4300 has no launch MSRP listed in the data.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ significantly in memory configuration. The FirePro W4300 comes with 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 96.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The RX 550 has only 2 GB of GDDR5, also on a 128-bit bus, but runs faster at 7 Gbps effective, giving it 112.0 GB/s. The FirePro W4300 has more capacity, while the RX 550 has more bandwidth per byte.

Processing resources also differ. The FirePro W4300 has 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The RX 550 has fewer shading units (512) and TMUs (32), but the same 16 ROPs. This is reflected in the pixel and texture rates: the FirePro W4300 outputs 14.88 GPixel/s and 44.64 GTexel/s, while the RX 550 outputs 18.93 GPixel/s and 37.86 GTexel/s. The RX 550 has a higher pixel fill rate despite fewer ROPs, due to its higher clock speeds.

Clock speeds are a major differentiator. The FirePro W4300 has no base or boost clock listed, but its memory runs at 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective). The RX 550 has a base clock of 1100 MHz and a boost clock of 1183 MHz, with memory at 1750 MHz (7 Gbps effective). The RX 550's higher clocks explain its superior pixel rate.

Physical specifications also diverge. The FirePro W4300 is a single-slot card measuring 171 mm (6.7 inches) in length and 69 mm (2.7 inches) in height. The RX 550 is a dual-slot card measuring 145 mm (5.7 inches) in length. Both cards have no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The FirePro W4300 uses a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, while the RX 550 uses PCIe 3.0 x8. The FirePro W4300 has 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, while the RX 550 has 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0b, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split is generational. The FirePro W4300 uses the Bonaire chip on GCN 2.0 architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 2,080 million transistors on a 160 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 13.0M / mm². The RX 550 uses the Lexa chip on GCN 4.0 architecture, fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It has 2,200 million transistors on a much smaller 103 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 21.4M / mm². The newer process node allows the RX 550 to fit more transistors in less space.

The FP32 compute output favors the FirePro W4300. It delivers 1,428.5 GFLOPS, while the RX 550 delivers 1,211.4 GFLOPS. The RX 550 also has FP16 performance at 1,211.4 GFLOPS (1:1), whereas the FirePro W4300 has no FP16 data listed. This suggests the RX 550 has better half-precision support, which is useful for certain AI and media workloads.

The FirePro W4300 is part of the FirePro GCN (Wx300) generation, with a predecessor of FirePro Terascale and a successor of Radeon Pro GCN. The RX 550 is part of the Polaris (RX 500) generation, with a predecessor of Arctic Islands and a successor of Vega. The FirePro W4300 was released on 2015-11-30, while the RX 550 came later on 2017-04-19. In terms of API support, the FirePro W4300 supports Vulkan 1.2.170, while the RX 550 supports Vulkan 1.3, a newer revision.

The Verdict

The data paints a clear picture for different buyers. The AMD FirePro W4300 is the pick for workstation compute tasks that demand more memory. Its 4 GB VRAM is double the RX 550's 2 GB, and its 1.5% OpenCL lead, while small, is consistent. The FirePro W4300's x16 bus interface also provides more bandwidth to the host system than the RX 550's x8 interface, which can matter in data-intensive workloads. If the task involves large datasets or multi-display setups (4x mini-DisplayPort), the FirePro W4300 is the rational choice.

The AMD Radeon RX 550 is the pick for versatility and modern API support. Its Vulkan 1.3 support and strong Geekbench Vulkan score of 12,270 indicate better forward compatibility. The RX 550's Metal score of 20,838 makes it the only viable option for macOS compute environments. Its higher memory bandwidth (112.0 GB/s) and pixel rate (18.93 GPixel/s) give it an edge in graphics-heavy tasks, even if its FP32 compute is 15.2% lower than the FirePro W4300. The RX 550 also has a launch MSRP of 79 USD, which is the only pricing data available.

For a pure compute machine with no gaming or Vulkan requirements, the FirePro W4300's extra memory and slightly higher OpenCL score make it the safer bet. For a general-purpose card that can handle Vulkan, Metal, and even light DX12, the RX 550 is the more flexible option. The 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 127 is a warning, though: neither card is suitable for modern gaming. Both cards sit at the 50th percentile, meaning they are middling performers, but the RX 550's newer architecture and API support give it a longer useful life. Choose the FirePro W4300 for professional compute with large memory footprints; choose the RX 550 for API diversity and higher memory speed.