AMD FirePro W4300 vs AMD Radeon RX 5500M Comparison

FAQ

Q: What is the average benchmark score for the AMD Radeon RX 5500M, and where does it rank?

A: The RX 5500M has an average benchmark score of 13,356, placing it in the 54th percentile of all GPUs in the database. Its closest rival, the AMD FirePro M6100, scores 13,354, a difference of 0%.

Q: How does the AMD FirePro W4300 compare on average score and percentile?

A: The FirePro W4300 has an average benchmark score of 11,225, placing it in the 50th percentile. Its nearest rival is the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200, which scores 11,228, a 0% delta.

Q: What is the only direct head-to-head benchmark available between these two cards?

A: The only shared benchmark in the database is Geekbench OpenCL. The RX 5500M scores 38,725, while the FirePro W4300 scores 11,225. The RX 5500M wins with a 245% higher score.

Q: What are the memory capacities and types for each card?

A: Both cards have 4 GB of memory. The RX 5500M uses GDDR6, while the FirePro W4300 uses GDDR5. The bus width is 128 bit for both.

Q: How do their memory bandwidths differ?

A: The RX 5500M achieves 224.0 GB/s, while the FirePro W4300 achieves 96.00 GB/s. The RX 5500M offers more than double the memory bandwidth.

Q: What is the process node and transistor count for each GPU?

A: The RX 5500M is built on a 7 nm process at TSMC, with 6,400 million transistors on a 158 mm² die. The FirePro W4300 uses a 28 nm process, also at TSMC, with 2,080 million transistors on a 160 mm² die.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations. The AMD Radeon RX 5500M is based on the Navi 14 chip, using RDNA 1.0 architecture. It belongs to the Radeon RX 5000 series and the Navi Mobile generation (RX 5000M). The AMD FirePro W4300 is built on the Bonaire chip, using the older GCN 2.0 architecture, part of the FirePro GCN (Wx300) generation.

The manufacturing process is a major differentiator. The RX 5500M is fabricated on a 7 nm process at TSMC, resulting in a transistor density of 40.5 million per square millimeter. The FirePro W4300 uses a 28 nm process, also at TSMC, with a density of 13.0 million per square millimeter. The RX 5500M packs 6,400 million transistors on a 158 mm² die, while the FirePro W4300 has 2,080 million transistors on a slightly larger 160 mm² die.

Compute resources also differ sharply. The RX 5500M has 1,408 shading units, 88 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The FirePro W4300 has 768 shading units, 48 texture units, and 16 ROPs. The RX 5500M has nearly double the shading units and texture units, and double the ROP count.

Memory architecture shows generational progress. The RX 5500M uses GDDR6 memory at 14 Gbps effective speed, reaching 224.0 GB/s over a 128 bit bus. The FirePro W4300 uses GDDR5 memory at 6 Gbps effective, achieving 96.00 GB/s over the same 128 bit bus.

The RX 5500M supports PCIe 4.0 x8, while the FirePro W4300 uses PCIe 3.0 x16. API support differs slightly: the RX 5500M supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the FirePro W4300 supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.2.170. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains exactly one shared benchmark result between these two cards: Geekbench OpenCL. This is the only direct numerical comparison available, and the margin is substantial.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the AMD Radeon RX 5500M returns a score of 38,725. The AMD FirePro W4300 scores 11,225. The RX 5500M wins with a delta of 245%, meaning its score is nearly three and a half times higher. This is a decisive result. The FirePro W4300 has no benchmark wins against the RX 5500M in the recorded data.

The RX 5500M also holds a broader benchmark presence. Its average score across all tests is 13,356, which includes results from Geekbench Metal, Vulkan, and Passmark suites. The FirePro W4300 has only the single Geekbench OpenCL result, making its average score equal to that one test at 11,225.

When looking at the percentile ranks, the RX 5500M sits at the 54th percentile of all GPUs, while the FirePro W4300 sits at the 50th percentile. The RX 5500M is also ranked against rivals with higher average scores, such as the AMD Radeon HD 8950M at 13,376 (a -0.1% delta), and the AMD Radeon Pro 555X at 13,321 (a +0.3% delta). The FirePro W4300 sits near the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M at 11,261 (-0.3%) and the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q at 11,088 (+1.2%).

Specification Differences

The table below lists only the fields where the two cards differ, according to the database records.

| Specification | AMD Radeon RX 5500M | AMD FirePro W4300 |

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

| Chip | Navi 14 | Bonaire |

| Architecture | RDNA 1.0 | GCN 2.0 |

| Generation | Navi Mobile (RX 5000M) | FirePro GCN (Wx300) |

| Process Node | 7 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 6,400 million | 2,080 million |

| Die Size | 158 mm² | 160 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 40.5M / mm² | 13.0M / mm² |

| Memory Clock | 1750 MHz, 14 Gbps effective | 1500 MHz, 6 Gbps effective |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bandwidth | 224.0 GB/s | 96.00 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1408 | 768 |

| Texture Mapping Units | 88 | 48 |

| Raster Operations Pipelines | 32 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 52.64 GPixel/s | 14.88 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 144.8 GTexel/s | 44.64 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 4.632 TFLOPS | 1,428.5 GFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 9.265 TFLOPS (2:1) | null |

| TDP | 85 W | 50 W |

| Slot Width | null | Single-slot |

| Suggested PSU | null | 250 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 |

| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (12_0) |

| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.2.170 |

| Dimensions (Length) | null | 171 mm (6.7 inches) |

| Dimensions (Height) | null | 69 mm (2.7 inches) |

| Successor | null | Radeon Pro GCN |

The Verdict

The recorded data points to a clear winner in the only shared benchmark. The AMD Radeon RX 5500M outperforms the AMD FirePro W4300 by 245% in Geekbench OpenCL. The RX 5500M also holds a higher average score, 13,356 versus 11,225, and a higher percentile rank, 54th versus 50th.

The RX 5500M wins on every measurable compute metric. It offers higher pixel rate, higher texture rate, and higher FP32 throughput. The FP32 performance of the RX 5500M is 4.632 TFLOPS, compared to 1,428.5 GFLOPS for the FirePro W4300. The RX 5500M supports FP16 with a 2:1 ratio, while the FirePro W4300 has no recorded FP16 capability.

The FirePro W4300 is not without merit, but its advantages lie outside compute benchmarks. It has a lower TDP at 50 W compared to 85 W, and it is a single-slot card with four mini-DisplayPort outputs, making it suitable for specific workstation form factors. The RX 5500M, by contrast, has display outputs that are described as portable device dependent.

For any task that relies on raw compute performance, the data favors the RX 5500M by a wide margin. The FirePro W4300 is an older design, evidenced by its 28 nm process and GCN 2.0 architecture. The RX 5500M uses a modern 7 nm process and RDNA 1.0.

The verdict is clear: the RX 5500M is the stronger performer in the database's recorded benchmarks. The FirePro W4300 has zero wins in head-to-head comparisons.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon RX 5500M wins in all compute scenarios. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 38,725 against 11,225, a 245% lead. This makes it the obvious choice for any workload that stresses the GPU's shader units, texture units, or memory bandwidth. Its bandwidth of 224.0 GB/s, combined with 1,408 shading units, gives it a significant edge in data-parallel tasks. The FP32 throughput of 4.632 TFLOPS is more than three times the 1,428.5 GFLOPS of the FirePro W4300.

The RX 5500M also has a higher pixel rate, 52.64 GPixel/s versus 14.88 GPixel/s, and a higher texture rate, 144.8 GTexel/s versus 44.64 GTexel/s. These figures indicate it can handle geometry and texture-heavy rendering faster than the FirePro W4300.

The AMD FirePro W4300 wins on power efficiency and physical design. It draws 50 W versus 85 W, making it easier to integrate into low-power systems. It is a single-slot card with a length of 171 mm and a height of 69 mm, which fits into compact chassis. It provides four mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, which is useful for multi-monitor workstation setups. The RX 5500M has no fixed display output configuration, as it is designed for portable devices.

The FirePro W4300 also requires a lower suggested PSU, 250 W, while the RX 5500M has no suggested PSU listed. The FirePro W4300 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the RX 5500M uses PCIe 4.0 x8. For users with older platforms, the FirePro W4300 may offer easier integration. However, in terms of raw performance, the RX 5500M is the clear winner across all recorded benchmark data.