AMD FirePro W4300 vs AMD Radeon RX 580 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data splits these two AMD workstation and consumer cards into very different roles. The AMD Radeon RX 580 wins the only directly comparable benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, by a massive margin. It scores 37,453 against the AMD FirePro W4300’s 11,225, a 233.7% advantage. That single result dominates the head-to-head comparison and defines the RX 580 as the clear compute leader between the two.

The AMD FirePro W4300, however, occupies a different niche. It is a single-slot, 50 W card with four mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, built for compact professional workstations where density and low power draw matter more than raw throughput. The RX 580 is a dual-slot card with a 185 W TDP, one 8-pin power connector, and a suggested 450 W power supply. In a constrained chassis or a multi-GPU professional setup, the W4300’s physical and electrical footprint gives it an advantage that no benchmark score in the database captures directly.

Benchmark coverage also differs sharply. The RX 580 has eleven recorded benchmarks spanning DirectX 9, 10, 11, 12, Vulkan, Metal, OpenCL, and 2D tests. The W4300 has only one recorded benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL. So while the RX 580 demonstrates broad API support and strong all-around performance, the W4300’s database presence is too thin to claim wins in any other category. The wins column reflects this: the RX 580 holds one head-to-head win, the W4300 holds zero.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different generations of AMD’s Graphics Core Next design. The RX 580 uses the Polaris 20 chip on the GCN 4.0 architecture, built on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It packs 5,700 million transistors into a 232 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 24.6 million per square millimeter. The FirePro W4300 uses the Bonaire chip on the older GCN 2.0 architecture, manufactured by TSMC on a 28 nm process. It contains 2,080 million transistors on a 160 mm² die, for a density of 13.0 million per square millimeter.

The compute resources diverge substantially. The RX 580 has 2,304 shading units, 144 texture mapping units, and 32 raster operation pipelines. The W4300 has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. That is exactly one-third the shading units and TMUs, and half the ROPs. Pixel fill rate tells the same story: 42.88 GPixel/s for the RX 580 versus 14.88 GPixel/s for the W4300. Texture rate is 193.0 GTexel/s versus 44.64 GTexel/s. Floating-point performance is 6.175 TFLOPS for the RX 580, while the W4300 manages 1,428.5 GFLOPS, roughly 4.3 times less.

Memory subsystems also differ by a generation. The RX 580 has 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The W4300 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 96.00 GB/s. Both use GDDR5, but the RX 580 doubles capacity and bus width, and nearly triples bandwidth. The RX 580 also supports 1:1 FP16 compute at 6.175 TFLOPS, while the W4300 lists no FP16 output in the database.

Feature sets are similar at the API level. Both support DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan, though the RX 580 reports Vulkan 1.3 and the W4300 reports Vulkan 1.2.170. Display outputs differ significantly: the RX 580 offers one HDMI 2.0b and three DisplayPort 1.4a connectors, while the W4300 provides four mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs. The W4300 is physically smaller at 171 mm length and 69 mm height versus the RX 580’s 241 mm length, and it requires no power connectors compared to the RX 580’s single 8-pin.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains exactly one head-to-head benchmark between these two cards: Geekbench OpenCL. The RX 580 scores 37,453, and the W4300 scores 11,225. The delta is 233.7%, meaning the RX 580 is more than three times faster in this OpenCL compute workload. This is not a marginal victory; it is a decisive generational and architectural gap.

Looking at the RX 580’s broader benchmark suite, its average score across all recorded tests is 12,928. Its nearest rivals in the database are the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Ti Mobile at 12,940 (0.1% ahead), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER at 12,986 (0.4% ahead), the AMD Radeon 740M at 12,870 (0.5% behind), and the AMD FirePro W5100 at 12,847 (0.6% behind). These deltas are tiny, placing the RX 580 in a very tight performance cluster around the 12,800 to 13,000 average score range. Its percentile versus all GPUs is 53, meaning it sits just above the median of the database.

The W4300’s average benchmark score is 11,225, which matches its only recorded result. Its nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 at 11,228 (exactly 0% delta), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M at 11,261 (0.3% ahead), and the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q and RTX PRO 6000D Blackwell Max-Q, both at 11,088 (1.2% behind). The W4300 sits at the 50th percentile, squarely at the median of all GPUs in the database.

The contrast is stark when interpreting these numbers. The RX 580’s OpenCL score alone is 233.7% higher than the W4300’s entire average. Even the RX 580’s lower individual scores, such as its Passmark DirectX 12 result of 43 or DirectX 10 result of 46, reflect gaming-oriented workloads that the W4300 was never designed to run at competitive levels. The W4300 has no recorded scores for any DirectX test, Metal, Vulkan, or Passmark G3D, so its compute-only profile cannot be compared on those axes.

The Verdict

From the recorded data, the AMD Radeon RX 580 is the unequivocal performance winner. Its single head-to-head win in Geekbench OpenCL, a 233.7% advantage, is overwhelming. Its shading unit count is triple that of the W4300, its memory bandwidth is 2.67 times higher, and its pixel and texture rates are roughly three to four times greater. For any compute workload represented by OpenCL, the RX 580 is the only rational choice between these two.

The AMD FirePro W4300, however, is not without purpose. Its 50 W TDP, single-slot design, and lack of external power connectors make it suitable for low-profile or densely populated professional systems. The four mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs support multi-display professional configurations. Its 4 GB of VRAM on a 128-bit bus is modest, but for legacy workstation tasks that do not demand high throughput, the power and space savings are real advantages. The database shows it performing at the 50th percentile, exactly average, with rival deltas within 1.2% of rivals like the Radeon Pro WX 3200.

Who should pick which depends entirely on priorities. A user prioritizing raw compute performance across a broad API set, DirectX gaming, and OpenCL acceleration should choose the RX 580. Its launch MSRP was 229 USD, and it offers 6.175 TFLOPS of FP32 compute. A user needing a compact, power-efficient professional card with multiple mini-DisplayPort outputs and a 96.00 GB/s of bandwidth on a 128-bit bus should choose the W4300 form factor, accepting its lower compute ceiling. The data does not support any claim of the W4300 winning in any benchmark, but the use case wins are defined by physical constraints rather than score superiority.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the RX 580 in OpenCL?

A: The RX 580 scores 37,453 in Geekbench OpenCL versus the W4300’s 11,225, a delta of 233.7% in favor of the RX 580.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The RX 580 delivers 256.0 GB/s on a 256-bit bus, while the W4300 provides 96.00 GB/s on a 128-bit bus.

Q Which card has more shading units?

A: The RX 580 has 2,304 shading units, exactly three times the W4300’s 768.

Q: What is the TDP comparison?

A: The W4300 runs at 50 W, while the RX 580 runs at 185 W and requires a single 8-pin power connector.

Q: Does the W4300 support DirectX 12?

A: Yes, both cards support DirectX 12 (12_0) per the database, along with OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.3 for the RX 580 and Vulkan 1.2.170 for the W4300.

Q: What is the percentile ranking of each card in the database?

A: The RX 580 sits at the 53rd percentile versus all GPUs, and the W4300 sits at the 50th percentile.