AMD FirePro W4300 vs AMD Radeon RX 6500M Comparison

The AMD Radeon RX 6500M is the decisive winner in this comparison, delivering a 243.7% higher OpenCL score than the AMD FirePro W4300. The data shows a generational leap, not a close contest. The FirePro W4300, built on older GCN 2.0 architecture, is outclassed by the RDNA 2.0-based mobile part in raw compute, though it retains advantages in interface width and display connectivity. The benchmark results leave little room for ambiguity: the RX 6500M is the superior performer by a massive margin.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single available head-to-head benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, completely defines this matchup. The AMD Radeon RX 6500M scores 38,586, while the AMD FirePro W4300 scores 11,225. The delta percentage is -70.9%, meaning the FirePro W4300 trails by nearly three-quarters of its rival's score. This is not a marginal victory; the RX 6500M is roughly 3.4 times faster in this compute-oriented test.

The RX 6500M’s dominance is further contextualized by its average benchmark score of 10,362 across nine different tests, which includes not only OpenCL but also Vulkan and several Passmark DirectX variants. The FirePro W4300’s average benchmark score is 11,225, derived from its single OpenCL result. Interestingly, the FirePro’s average score is higher than the RX 6500M’s average (11,225 vs. 10,362), because the RX 6500M’s Passmark scores are low (e.g., 52 for DirectX 10, 34 for DirectX 12, 92 for DirectX 9). Despite this, the RX 6500M’s OpenCL score of 38,586 dwarfs the FirePro’s 11,225, and its Vulkan score of 43,837 is even higher, showing particular strength in modern compute APIs.

Looking at the nearest rivals for each card provides additional perspective. The FirePro W4300 sits at the 50th percentile among all GPUs, with its closest competitor being the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 at 11,228 (0% delta). The RX 6500M sits at the 48th percentile, with its nearest rival being the NVIDIA Tesla C2075 at 10,400 (-0.4% delta). This indicates that while the FirePro’s raw OpenCL score is respectable for its era, the RX 6500M’s OpenCL result is far ahead of its own average, suggesting that its OpenCL performance is a standout feature relative to its other capabilities. The data clearly shows a single, overwhelming victory for the RX 6500M in the only directly comparable metric.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon RX 6500M wins in every measurable compute scenario. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 38,586 is the headline, but its additional benchmarks paint a picture of a versatile performer. The Vulkan score of 43,837 indicates strong modern API utilization, while the Passmark G3D score of 7,531 shows competent graphics rendering. The RX 6500M’s compute capabilities are also evident in its Passmark GPU Compute score of 2,669. The FirePro W4300, with only a single OpenCL benchmark of 11,225, cannot claim a win in any test where data exists.

The FirePro W4300’s potential strengths lie outside the benchmark suite. It features a 128-bit memory bus width, compared to the RX 6500M’s 64-bit bus. This suggests that in memory-bandwidth-sensitive workloads that are not captured by the provided benchmarks, the FirePro could theoretically hold an advantage, though its total bandwidth of 96.00 GB/s is lower than the RX 6500M’s 144.0 GB/s. The FirePro also offers four mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, making it a multi-display workstation card, whereas the RX 6500M’s display outputs are "Portable Device Dependent." However, in terms of raw processing power, the RX 6500M’s FP32 throughput of 4.915 TFLOPS versus the FirePro’s 1,428.5 GFLOPS (1.43 TFLOPS) is a clear indicator of its superiority in general compute tasks. The win count is 1 for the RX 6500M and 0 for the FirePro W4300, reflecting the benchmark data.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent distinct eras of AMD design. The FirePro W4300 is built on the GCN 2.0 architecture using a 28 nm process node from TSMC, featuring the Bonaire chip. The RX 6500M is based on the RDNA 2.0 architecture, manufactured on a 6 nm process node, also by TSMC, using the Navi 24 chip. This process shrink is significant, allowing the RX 6500M to pack 5,400 million transistors into a 107 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 50.5M / mm². The older FirePro has 2,080 million transistors on a larger 160 mm² die, yielding a density of just 13.0M / mm².

The core configurations differ substantially. The RX 6500M has 1,024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 32 render output units (ROPs). The FirePro W4300 has fewer of each: 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The RX 6500M also includes 16 ray tracing cores, a feature entirely absent from the GCN 2.0 FirePro. Memory technology is another differentiator: the RX 6500M uses 4 GB of GDDR6 memory clocked at 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective), while the FirePro uses 4 GB of GDDR5 at 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective). Despite its narrower 64-bit bus, the RX 6500M achieves higher bandwidth (144.0 GB/s vs. 96.00 GB/s) thanks to faster memory.

The RX 6500M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while the FirePro is limited to DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.2.170. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The RX 6500M is a mobile part (IGP slot width) with a PCIe 4.0 x4 interface, whereas the FirePro is a single-slot desktop card with a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface. Both have a TDP of 50 W and require no external power connectors. The RX 6500M’s boost clock is 2400 MHz, with a base clock of 2000 MHz and a game clock of 2191 MHz; the FirePro’s base and boost clocks are not specified in the data.

The Verdict

From the data, the choice is unambiguous for compute performance: the AMD Radeon RX 6500M is the superior product. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 38,586 is more than three times that of the FirePro W4300’s 11,225. The RX 6500M also offers modern features like ray tracing cores and DirectX 12 Ultimate support, which the FirePro lacks entirely. Any user prioritizing raw computational throughput, modern API compatibility, or gaming capability should select the RX 6500M.

The FirePro W4300’s only justifications are its specific workstation features. Its 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs make it suitable for multi-monitor professional setups, and its PCIe 3.0 x16 interface offers more lanes than the RX 6500M’s PCIe 4.0 x4. However, these advantages do not translate into performance wins in the provided benchmarks. The FirePro is an end-of-life product from 2015, while the RX 6500M, though also end-of-life, is from 2022. The benchmark data shows no scenario where the FirePro wins, and its lower pixel rate (14.88 GPixel/s vs. 76.80 GPixel/s) and texture rate (44.64 GTexel/s vs. 153.6 GTexel/s) further cement the RX 6500M’s dominance. The verdict is clear: the RX 6500M is the only rational choice based on performance data.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6500M scores 38,586, which is 243.7% higher than the AMD FirePro W4300’s score of 11,225.

Q: What is the difference in memory bandwidth between the two cards?

A: The RX 6500M has a memory bandwidth of 144.0 GB/s, while the FirePro W4300 has a bandwidth of 96.00 GB/s, despite the FirePro having a wider 128-bit bus versus the RX 6500M’s 64-bit bus.

Q: Do both GPUs support ray tracing?

A: No. The AMD Radeon RX 6500M has 16 ray tracing cores, while the AMD FirePro W4300 has no ray tracing cores listed.

Q: What is the transistor count and die size for each chip?

A: The RX 6500M’s Navi 24 chip has 5,400 million transistors on a 107 mm² die. The FirePro W4300’s Bonaire chip has 2,080 million transistors on a 160 mm² die.

Q: Which card supports a newer version of DirectX?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6500M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the AMD FirePro W4300 supports DirectX 12 (12_0).

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each GPU?

A: The FirePro W4300 has an average benchmark score of 11,225 based on one test. The RX 6500M has an average score of 10,362 across nine tests, with its high OpenCL and Vulkan scores offset by lower Passmark scores.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD FirePro W4300 | AMD Radeon RX 6500M |

| :--- | :--- | :--- |

| Architecture | GCN 2.0 | RDNA 2.0 |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 6 nm |

| Transistors | 2,080 million | 5,400 million |

| Die Size | 160 mm² | 107 mm² |

| Base Clock | Not specified | 2000 MHz |

| Boost Clock | Not specified | 2400 MHz |

| Game Clock | Not specified | 2191 MHz |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 96.00 GB/s | 144.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 768 | 1024 |

| TMUs | 48 | 64 |

| ROPs | 16 | 32 |

| Ray Tracing Cores | None | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 14.88 GPixel/s | 76.80 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 44.64 GTexel/s | 153.6 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 1,428.5 GFLOPS | 4.915 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | Not specified | 9.830 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | IGP |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x4 |

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

| DirectX Support | 12 (12_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.2.170 | 1.4 |

| Release Date | 2015-11-30 | 2022-01-03 |