AMD FirePro W4300 vs AMD Radeon RX 6600S Comparison

# AMD FirePro W4300 vs AMD Radeon RX 6600S

The AMD FirePro W4300 and AMD Radeon RX 6600S represent two very different eras of AMD graphics technology, separated by over six years of architectural evolution. The FirePro W4300 is a professional workstation card from 2015 built on GCN 2.0 at 28 nm, while the RX 6600S is a mobile gaming GPU from 2022 using RDNA 2.0 at 7 nm. The benchmark data reveals a stark performance gap, yet each card serves a distinct purpose that goes beyond raw compute numbers.

Where Each One Wins

The data is unambiguous: the AMD Radeon RX 6600S wins the only head-to-head benchmark available, the Geekbench OpenCL test, with a score of 66,435 compared to the FirePro W4300’s 11,225. That represents a delta of -83.1% for the FirePro, meaning the RX 6600S delivers roughly 5.9 times the OpenCL compute performance. This is not a close contest; the RX 6600S dominates in raw compute throughput.

However, the FirePro W4300’s strengths lie elsewhere. As a professional workstation card, it features 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, enabling multi-display configurations that the RX 6600S cannot match—the latter’s display outputs are described as "Portable Device Dependent," meaning it relies entirely on the host laptop’s implementation. For users needing reliable multi-monitor professional setups, the FirePro W4300’s display flexibility is a clear advantage.

The RX 6600S, by contrast, wins on API support and modern features. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while the FirePro W4300 is limited to DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.2.170. The RX 6600S also includes 28 ray tracing cores, a feature entirely absent from the older card. For gaming or ray-traced workloads, the RX 6600S is the only viable option between the two.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is enormous. The FirePro W4300 uses the Bonaire chip built on GCN 2.0 architecture at TSMC’s 28 nm process, featuring 2,080 million transistors on a 160 mm² die. The RX 6600S uses the Navi 23 chip on RDNA 2.0 architecture at TSMC’s 7 nm node, packing 11,060 million transistors into a 237 mm² die. The transistor density tells the story: the RX 6600S achieves 46.7M transistors per mm² compared to the FirePro’s 13.0M per mm²—a 3.6x density advantage.

Core counts differ dramatically. The RX 6600S has 1,792 shading units, 112 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs. The FirePro W4300 has just 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This 2.3x advantage in shaders and 4x advantage in ROPs directly translates to the RX 6600S’s superior fill rates: 128.0 GPixel/s versus 14.88 GPixel/s, and 224.0 GTexel/s versus 44.64 GTexel/s.

Memory technology also separates them. The FirePro W4300 uses 4 GB of GDDR5 at 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective) on a 128-bit bus, yielding 96.00 GB/s bandwidth. The RX 6600S also has 4 GB but uses GDDR6 at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) on the same 128-bit bus, achieving 224.0 GB/s—2.3x more bandwidth. Clock speeds favor the newer card as well: the RX 6600S has base, game, and boost clocks of 1700 MHz, 1881 MHz, and 2000 MHz respectively, while the FirePro W4300’s base and boost clocks are not specified.

The Verdict

The benchmark data clearly indicates that the AMD Radeon RX 6600S is the superior performer in compute workloads, with its Geekbench OpenCL score of 66,435 dwarfing the FirePro W4300’s 11,225. The RX 6600S also offers modern API support including DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4, plus ray tracing capability via 28 RT cores. For any gaming, ray-traced, or modern compute task, the RX 6600S is the definitive choice.

The FirePro W4300’s case rests on its professional feature set. It is a single-slot card with 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, requires no external power connectors, has a 50 W TDP, and suggests a 250 W power supply. It is an end-of-life product from 2015, however, and its GCN 2.0 architecture lacks the ray tracing and modern API support of the newer card. Its percentile ranking of 50 places it in the mid-range of all GPUs, while the RX 6600S sits at percentile 49—nearly identical overall standing despite the massive OpenCL gap.

For users building a professional workstation with multiple displays and low power consumption, the FirePro W4300’s display outputs and 50 W TDP remain relevant. For anyone else, the RX 6600S’s performance advantage is overwhelming. The RX 6600S is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) for portable devices, making it the only choice for laptops, while the FirePro W4300 is a 171 mm add-in card for desktops.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher OpenCL performance?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6600S scores 66,435 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the AMD FirePro W4300 scores 11,225—a delta of -83.1% for the FirePro, making the RX 6600S approximately 5.9x faster.

Q: Do both cards have the same memory capacity?

A: Yes, both have 4 GB, but the RX 6600S uses faster GDDR6 at 14 Gbps effective with 224.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the FirePro W4300 uses GDDR5 at 6 Gbps effective with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Can the FirePro W4300 support ray tracing?

A: No. The FirePro W4300 has no ray tracing cores listed, while the RX 6600S includes 28 RT cores and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2).

Q: Which card is better for multi-display professional setups?

A: The FirePro W4300 is better suited, featuring 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs. The RX 6600S’s display outputs are "Portable Device Dependent," meaning they vary by laptop implementation.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The FirePro W4300 has a 50 W TDP and suggests a 250 W PSU, while the RX 6600S has an 80 W TDP. Neither requires external power connectors.

Q: How do their production statuses compare?

A: Both are end-of-life. The FirePro W4300 was released in November 2015, while the RX 6600S came in January 2022.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The sole head-to-head benchmark is Geekbench OpenCL, and it is a rout. The RX 6600S scores 66,435 against the FirePro W4300’s 11,225, a -83.1% delta. This means the FirePro W4300 achieves only about 17% of the RX 6600S’s compute performance. The RX 6600S’s nearest rivals in the database include the AMD Radeon R9 M275X (delta 0.4%), NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti (delta -0.6%), and NVIDIA Quadro K2200 (delta -1.2%), placing it in a mid-range bracket. The FirePro W4300’s nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 (delta 0%), NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M (delta -0.3%), and NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q (delta 1.2%).

Beyond the single direct comparison, the RX 6600S also has additional benchmark data: Passmark scores of 12,649 in G3D, 4,879 in GPU compute, 647 in G2D, and DirectX 9/10/11/12 scores of 176, 81, 105, and 56 respectively. The FirePro W4300 has no such additional benchmarks, limiting direct comparison to the OpenCL test alone.

The RX 6600S’s FP32 performance of 7.168 TFLOPS versus the FirePro W4300’s 1,428.5 GFLOPS (approximately 1.43 TFLOPS) further confirms the 5x performance gap. The RX 6600S also supports FP16 at 14.34 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), a feature the FirePro W4300 lacks entirely.

Specification Differences

The specification differences between these two GPUs are extensive:

• Process Node: 28 nm (FirePro W4300) vs 7 nm (RX 6600S)
• Transistors: 2,080 million vs 11,060 million
• Die Size: 160 mm² vs 237 mm²
• Transistor Density: 13.0M / mm² vs 46.7M / mm²
• Memory Type: GDDR5 vs GDDR6
• Memory Clock: 1500 MHz / 6 Gbps vs 1750 MHz / 14 Gbps
• Memory Bandwidth: 96.00 GB/s vs 224.0 GB/s
• Shading Units: 768 vs 1,792
• TMUs: 48 vs 112
• ROPs: 16 vs 64
• RT Cores: None vs 28
• Pixel Rate: 14.88 GPixel/s vs 128.0 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 44.64 GTexel/s vs 224.0 GTexel/s
• FP32: 1,428.5 GFLOPS vs 7.168 TFLOPS
• FP16: None vs 14.34 TFLOPS (2:1)
• TDP: 50 W vs 80 W
• Slot Width: Single-slot vs IGP
• Suggested PSU: 250 W vs None specified
• Bus Interface: PCIe 3.0 x16 vs PCIe 4.0 x8
• Display Outputs: 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 vs Portable Device Dependent
• DirectX: 12 (12_0) vs 12 Ultimate (12_2)
• Vulkan: 1.2.170 vs 1.4
• Dimensions: 171 mm length, 69 mm height vs not specified
• Release Date: 2015-11-30 vs 2022-01-03
• Predecessor: FirePro Terascale vs Polaris Mobile
• Successor: Radeon Pro GCN vs None specified