AMD FirePro W4300 vs AMD Radeon RX 7600M XT Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data splits these two AMD workstation and mobile parts into very different performance classes. The AMD Radeon RX 7600M XT wins the only shared benchmark test, Geekbench OpenCL, with a score of 74,869 against 11,225 for the AMD FirePro W4300. That is a 567% advantage, which places the RX 7600M XT in a completely different tier of compute throughput. The FirePro W4300 has no winning benchmark in the head-to-head comparison set, so its strengths must be inferred from its specification profile rather than from direct score victories.

For use-case separation, the RX 7600M XT is the clear choice for any workload that relies on OpenCL compute acceleration, as its score dwarfs the older part. The FirePro W4300, with its 4 GB of GDDR5 memory and 96.00 GB/s bandwidth, is more suited to legacy workstation tasks where the software stack expects a GCN 2.0 architecture and where the smaller memory footprint is acceptable. The RX 7600M XT, with 8 GB of GDDR6 and 288.0 GB/s bandwidth, handles larger datasets and memory-intensive shaders. The FirePro W4300 also carries four mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, making it a multi-display professional card, while the RX 7600M XT has portable-device-dependent outputs, indicating it is designed for laptops or compact systems rather than fixed desktops.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different eras of AMD design. The RX 7600M XT uses the Navi 33 chip built on RDNA 3.0 architecture, fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC. It packs 13,300 million transistors into a 204 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 65.2 million per square millimeter. The FirePro W4300 uses the Bonaire chip on the older GCN 2.0 architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process, also at TSMC. It contains 2,080 million transistors on a 160 mm² die, with a density of 13.0 million per square millimeter. The process node difference alone explains a large portion of the performance gap, as the newer node allows far more transistors in a similar physical area.

The RX 7600M XT belongs to the Navi Mobile generation (RX 7000M) with the codename Hotpink Bonefish, while the FirePro W4300 is part of the FirePro GCN (Wx300) generation. The RX 7600M XT features 2,048 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, 64 render output units, and 32 ray tracing cores. The FirePro W4300 has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, with no ray tracing cores listed. The RX 7600M XT also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the FirePro W4300 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The ray tracing hardware and newer API support give the RX 7600M XT a feature set that the FirePro W4300 cannot match.

Memory technology also differs fundamentally. The RX 7600M XT uses GDDR6 at 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) on a 128-bit bus, achieving 288.0 GB/s bandwidth. The FirePro W4300 uses GDDR5 at 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective) on a 128-bit bus, achieving 96.00 GB/s bandwidth. The RX 7600M XT has three times the memory bandwidth, which is critical for compute-heavy shaders and texture streaming.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available in the database is Geekbench OpenCL. The RX 7600M XT scores 74,869, while the FirePro W4300 scores 11,225. The delta is 567%, meaning the RX 7600M XT is nearly six and a half times faster in this OpenCL compute test. This is not a marginal improvement; it is a generational leap. To put that in context, the RX 7600M XT has an average benchmark score of 12,710 across all its recorded tests, while the FirePro W4300 has an average benchmark score of 11,225. The RX 7600M XT also has a percentile rank of 52 among all GPUs, versus 50 for the FirePro W4300, so both sit near the median of the database, but the RX 7600M XT does so with far more headroom in modern workloads.

Looking at the RX 7600M XT's other benchmark results helps clarify where its strength lies. It scores 20,232 TFLOPS FP32 and 40.45 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1 ratio). Its pixel rate is 158.0 GPixel/s and texture rate is 316.0 GTexel/s. The FirePro W4300, by comparison, delivers 1,428.5 GFLOPS FP32, a pixel rate of 14.88 GPixel/s, and a texture rate of 44.64 GTexel/s. These figures are not directly compared in a single test, but they explain why the OpenCL gap is so large: the RX 7600M XT simply has more than 14 times the FP32 throughput and more than 10 times the pixel rate.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every measurable specification. The RX 7600M XT has a 6 nm process node versus 28 nm for the FirePro W4300. Transistor count is 13,300 million versus 2,080 million. Die size is 204 mm² versus 160 mm². Memory size is 8 GB versus 4 GB. Memory type is GDDR6 versus GDDR5. Memory bandwidth is 288.0 GB/s versus 96.00 GB/s. Shading units are 2,048 versus 768. TMUs are 128 versus 48. ROPs are 64 versus 16. The RX 7600M XT has 32 ray tracing cores; the FirePro W4300 has none. FP32 compute is 20.23 TFLOPS versus 1,428.5 GFLOPS. Pixel rate is 158.0 GPixel/s versus 14.88 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 316.0 GTexel/s versus 44.64 GTexel/s.

Power and physical design also differ. The RX 7600M XT has a TDP of 120 W and is listed as IGP (integrated graphics processor) slot width with no power connectors, indicating it is soldered onto a mobile board. The FirePro W4300 has a TDP of 50 W, is single-slot, and has no power connectors but lists a suggested PSU of 250 W. The FirePro W4300 has a physical length of 171 mm (6.7 inches) and height of 69 mm (2.7 inches), while the RX 7600M XT has no listed dimensions. The bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x16 for the RX 7600M XT versus PCIe 3.0 x16 for the FirePro W4300. The FirePro W4300 offers 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, while the RX 7600M XT's outputs are portable-device dependent. The FirePro W4300 is end-of-life, while the RX 7600M XT is active production. Release dates place the FirePro W4300 in late 2015 and the RX 7600M XT in early 2023.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL compute?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 7600M XT scores 74,869 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 567% higher than the AMD FirePro W4300's score of 11,225.

Q: How much memory do the two cards have?

A: The RX 7600M XT has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, while the FirePro W4300 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus.

Q: Do both cards support ray tracing?

A: No. The RX 7600M XT has 32 ray tracing cores, while the FirePro W4300 has no ray tracing cores listed in the database.

Q: What is the process node difference?

A: The RX 7600M XT is built on a 6 nm process at TSMC, while the FirePro W4300 uses a 28 nm process at TSMC.

Q: Which card has a higher memory bandwidth?

A: The RX 7600M XT achieves 288.0 GB/s bandwidth, exactly three times the FirePro W4300's 96.00 GB/s.

Q: What are the power requirements?

A: The RX 7600M XT has a 120 W TDP and no power connectors, while the FirePro W4300 has a 50 W TDP, no power connectors, and a suggested PSU of 250 W.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD Radeon RX 7600M XT is the superior performer in every measured category, with a 567% lead in the only shared benchmark. Its architecture (RDNA 3.0 on 6 nm) is two generations ahead of the FirePro W4300 (GCN 2.0 on 28 nm). It offers more memory, more bandwidth, more shading units, ray tracing support, and a much higher compute throughput. The FirePro W4300 retains relevance only for legacy workstation environments that require its specific GCN 2.0 feature set, its four mini-DisplayPort outputs, or its low 50 W TDP for power-constrained single-slot installations.

Who should pick which? The RX 7600M XT is for anyone running modern OpenCL workloads, shader-heavy applications, or ray-traced content on a portable device. The FirePro W4300 is for fixed systems that need multiple display outputs and cannot exceed a 50 W board power draw. The RX 7600M XT also holds the production status advantage, being listed as active while the FirePro W4300 is end-of-life. For any new project, the RX 7600M XT is the data-supported choice, provided the system can accommodate its 120 W TDP and mobile form factor.