AMD FirePro W4300 vs AMD Radeon RX 7900 XT Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data shows a single recorded head-to-head comparison between these two AMD cards, and it belongs to the AMD Radeon RX 7900 XT. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the RX 7900 XT scores 12,756 against the FirePro W4300’s 11,225, a 13.6% advantage. That is the only shared workload in the database, so any broader comparison must rely on each card’s individual benchmark profile and architectural positioning.

For the RX 7900 XT, the strength is overwhelmingly in modern, heavy GPU workloads. Its PassMark G3D score of 29,009 places it far above its own average benchmark score of 13,745, indicating that it excels in rasterized 3D rendering while dragging down its average with weaker legacy DirectX tests. The DirectX 12 score of 110 and DirectX 11 score of 340 are notably low compared to the G3D aggregate, which seems counterintuitive until you recognize that PassMark’s sub-scores are not directly comparable across API versions; the G3D number is the composite that matters for overall 3D performance. The card also posts a strong PassMark GPU Compute score of 16,828, suggesting compute-heavy tasks are a clear strength.

For the FirePro W4300, the database contains only one benchmark entry: Geekbench OpenCL at 11,225. That single score is its entire measurable profile. It has no recorded DirectX, Vulkan, or PassMark results, so the data cannot confirm wins in any other category. Its percentile rank of 50 among all GPUs means it sits exactly at the median, while the RX 7900 XT sits at the 55th percentile despite being a much more powerful part on paper. This discrepancy is likely due to the RX 7900 XT’s mixed sub-scores lowering its average, while the FirePro W4300’s single OpenCL result is comparatively consistent with its peers.

The use-case split is therefore stark. The RX 7900 XT is built for high-end gaming, ray tracing, and compute workloads where its massive shading unit count and memory bandwidth matter. The FirePro W4300, with its single OpenCL benchmark, appears suited for professional OpenCL compute tasks that do not require modern graphics API features. It is a workstation card from the GCN era, and its data suggests it competes in a lower performance tier entirely.

Architecture Differences

The two cards are separated by two full GPU architecture generations. The RX 7900 XT uses the Navi 31 chip on RDNA 3.0 architecture, codenamed Plum Bonito, part of the Navi III (RX 7000) generation. It is built on TSMC’s 5 nm process with 57,700 million transistors on a 529 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 109.1 million per square millimeter. The FirePro W4300 uses the Bonaire chip on GCN 2.0 architecture, part of the FirePro GCN (Wx300) generation, on TSMC’s 28 nm process with 2,080 million transistors on a 160 mm² die, a transistor density of 13.0 million per square millimeter. The density difference is 8.4 times in favor of the newer card, which explains how the RX 7900 XT packs so much more compute into a similar physical footprint.

Clock speeds differ dramatically. The RX 7900 XT has a base clock of 1387 MHz, a boost clock of 2394 MHz, and a game clock of 2025 MHz, with memory running at 2500 MHz (20 Gbps effective). The FirePro W4300 has no recorded base, boost, or game clock in the database, only a memory clock of 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective). The absence of core clocks for the older card means the comparison must rely on other specifications.

Memory is a major differentiator. The RX 7900 XT has 20 GB of GDDR6 on a 320-bit bus, delivering 800.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The FirePro W4300 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 96.00 GB/s. That is an 8.33 times bandwidth advantage for the RX 7900 XT, and 5 times more memory capacity. Such a gap favors the newer card in any workload that is memory-bound, including high-resolution textures, large compute datasets, and multi-monitor setups.

Compute resources are equally lopsided. The RX 7900 XT has 5,376 shading units, 336 texture mapping units, 192 render output units, and 84 ray tracing cores. The FirePro W4300 has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, with no ray tracing cores. The shading unit count is 7 times higher on the RX 7900 XT. Pixel rate is 459.6 GPixel/s versus 14.88 GPixel/s, a 30.9 times difference. Texture rate is 804.4 GTexel/s versus 44.64 GTexel/s, an 18 times difference. FP32 performance is 51.48 TFLOPS versus 1,428.5 GFLOPS (1.43 TFLOPS), a 36 times difference. The RX 7900 XT also has FP16 performance at 103.0 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), while the FirePro W4300 has no recorded FP16 capability.

API support reflects the generational gap. The RX 7900 XT supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The FirePro W4300 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. Both reach OpenGL 4.6, but the DirectX feature level is one full step lower on the older card, and the Vulkan version is older as well. The RX 7900 XT also has PCIe 4.0 x16, while the FirePro W4300 is PCIe 3.0 x16. The newer card uses dual-slot cooling with 2x 8-pin power connectors and a suggested PSU of 700 W, while the older card is single-slot, requires no power connectors, and has a suggested PSU of 250 W. Power draw is not directly listed for either, but the TDP is 300 W for the RX 7900 XT and 50 W for the FirePro W4300, a 6 times difference.

The Verdict

The data points to a decisive overall winner. The AMD Radeon RX 7900 XT leads in the only recorded head-to-head benchmark by 13.6%, and its architectural specifications exceed the FirePro W4300 in every measurable category: shading units, TMUs, ROPs, memory size, memory bandwidth, pixel rate, texture rate, FP32 compute, and API support. There is no benchmark in the database where the FirePro W4300 wins.

However, the verdict is not simply “buy the newer card.” The FirePro W4300 has a single recorded OpenCL score of 11,225, which is only 13.6% behind the RX 7900 XT in that specific test. For a professional user whose primary workload is OpenCL compute and who does not need modern graphics features, the older card may be sufficient. It is also far less demanding: single-slot, no power connectors, and a 250 W suggested PSU versus a 700 W suggested PSU. But the data does not show any performance advantage for the FirePro W4300, so the decision is about power draw and physical footprint, not speed.

For gaming, ray tracing, high-resolution rendering, or any DirectX 12 Ultimate workload, the RX 7900 XT is the clear choice from the recorded data. Its 84 ray tracing cores, 20 GB memory, and 800 GB/s bandwidth are not matched by the FirePro W4300 in any way. For legacy OpenCL compute tasks, the FirePro W4300 is within striking distance, but still behind. The RX 7900 XT’s average benchmark score of 13,745 is 22.4% higher than the FirePro W4300’s 11,225, and its percentile rank of 55 versus 50 confirms it sits higher in the global distribution.

Who should pick which? The RX 7900 XT is for anyone needing max performance in modern 3D and compute workloads. The FirePro W4300 is for those constrained by power budget, slot space, or legacy OpenCL requirements, accepting a 13.6% penalty in that one test. The data does not support choosing the FirePro W4300 for any performance reason.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 7900 XT has an average benchmark score of 13,745, while the AMD FirePro W4300 has 11,225. That is a 22.4% difference in favor of the RX 7900 XT.

Q: How much faster is the RX 7900 XT in OpenCL?

A: In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the RX 7900 XT scores 12,756 versus the FirePro W4300’s 11,225. This is a 13.6% advantage for the RX 7900 XT.

Q: Does the FirePro W4300 support ray tracing?

A: No. The FirePro W4300 has no ray tracing cores listed in the database. The RX 7900 XT has 84 ray tracing cores.

Q: What memory configurations do the two cards have?

A: The RX 7900 XT has 20 GB of GDDR6 on a 320-bit bus with 800.0 GB/s bandwidth. The FirePro W4300 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card is more power-efficient?

A: The FirePro W4300 has a TDP of 50 W and a suggested PSU of 250 W, with no power connectors required. The RX 7900 XT has a TDP of 300 W and a suggested PSU of 700 W, requiring 2x 8-pin connectors. The FirePro W4300 draws 6 times less power.

Q: What is the DirectX support difference?

A: The RX 7900 XT supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the FirePro W4300 supports DirectX 12 (12_0). The RX 7900 XT also supports Vulkan 1.4 versus Vulkan 1.2.170 on the older card.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains exactly one direct comparison between these two cards: Geekbench OpenCL. In that test, the RX 7900 XT scores 12,756 and the FirePro W4300 scores 11,225. The delta is 13.6%. This is the only shared workload, so it is the sole head-to-head data point.

Interpreting this result requires context. The RX 7900 XT’s OpenCL score of 12,756 is below its own average benchmark score of 13,745, suggesting that OpenCL is not its strongest workload. The FirePro W4300’s OpenCL score of 11,225 is its entire recorded profile, so there is no other result to compare against. Relative to their respective nearest rivals, the RX 7900 XT at 12,756 in OpenCL is close to its average, while the FirePro W4300 at 11,225 is also close to its average. This means the head-to-head gap is likely representative of the general performance difference, but the RX 7900 XT’s advantage could be larger in workloads where it excels, such as DirectX 12 or ray tracing.

Other benchmarks in the RX 7900 XT’s profile show where its strengths lie. Its PassMark G3D score of 29,009 is 2.11 times its average benchmark score, indicating exceptional rasterization performance. Its PassMark GPU Compute score of 16,828 is 22.4% above its average. In contrast, its PassMark DirectX 9 score of 322, DirectX 11 score of 340, and DirectX 12 score of 110 are all far below its average, which is unusual but may reflect PassMark’s weighting methodology rather than actual API performance. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 5,623 is a modern benchmark that likely favors the RX 7900 XT’s architecture.

The FirePro W4300 has no other benchmarks, so its OpenCL score of 11,225 is the only number available for analysis. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 at 11,228 (0% delta), NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M at 11,261 (-0.3%), and NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q at 11,088 (1.2%). This places the FirePro W4300 in a performance tier that is 0.3% behind a mobile GTX 780M and 1.2% ahead of a professional RTX PRO 6000 laptop chip. The RX 7900 XT’s nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon 660M at 13,812 (-0.5%), NVIDIA RTX A2000 Mobile at 13,821 (-0.5%), AMD Radeon RX 570X at 13,871 (-0.9%), and AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT at 13,543 (1.5%). The RX 7900 XT is 1.5% ahead of the RX 9070 XT, a newer card, and 0.5% behind the Radeon 660M.

The biggest win for the RX 7900 XT is in the head-to-head OpenCL test, where it leads by 13.6%. There are no wins for the FirePro W4300 in any recorded benchmark. The architectural data reinforces this: the RX 7900 XT has 7 times more shading units, 18 times the texture rate, 30.9 times the pixel rate, and 36 times the FP32 compute. In memory, it has 5 times the capacity and 8.33 times the bandwidth. The only field where the FirePro W4300 is competitive is power consumption, where it draws 6 times less power, and physical size, where it is single-slot versus dual-slot. Those are meaningful for deployment scenarios, but they do not translate into any benchmark win. The data is clear: the RX 7900 XT wins the only recorded comparison and dominates the specification sheet.