AMD FirePro W4300 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER Comparison

The AMD FirePro W4300 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER are both end-of-life graphics cards, but they target completely different workloads. The FirePro W4300 is a workstation card from 2015, built on the 28 nm GCN 2.0 architecture, while the GTX 1650 SUPER is a consumer gaming card from 2019, built on the 12 nm Turing architecture. The single head-to-head benchmark available, Geekbench OpenCL, shows a decisive victory for the NVIDIA card, but the data also reveals a more nuanced picture regarding API support and raw compute capabilities that different users will care about.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous about which card wins in raw compute performance. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER scores 43,875 points, which is a massive 74.4% higher than the AMD FirePro W4300's score of 11,225. This is not a close contest; the GTX 1650 SUPER offers nearly four times the OpenCL compute performance. For any user whose primary workload is general-purpose GPU compute or modern gaming, the GTX 1650 SUPER is the only logical choice.

However, the FirePro W4300 is not without its ecosystem advantages. It supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170, while the GTX 1650 SUPER supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The FirePro also draws only 50 W of power and requires no external power connectors, making it a drop-in solution for systems with a 250 W power supply. The GTX 1650 SUPER, in contrast, has a 100 W TDP and requires a 6-pin power connector and a 300 W PSU.

The GTX 1650 SUPER's launch MSRP is 159 USD, which is a data point for historical reference, not a current purchasing recommendation. The FirePro W4300 has no launch MSRP listed. Ultimately, the verdict is simple: if you need compute performance, the GTX 1650 SUPER is the answer. If you need a low-power, single-slot card with multiple mini-DisplayPort outputs for basic workstation tasks, the FirePro W4300 has a specific niche.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 1650 SUPER wins decisively in the only benchmark test where both cards were measured: Geekbench OpenCL. Its score of 43,875 versus 11,225 represents a 74.4% advantage. This translates to a clear win for any application that leverages OpenCL for compute, including many professional rendering, video encoding, and scientific workloads. The card's higher pixel rate of 55.20 GPixel/s and texture rate of 138.0 GTexel/s, compared to the FirePro's 14.88 GPixel/s and 44.64 GTexel/s, indicate it will also dominate in rasterization-heavy tasks.

The FirePro W4300 wins in the power efficiency and physical footprint categories. Its 50 W TDP is half that of the GTX 1650 SUPER, and its single-slot design with no power connectors makes it far easier to install in compact or legacy systems. The FirePro's 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs also give it an advantage for multi-monitor workstation setups, as the GTX 1650 SUPER offers a single DVI, HDMI 2.0, and DisplayPort 1.4a.

In terms of API support, the GTX 1650 SUPER has a slight edge with DirectX 12_1 and Vulkan 1.4, while the FirePro is limited to DirectX 12_0 and Vulkan 1.2.170. The GTX 1650 SUPER also has better memory bandwidth at 192.0 GB/s versus the FirePro's 96.00 GB/s, even though both have a 128-bit bus. The GTX 1650 SUPER's GDDR6 memory operates at 12 Gbps effective, double the FirePro's GDDR5 at 6 Gbps.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two cards is generational. The AMD FirePro W4300 uses the Bonaire chip, based on the GCN 2.0 architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It contains 2,080 million transistors on a 160 mm² die, with a transistor density of 13.0M per mm². The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER uses the TU116 chip, based on the Turing architecture, fabricated on a 12 nm process at the same foundry. It packs 6,600 million transistors onto a 284 mm² die, achieving a density of 23.2M per mm².

The NVIDIA card has more execution resources across the board. It features 1,280 shading units, 80 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 32 raster operations pipelines (ROPs), compared to the FirePro's 768 shaders, 48 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This hardware advantage translates directly to its higher theoretical peak performance: the GTX 1650 SUPER achieves 4.416 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the FirePro manages 1,428.5 GFLOPS. The GTX 1650 SUPER also supports FP16 compute at 8.832 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), a feature the FirePro does not list.

Memory technology also differs significantly. The FirePro uses 4 GB of GDDR5 running at 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective), yielding 96.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 1650 SUPER uses 4 GB of GDDR6 at 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective), doubling the bandwidth to 192.0 GB/s. Both cards use a 128-bit memory bus and PCIe 3.0 x16 interfaces. The GTX 1650 SUPER is physically longer at 229 mm (9 inches) and wider at 111 mm (4.4 inches) with a 35 mm (1.4 inch) thickness, whereas the FirePro is a compact 171 mm (6.7 inches) long and 69 mm (2.7 inches) high, fitting in a single-slot form factor.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in OpenCL compute benchmarks?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER is dramatically faster, scoring 43,875 in Geekbench OpenCL versus the AMD FirePro W4300's 11,225, representing a 74.4% lead.

Q: Can the AMD FirePro W4300 be used in a system without extra power connectors?

A: Yes. The FirePro W4300 has a 50 W TDP, requires no external power connectors, and only needs a 250 W power supply, making it suitable for many pre-built or low-power systems.

Q: Does the NVIDIA card support newer graphics APIs?

A: Yes. The GTX 1650 SUPER supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the FirePro W4300 only supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.2.170. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

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

A: The GTX 1650 SUPER has exactly double the bandwidth of the FirePro W4300: 192.0 GB/s versus 96.00 GB/s, despite both using a 128-bit memory bus. This is due to the GTX 1650 SUPER's faster GDDR6 memory at 12 Gbps effective versus the FirePro's GDDR5 at 6 Gbps.

Q: How do these cards compare in terms of physical size?

A: The FirePro W4300 is a single-slot card measuring 171 mm (6.7 inches) in length and 69 mm (2.7 inches) in height. The GTX 1650 SUPER is a dual-slot card measuring 229 mm (9 inches) in length, 111 mm (4.4 inches) in height, and 35 mm (1.4 inches) in width.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The GTX 1650 SUPER has 1,280 shading units, compared to 768 on the FirePro W4300. This is a 66.7% increase in raw shader count.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct head-to-head benchmark available in the data is Geekbench OpenCL, and it tells a story of total dominance by the NVIDIA card. The GTX 1650 SUPER scores 43,875, while the FirePro W4300 scores 11,225. The delta percentage of -74.4% indicates that the FirePro's score is 74.4% lower than the NVIDIA card's. This is not a marginal victory; it is a crushing defeat.

To put this in context, the FirePro W4300's score of 11,225 places it in the 50th percentile of all GPUs, according to the data. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 (score 11,228, delta 0%), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M (score 11,261, delta -0.3%), and the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q (score 11,088, delta 1.2%). This means the FirePro is essentially performing at the level of a mid-range mobile GPU from several generations ago.

The GTX 1650 SUPER, despite having the same 50th percentile ranking, is a different beast entirely. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 550 (score 11,075, delta -0.2%), the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000D Blackwell Max-Q (score 11,088, delta -0.4%), and the NVIDIA GeForce MX350 (score 10,883, delta 1.5%). Notably, the GTX 1650 SUPER's nearest rivals are all scoring around 11,000, which is the same performance tier as the FirePro W4300. This creates a bizarre statistical situation where the GTX 1650 SUPER's average benchmark score of 11,047 is dominated by its other benchmark results (like Passmark and 3DMark), pulling its average down despite its OpenCL score being nearly four times higher.

The raw architectural numbers support the OpenCL result. The GTX 1650 SUPER's FP32 compute of 4.416 TFLOPS is over three times the FirePro's 1,428.5 GFLOPS. Its pixel rate of 55.20 GPixel/s is 3.7 times higher, and its texture rate of 138.0 GTexel/s is 3.1 times higher. In every measurable metric of execution throughput, the GTX 1650 SUPER is the superior card. The FirePro W4300's only statistical claim to relevance is its low power draw and compact size, which are not reflected in the benchmark scores.