AMD FirePro W4300 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Comparison

The Verdict

The data presents a decisive outcome: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 outperforms the AMD FirePro W4300 in the single available head-to-head benchmark, the Geekbench OpenCL test, by a margin of 326.3%. The GTX 1660 scores 47,850 compared to the FirePro W4300’s 11,225. This is not a close contest; it is a generational and architectural gap made visible in raw compute performance.

The GTX 1660 is the clear choice for any task where raw compute throughput matters, based strictly on this benchmark data. Its average benchmark score of 11,680 places it at the 51st percentile of all GPUs, while the FirePro W4300’s average of 11,225 puts it at the 50th percentile. Despite the similar percentile placement, the 326.3% delta in the head-to-head test shows that the FirePro W4300 is operating in a different performance class. The FirePro W4300 might still be considered for legacy professional systems or specific multi-display setups, given its 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs and single-slot, low-power design, but the benchmark data offers no performance justification for choosing it over the GTX 1660.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from fundamentally different design eras and philosophies. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 is built on the Turing architecture, fabricated on a 12 nm process at TSMC. It uses the TU116 chip, which contains 6,600 million transistors on a 284 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 23.2M per mm². In contrast, the AMD FirePro W4300 is based on the older GCN 2.0 architecture, on a 28 nm process, also at TSMC. Its Bonaire chip houses 2,080 million transistors on a 160 mm² die, with a much lower transistor density of 13.0M per mm².

The compute core counts reflect this architectural gap. The GTX 1660 packs 1,408 shading units, 88 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 48 raster operation units (ROPs). The FirePro W4300 has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and only 16 ROPs. These are not just numbers; they define the theoretical throughput limits. The GTX 1660 achieves a pixel rate of 85.68 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 157.1 GTexel/s, while the FirePro W4300 manages only 14.88 GPixel/s and 44.64 GTexel/s, respectively.

The FP32 compute output tells a similar story. The GTX 1660 delivers 5.027 TFLOPS of single-precision performance, while the FirePro W4300 is rated at 1,428.5 GFLOPS (approximately 1.43 TFLOPS). The GTX 1660 also supports FP16 compute at 10.05 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), a feature entirely absent in the FirePro W4300’s specifications. Neither card includes ray tracing or tensor cores, but the GTX 1660 does support newer API versions, including Vulkan 1.4 and DirectX 12 (12_1), whereas the FirePro W4300 is limited to Vulkan 1.2.170 and DirectX 12 (12_0).

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available in the data is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the result is lopsided. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 scores 47,850, while the AMD FirePro W4300 scores 11,225. This represents a 326.3% advantage for the GTX 1660. To put this in perspective, the FirePro W4300’s score is less than a quarter of the GTX 1660’s output.

This single benchmark is a comprehensive compute test, often reflecting the raw shader and memory throughput of a GPU. The GTX 1660’s 192.1 GB/s memory bandwidth, delivered via a 192-bit bus and 6 GB of GDDR5 memory at 8 Gbps effective, dwarfs the FirePro W4300’s 96.00 GB/s bandwidth from a 128-bit bus and 4 GB of GDDR5 memory at 6 Gbps effective. The memory subsystem alone explains a significant portion of the performance gap. The result is consistent with the architectural differences: more cores, higher clocks, and more bandwidth all contribute to the GTX 1660’s overwhelming victory in this test.

There are no other head-to-head tests in the data. The FirePro W4300 has no wins to its name in this comparison, and the GTX 1660 holds a 1-0 record. For users relying solely on this metric, the conclusion is unambiguous.

Specification Differences

The core specification differences between the two cards are stark. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 uses a 12 nm process node, while the AMD FirePro W4300 is on 28 nm. The GTX 1660’s transistor count is 6,600 million versus 2,080 million for the FirePro W4300. Die size also differs: 284 mm² for the GTX 1660 compared to 160 mm² for the FirePro W4300. The transistor density is 23.2M / mm² versus 13.0M / mm².

Memory specifications diverge significantly. The GTX 1660 has 6 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 192-bit bus, with bandwidth of 192.1 GB/s. The FirePro W4300 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 96.00 GB/s. The GTX 1660’s memory clock is 2001 MHz (8 Gbps effective), while the FirePro W4300’s is 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective). The GTX 1660 also has a base clock of 1530 MHz and a boost clock of 1785 MHz; the FirePro W4300 lists no base or boost clocks.

Compute unit counts differ across the board. The GTX 1660 has 1,408 shading units, 88 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. The FirePro W4300 has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Pixel rate is 85.68 GPixel/s versus 14.88 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 157.1 GTexel/s versus 44.64 GTexel/s. The FP32 output is 5.027 TFLOPS versus 1,428.5 GFLOPS. The GTX 1660 has a TDP of 120 W and requires a 1x 8-pin power connector, while the FirePro W4300 has a 50 W TDP and needs no power connector. The GTX 1660 is a dual-slot card measuring 229 mm in length, while the FirePro W4300 is single-slot at 171 mm. Display outputs also differ: the GTX 1660 offers 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a, while the FirePro W4300 offers 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2. The suggested PSU is 300 W for the GTX 1660 and 250 W for the FirePro W4300.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in the head-to-head benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 is faster. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, it scored 47,850 versus the AMD FirePro W4300’s 11,225, a 326.3% difference.

Q: How do the memory bandwidths compare?

A: The GTX 1660 has a memory bandwidth of 192.1 GB/s, while the FirePro W4300 has 96.00 GB/s. This is a direct result of the GTX 1660’s wider 192-bit bus and faster 8 Gbps effective memory clock.

Q: Does the FirePro W4300 have any architectural advantage?

A: The data shows no performance advantage. The FirePro W4300 uses the older GCN 2.0 architecture on a 28 nm process, whereas the GTX 1660 uses Turing on 12 nm. The FirePro has fewer shading units (768 vs 1,408) and a lower transistor density.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The GTX 1660 has a TDP of 120 W, while the FirePro W4300 has a TDP of 50 W. The FirePro also requires no power connector, whereas the GTX 1660 needs a 1x 8-pin connector.

Q: Which card supports newer APIs?

A: The GTX 1660 supports Vulkan 1.4 and DirectX 12 (12_1), while the FirePro W4300 supports Vulkan 1.2.170 and DirectX 12 (12_0). Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare?

A: The GTX 1660 has an average benchmark score of 11,680, placing it at the 51st percentile of all GPUs. The FirePro W4300 has an average score of 11,225, at the 50th percentile. Despite the close averages in different test suites, the direct OpenCL comparison shows a massive gap.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 wins in every measurable performance category within the provided data. It dominates the single head-to-head benchmark (Geekbench OpenCL) with a 326.3% lead. It has higher pixel rate (85.68 vs 14.88 GPixel/s), higher texture rate (157.1 vs 44.64 GTexel/s), and higher FP32 compute (5.027 vs 1,428.5 GFLOPS). It also has more memory bandwidth (192.1 vs 96.00 GB/s) and more memory capacity (6 GB vs 4 GB). For any compute-intensive workload, rendering task, or modern gaming scenario, the GTX 1660 is the only rational choice based on the data.

The AMD FirePro W4300 wins in categories related to physical footprint and power efficiency. It has a lower TDP of 50 W compared to 120 W, and it is a single-slot card measuring 171 mm in length versus the GTX 1660’s dual-slot 229 mm. It also offers four mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, which is more display outputs than the GTX 1660’s single DVI, single HDMI, and single DisplayPort. The FirePro also requires no external power connector, making it potentially easier to install in constrained systems. However, these are not performance wins; they are form-factor and power-delivery considerations. For a system where space is extremely limited and power draw must be minimized, the FirePro W4300 might be the only option that fits physically, but the benchmark data offers no scenario where it outperforms the GTX 1660 in compute or graphics throughput.