AMD FirePro W4300 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 480 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records a single OpenCL benchmark comparison between these two cards, and the result is decisive. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 480 scores 13,300 points in Geekbench OpenCL, while the AMD FirePro W4300 scores 11,225 points. That gives the GTX 480 a lead of 18.5 percent in this specific test, marking the only head-to-head win in the recorded data.

Looking at the wider field, the GTX 480 sits at the 53rd percentile among all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals are all AMD parts: the Radeon Pro 555X at 13,321 points, the FirePro M6100 at 13,354, the Radeon RX 5500M at 13,356, and the Radeon HD 8950M at 13,376. The GTX 480 trails each of these by less than one percent, with deltas of -0.2, -0.4, -0.4, and -0.6 percent respectively. This places the GTX 480 in a tightly contested cluster where mere dozens of points separate cards.

The FirePro W4300, by contrast, holds the 50th percentile. Its nearest rivals show a different pattern: the Radeon Pro WX 3200 matches it exactly at 11,228 points with a delta of zero, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M comes in at 11,261 points, a 0.3 percent margin. Interestingly, the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q and RTX PRO 6000D Blackwell Max-Q both score 11,088 points, meaning the FirePro W4300 beats them by 1.2 percent despite the massive generational gap in the product stack.

The raw numbers tell a clear story: the GTX 480 outperforms the W4300 by a substantial margin in compute workloads. The 18.5 percent delta is not a narrow edge; it represents a meaningful performance tier separation. However, the percentile rankings show both cards sit near the middle of the database, with the GTX 480 only three percentile points higher than the W4300. The competitive field around each card is dense, suggesting that neither GPU dominates its immediate price or performance segment.

The Verdict

The data points to a straightforward conclusion: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 480 wins the compute benchmark outright, and wins it by a solid margin. Anyone prioritizing raw OpenCL throughput should favor the GTX 480 based on the recorded measurements. The 18.5 percent advantage is consistent and unambiguous in the head-to-head test.

That said, the verdict is not one-sided when considering the full context. The FirePro W4300, while losing the compute test, operates in a completely different power envelope. Its 50 W TDP versus the GTX 480's 250 W TDP means the W4300 delivers 75 percent of the GTX 480's compute score while consuming only 20 percent of the power. For environments where thermal limits, power budgets, or cooling constraints dominate, the W4300 presents a compelling alternative despite its lower score.

The GTX 480 also demands more from the host system: a 600 W suggested PSU and dual-slot cooling, plus a 1x 6-pin and 1x 8-pin power connector configuration. The W4300 requires no external power connectors and only a 250 W suggested PSU, fitting into a single slot. The physical dimensions reinforce this split: the GTX 480 measures 267 mm (10.5 inches) in length, while the W4300 is just 171 mm (6.7 inches) long and 69 mm (2.7 inches) tall.

The choice depends on priorities. For maximum compute performance in a desktop with ample power and space, the GTX 480 is the clear winner. For constrained systems, multi-GPU configurations, or power-sensitive deployments, the W4300's efficiency makes it the rational pick, even though it loses the benchmark. The database does not record a single case where the W4300 wins a test, so performance-focused users should look to the GTX 480.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different architectural eras and design philosophies. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 480 uses the GF100 chip, built on the Fermi architecture, part of the GeForce 400 generation. It is manufactured on a 40 nm process at TSMC, packing 3,100 million transistors into a 529 mm² die. The transistor density works out to 5.9 million transistors per square millimeter, a figure that reflects the older, larger process node.

The AMD FirePro W4300 uses the Bonaire chip, built on GCN 2.0 architecture, from the FirePro GCN (Wx300) generation. It is manufactured on a 28 nm process, also at TSMC, with 2,080 million transistors on a much smaller 160 mm² die. The transistor density reaches 13.0 million per square millimeter, more than double the GTX 480's density. This explains how AMD fit a comparable compute capability into a far smaller package.

Memory configurations diverge sharply. The GTX 480 carries 1536 MB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, yielding 177.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The W4300 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, producing 96.00 GB/s. The GTX 480's wider bus gives it nearly double the memory bandwidth, which contributes to its higher compute score. The W4300 compensates with double the capacity, which matters for holding larger datasets in local memory.

Compute resources tell a nuanced story. The GTX 480 has 480 shading units, 60 texture mapping units, and 48 ROPs. The W4300 has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and only 16 ROPs. Despite fewer shading units, the GTX 480 achieves 1,345.0 GFLOPS of FP32 throughput, while the W4300 reaches 1,428.5 GFLOPS. The W4300 actually has higher raw FP32 compute on paper, yet it scores lower in the benchmark, suggesting that memory bandwidth, driver efficiency, or other factors play a decisive role.

Pixel and texture rates follow the hardware configuration. The GTX 480 delivers 21.03 GPixel/s and 42.06 GTexel/s, while the W4300 manages 14.88 GPixel/s and 44.64 GTexel/s. The GTX 480 wins on pixel fill rate thanks to its 48 ROPs, while the W4300 edges ahead on texture rate due to its higher clock efficiency per TMU.

Interface and output capabilities also differ. The GTX 480 uses PCIe 2.0 x16 and offers 2x DVI plus 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a outputs. The W4300 uses PCIe 3.0 x16 and provides 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs. The W4300 supports Vulkan 1.2.170, while the GTX 480 lists no Vulkan support in the database. Both cards support DirectX 12 and OpenGL 4.6, though the GTX 480's DirectX 12 support is limited to the 11_0 feature level, while the W4300 reaches the full 12_0 level.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 480 scores 13,300 points, while the AMD FirePro W4300 scores 11,225 points. The GTX 480 leads by 18.5 percent.

Q: How does the GTX 480 compare to its closest rivals in the database?

A: The GTX 480 trails the AMD Radeon Pro 555X by 0.2 percent, the FirePro M6100 by 0.4 percent, the Radeon RX 5500M by 0.4 percent, and the Radeon HD 8950M by 0.6 percent. All four rivals score within 76 points of the GTX 480.

Q: What are the power consumption figures for each card?

A: The GTX 480 has a TDP of 250 W, while the W4300 has a TDP of 50 W. The W4300 uses no external power connectors, whereas the GTX 480 requires one 6-pin and one 8-pin connector.

Q: Which card has more memory capacity and bandwidth?

A: The W4300 has 4 GB of GDDR5, while the GTX 480 has 1536 MB. However, the GTX 480 has 177.4 GB/s of bandwidth versus 96.00 GB/s for the W4300, due to its wider 384-bit bus compared to the 128-bit bus on the W4300.

Q: What is the release date and production status of each card?

A: The GTX 480 was released on 2010-03-25, and the W4300 was released on 2015-11-30. Both cards are marked as end-of-life in the database.

Q: How do the physical dimensions differ?

A: The GTX 480 measures 267 mm (10.5 inches) in length and is dual-slot. The W4300 measures 171 mm (6.7 inches) in length, 69 mm (2.7 inches) in height, and is single-slot.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 480 wins in raw compute performance. The 18.5 percent lead in OpenCL score is the only recorded head-to-head victory, and it is substantial. The GTX 480 also wins on memory bandwidth, delivering 177.4 GB/s versus 96.00 GB/s, and on pixel fill rate at 21.03 GPixel/s versus 14.88 GPixel/s. For any workload that depends on moving large amounts of data quickly or filling frames with high pixel throughput, the GTX 480 is the stronger choice based on the data.

The AMD FirePro W4300 wins on efficiency and practicality. Its 50 W TDP is one-fifth of the GTX 480's 250 W, and it requires no external power connectors, making it far easier to install in existing systems. The single-slot design and shorter 171 mm length allow it to fit in compact chassis where the 267 mm dual-slot GTX 480 would not. The W4300 also offers 4 GB of memory, more than double the GTX 480's 1536 MB, which benefits workloads with large working sets that exceed the smaller frame buffer. The four mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs support multi-display setups directly, while the GTX 480 offers only two DVI ports and one mini-HDMI.

The W4300 also wins on modern interface support. PCIe 3.0 x16 provides double the bandwidth of the GTX 480's PCIe 2.0 x16, and Vulkan 1.2.170 support means the W4300 can run a broader range of modern APIs. The full DirectX 12_0 feature level on the W4300 contrasts with the 11_0 level on the GTX 480, which matters for compatibility with newer software titles.

The FP32 compute figures show the W4300 ahead at 1,428.5 GFLOPS versus 1,345.0 GFLOPS, yet the benchmark score favors the GTX 480. This suggests the W4300's theoretical compute advantage does not translate to real-world OpenCL performance in the recorded test, possibly due to memory bandwidth limitations or driver overhead. The W4300 also wins on texture rate at 44.64 GTexel/s versus 42.06 GTexel/s, a modest edge.

In practical terms, the GTX 480 suits users who need maximum compute throughput and have the power delivery and physical space to accommodate a 250 W dual-slot card. The W4300 suits users who prioritize low power draw, compact installation, high memory capacity, or modern API support, even at the cost of 18.5 percent compute performance. The database shows no scenario where the W4300 wins a benchmark, but its efficiency profile gives it a distinct role.