AMD FirePro W4300 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 590 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single recorded head-to-head comparison in the database is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and it shows a clear victory for the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 590. The GTX 590 scores 12,830 points against the AMD FirePro W4300’s 11,225 points. That is a 14.3% advantage, making the NVIDIA card the outright winner in this specific workload. The delta is substantial enough that it is not a marginal or noise-level difference; the GTX 590 holds a decisive edge in compute performance as measured by this benchmark.

Looking at the broader context, the GTX 590’s score places it at the 52nd percentile among all GPUs in the database, while the FirePro W4300 sits at the 50th percentile. That two-point percentile gap reinforces the same story: the GTX 590 is slightly ahead in raw OpenCL compute, though both cards are mid-pack performers overall. The GTX 590’s nearest rival is the AMD Radeon Pro 455, which scores 12,831, a delta of 0% from the GTX 590’s result. The FirePro W4300, by contrast, is nearly tied with the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200, which scores 11,228, again a 0% delta. So the GTX 590 sits in a slightly higher performance tier than the W4300, even if both are surrounded by similarly scored competitors.

The win tally is 1 for the GTX 590 and 0 for the FirePro W4300 in the head-to-head category. No other benchmark tests are recorded for these two cards, so the OpenCL result is the sole quantitative basis for comparison in this database. What the numbers show is that the older NVIDIA flagship, despite its age in the product stack, still outruns the AMD workstation card in this compute test. The 14.3% lead is meaningful, but it is importantly the W4300 is not far behind in absolute terms; the gap is roughly 1,600 points, which is within the range of what a single architectural generation shift might produce.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different architectural eras and design philosophies. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 590 is built on the GF110 chip, using the Fermi 2.0 architecture, and belongs to the GeForce 500 generation. It is fabricated on a 40 nm process at TSMC, with 3,000 million transistors packed into a 520 mm² die. That works out to a transistor density of 5.8 million per square millimeter. The AMD FirePro W4300, on the other hand, uses the Bonaire chip with the GCN 2.0 architecture, part of the FirePro GCN (Wx300) generation. It is also made by TSMC, but on a newer 28 nm process, with 2,080 million transistors on a much smaller 160 mm² die, giving it a far higher transistor density of 13.0 million per square millimeter. The process node advantage is clear: AMD packs nearly twice the density into less than a third of the silicon area.

The compute resources differ significantly. The GTX 590 has 512 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 48 render output units. The FirePro W4300 has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and only 16 ROPs. So AMD fields more shaders but fewer texture units and far fewer ROPs. The pixel rate for the GTX 590 is 19.46 GPixel/s versus 14.88 GPixel/s for the W4300, meaning the NVIDIA card fills pixels faster despite its lower shader count. The texture rate tells the opposite story: the W4300 outputs 44.64 GTexel/s versus 38.91 GTexel/s for the GTX 590, so AMD wins on texture throughput. Floating-point performance also favors AMD: the W4300 delivers 1,428.5 GFLOPS FP32 versus 1,244.2 GFLOPS for the GTX 590, a 14.8% advantage in raw compute throughput. Yet the OpenCL benchmark does not reflect that FP32 lead, which suggests the workload stresses other parts of the pipeline.

Memory is another major split. The GTX 590 uses 1536 MB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, yielding 164.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The FirePro W4300 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, but only 96.00 GB/s of bandwidth. NVIDIA’s memory clock is 854 MHz (3.4 Gbps effective), while AMD’s is 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective), yet the narrower bus cripples AMD’s total bandwidth. The GTX 590’s wider bus gives it a 71% bandwidth advantage, which likely explains its OpenCL win despite lower FP32. The W4300’s larger capacity is useful for holding bigger datasets, but the throughput ceiling is lower.

Power and physical design differ just as sharply. The GTX 590 has a TDP of 365 W, requires dual-slot cooling, two 8-pin power connectors, and a suggested 750 W power supply. The FirePro W4300 is a single-slot card with a 50 W TDP, no power connectors, and a suggested 250 W PSU. That is a 315 W gap, a sevenfold difference in power draw. The GTX 590 is also much larger: 279 mm long, 111 mm tall, and 40 mm wide, versus the W4300’s 171 mm length and 69 mm height (no width recorded). The bus interfaces also differ: PCIe 2.0 x16 for NVIDIA, PCIe 3.0 x16 for AMD. Display outputs are 3x DVI and 1x mini-DisplayPort for the GTX 590, while the W4300 offers 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2.

Where Each One Wins

The data points to a straightforward split. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 590 wins the only recorded benchmark, the Geekbench OpenCL test, by 14.3%. It also has superior pixel rate (19.46 GPixel/s versus 14.88 GPixel/s), higher memory bandwidth (164.0 GB/s versus 96.00 GB/s), and a wider memory bus (384-bit versus 128-bit). These are classic strengths for GPU-bound compute workloads and high-resolution rendering, where fill rate and memory throughput dominate. The GTX 590 also supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, though its Vulkan support is not recorded, which may limit it in modern Vulkan-based applications.

The AMD FirePro W4300 wins on several architectural metrics even if it loses the benchmark. It has more shading units (768 versus 512), higher FP32 throughput (1,428.5 GFLOPS versus 1,244.2 GFLOPS), and a higher texture rate (44.64 GTexel/s versus 38.91 GTexel/s). It also has double the memory capacity (4 GB versus 1536 MB), newer PCIe 3.0 support, and full DirectX 12 (12_0) plus Vulkan 1.2.170 support. The W4300 is also dramatically more power-efficient: 50 W TDP versus 365 W, with a single-slot profile and no external power connectors. That makes it a far better fit for dense workstations, low-power systems, or multi-GPU setups where space and thermal limits are tight.

Use-case separation follows those metrics. For compute tasks that reward memory bandwidth and pixel throughput, such as large matrix operations or high-resolution image processing, the GTX 590’s wider bus and faster fill rate give it an edge. For workloads that scale with shader count and FP32, like certain simulation or physics calculations, the W4300 has the theoretical advantage, though the OpenCL result does not confirm it in practice. For multi-display professional setups, the W4300’s four mini-DisplayPort outputs edge out the GTX 590’s three DVI and one mini-DisplayPort. For legacy compatibility with DVI-only monitors, the GTX 590 is better suited.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous on the compute side: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 590 outperforms the AMD FirePro W4300 by 14.3% in Geekbench OpenCL, with a score of 12,830 versus 11,225. If the sole criterion is raw compute performance in this test, the GTX 590 is the card to choose. Its higher memory bandwidth, wider bus, and superior pixel rate align with that result, and it also tops the W4300 in the database percentile ranking (52nd versus 50th).

But the verdict is not one-sided when power, size, and feature support enter the picture. The FirePro W4300 draws 50 W versus 365 W, fits in a single slot, requires no extra power connectors, and supports modern APIs including Vulkan 1.2.170 and full DirectX 12 (12_0). The GTX 590 is end-of-life, uses PCIe 2.0, and lacks recorded Vulkan support. For a professional workstation where power budgets, chassis space, and API compatibility matter more than a 14.3% OpenCL lead, the W4300 is the more practical card. For a system where compute throughput is the only thing that matters and power is not a constraint, the GTX 590 wins outright.

The database records one win for the GTX 590 and zero for the W4300, but that single test does not capture the W4300’s advantages in efficiency, capacity, and connectivity. Choose the GTX 590 if you need maximum OpenCL compute from these two options and can supply 365 W and dual-slot space. Choose the FirePro W4300 if you need lower power draw, 4 GB of memory, four display outputs, or Vulkan support. The data does not support calling either card a universal winner; it supports calling the GTX 590 faster in compute and the W4300 more versatile in deployment.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 590 scores 12,830, which is 14.3% higher than the AMD FirePro W4300’s 11,225.

Q: How does the memory bandwidth compare between the two cards?

A: The GTX 590 has 164.0 GB/s of bandwidth on a 384-bit bus, while the W4300 has 96.00 GB/s on a 128-bit bus.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The AMD FirePro W4300 has 768 shading units, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 590 has 512.

Q: What is the power draw difference?

A: The GTX 590 has a TDP of 365 W and requires two 8-pin power connectors, while the W4300 has a TDP of 50 W and needs no power connectors.

Q: Does the FirePro W4300 support Vulkan?

A: Yes, the W4300 supports Vulkan 1.2.170. The GTX 590’s Vulkan support is not recorded in the database.

Q: Which card has more memory capacity?

A: The AMD FirePro W4300 has 4 GB of GDDR5, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 590 has 1536 MB of GDDR5.

Specification Differences

| Field | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 590 | AMD FirePro W4300 |

|-------|------------------------|-------------------|

| Architecture | Fermi 2.0 | GCN 2.0 |

| Process Node | 40 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 3,000 million | 2,080 million |

| Die Size | 520 mm² | 160 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 5.8M / mm² | 13.0M / mm² |

| Memory Size | 1536 MB | 4 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 384 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 164.0 GB/s | 96.00 GB/s |

| Memory Clock | 854 MHz (3.4 Gbps effective) | 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective) |

| Shading Units | 512 | 768 |

| TMUs | 64 | 48 |

| ROPs | 48 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 19.46 GPixel/s | 14.88 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 38.91 GTexel/s | 44.64 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 1,244.2 GFLOPS | 1,428.5 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 365 W | 50 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | Single-slot |

| Power Connectors | 2x 8-pin | None |

| Suggested PSU | 750 W | 250 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | 3x DVI, 1x mini-DisplayPort | 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 |

| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (12_0) |

| Vulkan | Not recorded | 1.2.170 |

| Dimensions | 279 mm x 111 mm x 40 mm | 171 mm x 69 mm (width not recorded) |

| Release Date | 2011-03-23 | 2015-11-30 |

| Launch MSRP | 699 USD | Not recorded |

| Geekbench OpenCL | 12,830 | 11,225 |