AMD FirePro W4300 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670 Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670 and the AMD FirePro W4300 occupy very different corners of the graphics hardware landscape, despite both being built on the same 28 nm TSMC process. The GTX 670 is a dual-slot, high-power consumer card from 2012 aimed at gaming and general compute, while the FirePro W4300 is a single-slot, low-power professional workstation card from 2015 designed for multi-display productivity and compact systems. The recorded data shows a clear performance hierarchy in compute workloads, with the GTX 670 leading, but the FirePro W4300 counters with double the memory, a more modern DirectX feature set, and drastically lower power requirements. This analysis walks through the specifications and benchmark results to determine which card suits which use case.

The Verdict

The benchmark data points to a straightforward choice for raw compute performance. In the only head-to-head test recorded, Geekbench OpenCL, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670 scores 15,341 against the AMD FirePro W4300’s 11,225, a lead of 36.7%. This is a substantial margin, indicating that for OpenCL workloads, the GTX 670 is the stronger performer by a wide gap. The GTX 670’s average benchmark score across all recorded tests (12,773) also exceeds the FirePro W4300’s average (11,225), reinforcing its overall compute advantage.

However, the selection is not solely about compute speed. The FirePro W4300 offers 4 GB of memory versus the GTX 670’s 2 GB, and it supports DirectX 12 (12_0) whereas the GTX 670 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0). For users running applications that require more than 2 GB of frame buffer or that leverage DirectX 12 features at the 12_0 level, the FirePro W4300 becomes the more appropriate choice despite its slower compute scores. Additionally, the FirePro W4300’s power draw is far lower: it is a 50 W single-slot card with no power connectors, while the GTX 670 is a 170 W dual-slot card requiring two 6-pin connectors and a 450 W suggested power supply. In a compact workstation or a system with limited power delivery, the FirePro W4300 is the only viable option.

The verdict from the data is clear. For users prioritizing compute throughput, OpenCL performance, or gaming capability, the GTX 670 wins decisively. For users needing higher memory capacity, lower power consumption, a smaller physical footprint, or modern DirectX 12_0 support, the FirePro W4300 is the correct pick. The GTX 670’s launch MSRP was 399 USD, but the FirePro W4300 has no recorded launch price, so cost comparison is not possible from the data.

Architecture Differences

The two cards are built on fundamentally different architectures. The GTX 670 uses the GK104 chip, based on NVIDIA’s Kepler architecture, and belongs to the GeForce 600 generation. It contains 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.0 million transistors per square millimeter. The FirePro W4300 uses the Bonaire chip, based on AMD’s GCN 2.0 architecture, and belongs to the FirePro GCN (Wx300) generation. It contains 2,080 million transistors on a 160 mm² die, giving a higher transistor density of 13.0 million per square millimeter. Both are fabricated by TSMC on the same 28 nm process, but the GTX 670 packs nearly 70% more transistors into a larger die.

The compute resources differ significantly. The GTX 670 features 1,344 shading units, 112 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 32 raster operation units (ROPs). The FirePro W4300 has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, which are roughly half the counts of the GTX 670 in each category. This explains the GTX 670’s higher theoretical throughput: its pixel rate is 27.44 GPixel/s and its texture rate is 109.8 GTexel/s, while the FirePro W4300 manages only 14.88 GPixel/s and 44.64 GTexel/s. The FP32 compute performance follows the same pattern, with the GTX 670 at 2.634 TFLOPS versus the FirePro W4300’s 1,428.5 GFLOPS.

Memory architecture also diverges. The GTX 670 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 192.3 GB/s of bandwidth, with memory clocked at 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective). The FirePro W4300 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering only 96.00 GB/s of bandwidth, with memory clocked at 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective). Thus, the GTX 670 has double the memory bus width and double the bandwidth, while the FirePro W4300 has double the capacity.

API support shows a notable difference. The GTX 670 supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The FirePro W4300 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The DirectX 12 feature level is the key distinction, with the FirePro W4300 supporting the higher 12_0 tier. Both support PCIe 3.0 x16, but display outputs differ: the GTX 670 offers 2x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x DisplayPort 1.2, while the FirePro W4300 offers 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2, which is more suited to multi-monitor professional setups.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670 has an average benchmark score of 12,773, while the AMD FirePro W4300 has an average of 11,225, making the GTX 670 approximately 13.8% higher on average.

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

A: The GTX 670 provides 192.3 GB/s of bandwidth using a 256-bit bus, while the FirePro W4300 provides 96.00 GB/s using a 128-bit bus, so the GTX 670 has double the bandwidth.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The GTX 670 has a TDP of 170 W, requires two 6-pin power connectors, and suggests a 450 W power supply. The FirePro W4300 has a TDP of 50 W, requires no power connectors, and suggests a 250 W power supply.

Q: Does the FirePro W4300 support a newer DirectX version than the GTX 670?

A: Yes, the FirePro W4300 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the GTX 670 supports DirectX 12 (11_0), meaning the FirePro W4300 supports a higher feature level.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The GTX 670 has 1,344 shading units, compared to the FirePro W4300’s 768 shading units, giving the GTX 670 a 75% higher count.

Q: What is the physical size difference between the two cards?

A: The GTX 670 is a dual-slot card measuring 241 mm in length, 111 mm in height, and 38 mm in width. The FirePro W4300 is a single-slot card measuring 171 mm in length and 69 mm in height, with no recorded width.

Specification Differences

The recorded specifications show several key differences between the two cards. The GTX 670 uses the GK104 chip with the Kepler architecture, while the FirePro W4300 uses the Bonaire chip with GCN 2.0. The transistor count is 3,540 million for the GTX 670 versus 2,080 million for the FirePro W4300, and the die size is 294 mm² versus 160 mm², with transistor densities of 12.0M / mm² and 13.0M / mm², respectively.

The GTX 670 has a base clock of 915 MHz and a boost clock of 980 MHz, with a memory clock of 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective). The FirePro W4300 has no recorded base or boost clock, but its memory clock is 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective). The GTX 670’s memory configuration is 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, while the FirePro W4300 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, resulting in bandwidths of 192.3 GB/s and 96.00 GB/s, respectively.

Compute resources differ: the GTX 670 has 1,344 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, versus the FirePro W4300’s 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Pixel rates are 27.44 GPixel/s for the GTX 670 and 14.88 GPixel/s for the FirePro W4300. Texture rates are 109.8 GTexel/s versus 44.64 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 2.634 TFLOPS for the GTX 670 and 1,428.5 GFLOPS for the FirePro W4300. Neither card has recorded FP16, RT core, or tensor core data.

Power and physical specifications are markedly different. The GTX 670 has a TDP of 170 W, is dual-slot, requires two 6-pin connectors, and suggests a 450 W PSU. The FirePro W4300 has a TDP of 50 W, is single-slot, requires no connectors, and suggests a 250 W PSU. The GTX 670 measures 241 mm by 111 mm by 38 mm, while the FirePro W4300 measures 171 mm by 69 mm with no recorded width. Display outputs are 2x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x DisplayPort 1.2 for the GTX 670, versus 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 for the FirePro W4300. API support differs only in DirectX: 12 (11_0) for the GTX 670 and 12 (12_0) for the FirePro W4300, with OpenGL 4.6 on both and Vulkan 1.2.175 versus 1.2.170. The GTX 670 was released on 2012-05-09 with a launch MSRP of 399 USD, while the FirePro W4300 was released on 2015-11-30 with no launch MSRP recorded.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains a single head-to-head benchmark between these two cards: Geekbench OpenCL. In this test, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670 scores 15,341, while the AMD FirePro W4300 scores 11,225. The winner is the GTX 670, with a delta of 36.7%. This is a decisive victory, indicating that the GTX 670’s higher shading unit count, wider memory bus, and greater bandwidth translate directly into faster OpenCL execution. The GTX 670 also has a higher average benchmark score of 12,773 across all its recorded tests, which includes Geekbench Metal (7,424) and Geekbench Vulkan (15,553) in addition to OpenCL. The FirePro W4300’s average is 11,225, based solely on its OpenCL result, meaning the GTX 670’s lead in the head-to-head test is consistent with its overall average.

The GTX 670’s 36.7% advantage in OpenCL is substantial, but it is notably this is the only direct comparison available. The FirePro W4300 does not have recorded Metal or Vulkan scores, so no conclusions can be drawn about those APIs. The GTX 670’s Vulkan score of 15,553 is slightly higher than its OpenCL score, while its Metal score of 7,424 is much lower, but these figures do not have a counterpart for the FirePro W4300 in the data.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670 wins in raw compute performance. Its OpenCL score is 36.7% higher than the FirePro W4300’s, and its average benchmark score of 12,773 exceeds the FirePro W4300’s 11,225. With 1,344 shading units versus 768, a 256-bit memory bus versus 128-bit, and 192.3 GB/s bandwidth versus 96.00 GB/s, the GTX 670 is clearly the stronger card for any compute-heavy task, including rendering, simulation, or gaming. Its pixel rate of 27.44 GPixel/s and texture rate of 109.8 GTexel/s are roughly double the FirePro W4300’s rates, reinforcing its dominance in fill-rate-limited workloads. The GTX 670 also has a higher FP32 throughput at 2.634 TFLOPS versus 1,428.5 GFLOPS.

The AMD FirePro W4300 wins in memory capacity and power efficiency. It offers 4 GB of memory versus 2 GB, which is critical for workloads that exceed the GTX 670’s frame buffer, such as large texture sets or multi-display professional applications. Its power draw is only 50 W against the GTX 670’s 170 W, it is a single-slot card versus dual-slot, and it requires no external power connectors, making it suitable for small form factor systems or environments where heat and power are constrained. The FirePro W4300 also supports DirectX 12 (12_0), a higher feature level than the GTX 670’s DirectX 12 (11_0), which could matter for applications using advanced DX12 features. For multi-monitor setups, the FirePro W4300’s four mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs exceed the GTX 670’s single DisplayPort, HDMI, and two DVI outputs, making it the better choice for workstation displays.

The data does not show any benchmark where the FirePro W4300 wins a direct compute test, so its advantages are purely in memory, power, physical design, and API support. Users who need maximum compute speed or gaming performance should choose the GTX 670. Users who need low power, high memory capacity, or a compact card for professional use should choose the FirePro W4300.