AMD FirePro W4300 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M Comparison

The benchmark data places the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M and AMD FirePro W4300 in the same performance tier, with average scores of 11261 and 11225 respectively. This 0.3% delta is effectively a statistical tie, placing both at the 50th percentile of all GPUs. However, the single head-to-head benchmark available—Geekbench OpenCL—shows a decisive 13.8% victory for the GTX 780M (12769 vs 11225). The verdict is nuanced: the FirePro W4300 offers a dramatically lower power footprint and professional display outputs, while the GTX 780M delivers measurably higher compute throughput in the specific test where they directly compete.

The Verdict

The data suggests two distinct buyers for these cards. For users prioritizing raw compute performance in OpenCL workloads, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M is the clear choice, as it outperforms the AMD FirePro W4300 by 13.8% in the only benchmark where both are measured head-to-head. This is a significant margin, not a rounding error. The GTX 780M also shows broader API support with Vulkan 1.2.175 compared to the FirePro's 1.2.170, and its higher average benchmark score of 11261 versus 11225 reinforces its slight edge in overall synthetic testing.

Conversely, the AMD FirePro W4300 is the rational pick for workstation integration where power and physical footprint are critical. Its 50 W TDP is less than half the GTX 780M's 122 W, and it arrives in a single-slot, 171 mm form factor with four mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs. The GTX 780M is an MXM module with outputs described as "portable device dependent," meaning it is not a drop-in desktop solution. The FirePro also supports DirectX 12 (12_0) fully, while the GTX 780M is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0) feature levels.

For a desktop workstation requiring standard PCIe installation, multiple display outputs, and low power draw, the FirePro W4300 is the data-backed selection. For a laptop or all-in-one system using MXM-B (3.0) where maximum OpenCL compute is desired, the GTX 780M is superior. Neither card is a winner across the board; the 13.8% compute advantage is offset by the FirePro's 144% better power efficiency (122 W vs 50 W) and superior connectivity. The GTX 780M's nearest rival data shows it is 1.6% ahead of the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q, while the FirePro is 1.2% ahead of that same card, confirming both are mid-pack performers rather than leaders.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M has an average benchmark score of 11261, which is 0.3% higher than the AMD FirePro W4300's 11225. This places both at the 50th percentile of all GPUs.

Q: In the head-to-head OpenCL benchmark, what is the exact performance gap?

A: The GTX 780M scores 12769 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the FirePro W4300 scores 11225. This results in a 13.8% advantage for the NVIDIA card, marking the only head-to-head test where both cards have recorded scores.

Q: How do their power requirements compare?

A: The AMD FirePro W4300 has a TDP of 50 W, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M has a TDP of 122 W. This means the FirePro consumes less than half the power of the GTX 780M, making it significantly more energy-efficient.

Q: Which card supports a newer version of DirectX?

A: The AMD FirePro W4300 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), whereas the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0) feature levels. Both cards support OpenGL 4.6 and similar Vulkan versions (1.2.170 for AMD, 1.2.175 for NVIDIA).

Q: What physical form factors do these cards use?

A: The AMD FirePro W4300 is a single-slot, 171 mm (6.7 inches) long PCIe 3.0 x16 card with 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M uses an MXM-B (3.0) module interface with no dedicated power connectors, making it portable-device dependent.

Q: Are either of these cards still in production?

A: No. Both the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M (released May 2013) and the AMD FirePro W4300 (released November 2015) are marked as end-of-life products in the data.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M is built on the Kepler architecture using the GK104 chip, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It integrates 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.0M per mm². The AMD FirePro W4300 uses the GCN 2.0 architecture with the Bonaire chip, also on a 28 nm TSMC process, but packs 2,080 million transistors on a smaller 160 mm² die, achieving a higher density of 13.0M per mm².

The compute resource allocation is starkly different. The GTX 780M features 1536 shading units, 128 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 32 raster operations pipelines (ROPs). In contrast, the FirePro W4300 has exactly half the shading units (768), 48 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This structural difference directly explains the performance gap: the GTX 780M has double the shader count and more texture and pixel throughput hardware.

Clock speeds are not directly comparable because the AMD card lists no base or boost clocks, only a memory clock of 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective). The NVIDIA card runs at a base clock of 771 MHz with a boost up to 797 MHz and a memory clock of 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective). The GTX 780M's higher compute throughput is achieved despite lower memory clock speed, thanks to its wider 256-bit memory bus versus the FirePro's 128-bit bus.

The memory subsystems also differ fundamentally. Both have 4 GB of GDDR5, but the GTX 780M delivers 160.0 GB/s bandwidth over a 256-bit interface, while the FirePro W4300 provides 96.00 GB/s over a 128-bit interface. This 66.7% bandwidth advantage for NVIDIA is critical for memory-bound workloads. The GTX 780M also achieves higher pixel rate (25.50 GPixel/s vs 14.88 GPixel/s) and texture rate (102.0 GTexel/s vs 44.64 GTexel/s), reinforcing its architectural superiority in raw fill rates.

Specification Differences

The most consequential specification difference is the TDP: the FirePro W4300 draws 50 W, while the GTX 780M draws 122 W. This 72 W gap is a major differentiator for system design. The FirePro is a single-slot card measuring 171 mm by 69 mm, while the GTX 780M is an MXM module with no listed dimensions. The bus interface differs: the FirePro uses PCIe 3.0 x16, the GTX 780M uses MXM-B (3.0). Display outputs are also distinct: the FirePro offers 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2, while the GTX 780M's outputs are portable-device dependent.

The memory bus width and bandwidth differ significantly: 256-bit and 160.0 GB/s for NVIDIA versus 128-bit and 96.00 GB/s for AMD. The shading unit count differs by a factor of two (1536 vs 768), as do TMUs (128 vs 48) and ROPs (32 vs 16). The FP32 compute rating is 2.448 TFLOPS for the GTX 780M versus 1,428.5 GFLOPS for the FirePro, a 71.3% advantage for NVIDIA. The transistor count and die size also differ (3,540M vs 2,080M; 294 mm² vs 160 mm²), though the FirePro has a slightly higher transistor density (13.0M/mm² vs 12.0M/mm²). The FirePro suggests a 250 W PSU, while the GTX 780M has no suggested PSU listed. Neither card has a launch MSRP.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Only one benchmark directly compares these two cards: Geekbench OpenCL. In this test, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M scores 12769, while the AMD FirePro W4300 scores 11225. The delta is 13.8% in favor of NVIDIA. This is the single most important data point for performance comparison, as it directly measures both cards under identical conditions.

The GTX 780M's victory in OpenCL is consistent with its architectural advantages. With double the shading units (1536 vs 768) and higher memory bandwidth (160.0 GB/s vs 96.00 GB/s), the NVIDIA card can feed its compute units faster and process more parallel threads. The 13.8% margin is larger than the 0.3% average score difference, suggesting that OpenCL compute is a particular strength for the GTX 780M relative to its overall standing.

The FirePro W4300 has no benchmark wins in the head-to-head data; the win count is 1 for NVIDIA and 0 for AMD. However, the FirePro's average benchmark score of 11225 is within 0.3% of the GTX 780M's 11261, indicating that in other untested workloads, the cards would likely perform nearly identically. The head-to-head result should be interpreted as the GTX 780M having a specific compute advantage, not a general dominance.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M wins decisively in raw compute performance. Its 13.8% lead in Geekbench OpenCL, combined with 2.448 TFLOPS FP32 versus 1,428.5 GFLOPS, makes it the superior choice for OpenCL-accelerated applications, GPU compute tasks, and any workload leveraging its 128 TMUs and 32 ROPs. Its 160.0 GB/s memory bandwidth over a 256-bit bus also gives it an edge in bandwidth-sensitive operations. This card is best suited for portable gaming systems or mobile workstations using the MXM-B interface where maximum compute per module is required, accepting the 122 W TDP.

The AMD FirePro W4300 wins in system integration and efficiency. Its 50 W TDP allows for passive or low-noise cooling solutions in a single-slot form factor, making it ideal for dense multi-GPU workstation builds or small form factor desktops. The four mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs are a clear advantage for professional multi-monitor setups, something the GTX 780M cannot offer due to its portable-device-dependent outputs. The FirePro's PCIe 3.0 x16 interface makes it a standard drop-in card, whereas the GTX 780M requires a proprietary MXM slot. Its support for DirectX 12 (12_0) full feature levels also makes it technically more modern for newer game engines, despite its lower compute throughput.

The data also shows that both cards are statistically equivalent in overall standing: both sit at the 50th percentile, and both are within 1.6% of the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q. The choice comes down to workload and platform. For portable high-compute, the GTX 780M wins. For desktop professional visualization with multiple displays and minimal power draw, the FirePro W4300 wins. Neither card is a universal recommendation; they serve different physical and performance niches.