AMD FirePro W4300 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records a single direct benchmark comparison between the AMD FirePro W4300 and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960: the Geekbench OpenCL test. The results are decisive in favor of the NVIDIA card. The GTX 960 scored 18,925, while the FirePro W4300 managed 11,225. This translates to a delta of -40.7% for the AMD card, meaning it trails the NVIDIA GPU by over 40% in this specific compute workload. The margin is substantial, not a narrow edge, indicating a significant performance gulf in raw OpenCL compute throughput.

To contextualize the W4300's score, the database places it at the 50th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 11,225. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 (11,228, a 0% delta) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M (11,261, a -0.3% delta). The W4300 is essentially tied with these cards, and it even edges out the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q and RTX PRO 6000D Blackwell Max-Q, both scoring 11,088 (a 1.2% advantage for the AMD card). This shows the W4300's OpenCL performance is competitive with a specific class of mobile and entry-level workstation parts, but it is not in the same tier as the GTX 960.

The GTX 960, in contrast, is listed at the 45th percentile overall, with an average benchmark score of 9,273. This average is notably lower than its OpenCL score of 18,925, as it is dragged down by other results in its benchmark suite, such as a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 162, a Geekbench Metal score of 8,773, and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 9,231. Its nearest rivals in the database, based on average score, include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 465 (9,294, a -0.2% delta) and the AMD Radeon R7 M380 (9,313, a -0.4% delta). The fact that the GTX 960's OpenCL score is more than double its average score highlights that this particular benchmark is a strong point for the card, whereas its performance in other APIs like Metal and Vulkan is more moderate.

The head-to-head data, therefore, shows a clear winner in the only direct comparison available. The GTX 960's OpenCL advantage is a dominant one, and there is no benchmark in the database where the FirePro W4300 comes out ahead. While the W4300 is a capable performer relative to its immediate peers, the GTX 960 simply outclasses it in this compute test.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 scores 18,925 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the AMD FirePro W4300 scores 11,225. The GTX 960 is ahead by 40.7%.

Q: How does the FirePro W4300 compare to other workstation GPUs like the Radeon Pro WX 3200?

A: The FirePro W4300's average benchmark score is 11,225, which is nearly identical to the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200's score of 11,228. The delta between the two is 0%.

Q: Is the GTX 960 faster than its average score suggests?

A: Yes, its Geekbench OpenCL score of 18,925 is significantly higher than its overall average benchmark score of 9,273. This indicates the GTX 960 performs much better in OpenCL workloads than in other benchmark tests like Metal (8,773) or Vulkan (9,231).

Q: What is the performance difference between the GTX 960 and the FirePro W4300 in terms of percentage?

A: The GTX 960 leads the FirePro W4300 by 40.7% in the Geekbench OpenCL test, as the W4300's score is -40.7% relative to the GTX 960's score.

Q: Which GPU has a higher percentile ranking among all GPUs?

A: The AMD FirePro W4300 is at the 50th percentile, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 is at the 45th percentile. Despite the GTX 960 winning the head-to-head OpenCL test, the W4300 has a slightly higher standing in the overall database.

Q: Does the GTX 960 outperform the FirePro W4300 in all recorded benchmarks?

A: In the only direct head-to-head benchmark recorded in the database (Geekbench OpenCL), the GTX 960 wins. The database shows 1 win for the GTX 960 and 0 wins for the FirePro W4300.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the recorded data, the choice is clear for compute-heavy OpenCL workloads. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 is the superior performer, delivering a 40.7% higher score in the sole head-to-head benchmark. Anyone prioritizing raw OpenCL performance should select the GTX 960 without hesitation, as the data shows a commanding lead.

However, the AMD FirePro W4300 presents a different profile. It holds a higher overall percentile rank (50th vs 45th) and has a higher average benchmark score (11,225 vs 9,273) when considering all of the GTX 960's results, including its weaker Metal and Vulkan scores. This implies that while the GTX 960 excels in OpenCL, the W4300 may offer more consistent performance across a broader range of workloads, or at least avoids the severe performance drops seen in the GTX 960's other API tests. For users whose applications rely on a mix of APIs, or who value steadier all-around performance, the W4300 is the more balanced option, despite losing the specific OpenCL battle.

The data does not support a recommendation for the W4300 in a direct OpenCL showdown. The GTX 960's win is too decisive. But for a system where the workload is not exclusively OpenCL, the W4300's higher percentile and average score suggest it could be the more reliable choice. The verdict depends entirely on whether the primary workload is the OpenCL API, where the GTX 960 dominates, or a more varied set of tasks, where the W4300's consistency might be preferable.

Specification Differences

The two cards diverge on nearly every core specification. The AMD FirePro W4300 features 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 16 render output units (ROPs). The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960, in contrast, has 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. This gives the GTX 960 a clear advantage in raw shading and texture processing capacity.

Memory configurations also differ significantly. The FirePro W4300 comes with 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, yielding a bandwidth of 96.00 GB/s. The GTX 960 has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory, also on a 128-bit bus, but with a higher bandwidth of 112.2 GB/s. The GTX 960 thus has a faster memory subsystem, while the W4300 offers double the capacity.

Clock speeds are another differentiator. The W4300's memory runs at 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective), while the GTX 960's memory runs at 1753 MHz (7 Gbps effective). The GTX 960 also has defined base and boost clocks of 1127 MHz and 1178 MHz respectively, whereas the FirePro W4300's base and boost clocks are not listed in the database.

The physical and power profiles are starkly different. The FirePro W4300 is a single-slot card with a 50 W TDP, no power connectors, and a suggested 250 W PSU. It measures 171 mm (6.7 inches) in length. The GTX 960 is a dual-slot card with a 120 W TDP, requiring a single 6-pin power connector and a suggested 300 W PSU. It is significantly longer at 241 mm (9.5 inches). The W4300's display outputs are 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2, while the GTX 960 offers 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 3x DisplayPort 1.2. The GTX 960 also has a recorded launch MSRP of 199 USD.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide is fundamental. The AMD FirePro W4300 is built on the GCN 2.0 architecture, using the Bonaire chip, and belongs to the FirePro GCN (Wx300) generation. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 is based on the Maxwell 2.0 architecture, using the GM206 chip, and is part of the GeForce 900 generation. Both are fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC, but their transistor counts and die sizes differ substantially.

The FirePro W4300 packs 2,080 million transistors on a 160 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 13.0M per mm². The GTX 960 contains 2,940 million transistors on a larger 228 mm² die, with a slightly lower density of 12.9M per mm². The GTX 960's larger die and higher transistor count reflect a more complex design aimed at higher performance.

The API support also reveals generational differences. While both cards support DirectX 12 and OpenGL 4.6, the GTX 960 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) whereas the W4300 only supports DirectX 12 (12_0). The Vulkan support also differs: the GTX 960 supports Vulkan 1.4, while the W4300 supports the older Vulkan 1.2.170. This indicates the GTX 960 has a more modern feature set in terms of API compatibility.

Performance rates in the database show the GTX 960's architectural advantage. Its pixel rate is 37.70 GPixel/s versus the W4300's 14.88 GPixel/s. Its texture rate is 75.39 GTexel/s versus 44.64 GTexel/s. Its FP32 compute is 2.413 TFLOPS versus 1,428.5 GFLOPS. Every measurable throughput metric is higher on the GTX 960, confirming that the Maxwell 2.0 architecture in this configuration is significantly more powerful than the GCN 2.0 design in the W4300. The release dates also reflect this gap: the GTX 960 was released in January 2015, while the W4300 came later in November 2015.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 wins in the only direct benchmark comparison recorded. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 18,925 is 40.7% higher than the FirePro W4300's 11,225. This makes the GTX 960 the clear choice for any application that relies heavily on OpenCL compute. Its higher shading unit count (1,024 vs 768), higher TMU count (64 vs 48), and higher ROP count (32 vs 16) all support its dominance in raw throughput-oriented tasks. The GTX 960 also has higher memory bandwidth (112.2 GB/s vs 96.00 GB/s) and faster memory clocks (7 Gbps effective vs 6 Gbps effective), which further benefits compute workloads that are memory-bandwidth sensitive. Its higher pixel rate (37.70 GPixel/s vs 14.88 GPixel/s) and texture rate (75.39 GTexel/s vs 44.64 GTexel/s) make it the superior choice for graphics-intensive tasks as well.

The AMD FirePro W4300 does not win any recorded benchmark, but it has distinct advantages in other areas. It offers 4 GB of memory, which is double the GTX 960's 2 GB. For workloads that require large datasets or framebuffers, this extra capacity can be a decisive factor, even if the bandwidth is lower. The W4300's TDP of 50 W is less than half of the GTX 960's 120 W, and it requires no power connectors, making it far easier to integrate into power-constrained systems. Its single-slot design and shorter length (171 mm vs 241 mm) are also advantages for compact builds. Furthermore, the W4300's higher overall percentile rank (50th vs 45th) and higher average benchmark score (11,225 vs 9,273) suggest it offers more consistent performance across different types of workloads, whereas the GTX 960's average is dragged down by its much lower scores in Metal (8,773) and Vulkan (9,231). In applications that use those APIs, the W4300 may very well be the steadier performer, even without a direct comparison in the data.