AMD FirePro W4300 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A Comparison

# NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A vs AMD FirePro W4300

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A edges out the AMD FirePro W4300 in the only direct benchmark available, posting a Geekbench OpenCL score of 11,998 against 11,225 for the AMD card — a 6.9% margin. That single win places the GTX 960A at the 51st percentile of all GPUs, while the FirePro W4300 sits at the 50th percentile. The data shows two end-of-life professional/mobile-oriented cards with different design philosophies: the GTX 960A is a Maxwell-based MXM module targeting portable systems, while the FirePro W4300 is a GCN 2.0 single-slot workstation card with more memory and a lower power draw.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 960A wins the only head-to-head benchmark recorded, the Geekbench OpenCL test, with a score of 11,998 versus 11,225. That 6.9% advantage is meaningful but not overwhelming; it places the GTX 960A in the same performance tier as the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 (which scores 11,960, a 0.3% difference) and the AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT (11,842, 1.3% behind). In other words, the GTX 960A's victory is narrow enough that real-world workloads could swing either way, but the raw compute advantage is consistently in NVIDIA's favor.

The FirePro W4300, however, wins on memory capacity and power efficiency. It ships with 4 GB of GDDR5 versus the GTX 960A's 2 GB, and it draws 50 W compared to 75 W for the NVIDIA card. For workloads that are memory-bound rather than compute-bound — large datasets, multi-layer textures, or high-resolution frame buffers — the extra 2 GB gives the AMD card a structural advantage that no benchmark score can fully capture. The FirePro W4300 also offers a 96.00 GB/s memory bandwidth versus 80.19 GB/s, a 19.7% superiority in raw memory throughput, even though its pixel rate (14.88 GPixel/s) and texture rate (44.64 GTexel/s) both trail the GTX 960A's respective 18.82 GPixel/s and 47.04 GTexel/s.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A scores 11,998, which is 6.9% higher than the AMD FirePro W4300's 11,225.

Q: How does the GTX 960A compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The GTX 960A is 0.3% ahead of the GeForce GTX 1080 (11,960), 1.3% ahead of the Radeon RX 6500 XT (11,842), 2.7% ahead of the GeForce GTX 1660 (11,680), and 3.2% ahead of the Radeon RX 7800 XT (11,627).

Q: Does the FirePro W4300 have any performance advantage?

A: Yes, in memory bandwidth: it delivers 96.00 GB/s versus 80.19 GB/s for the GTX 960A, a 19.7% advantage. It also has 4 GB of memory versus 2 GB.

Q: What are the power consumption figures?

A: The FirePro W4300 draws 50 W, while the GTX 960A draws 75 W. The AMD card is 33.3% more power-efficient on paper.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The FirePro W4300 has 768 shading units, compared to 640 for the GTX 960A. Despite this, the NVIDIA card achieves higher FP32 throughput at 1.505 TFLOPS versus 1,428.5 GFLOPS.

Q: What is the form factor difference?

A: The GTX 960A is an MXM Module (MXM-B 3.0 interface) with portable-device-dependent display outputs, while the FirePro W4300 is a single-slot PCIe 3.0 x16 card measuring 171 mm in length and 69 mm in height with 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only recorded head-to-head benchmark is Geekbench OpenCL, and the GTX 960A wins decisively: 11,998 versus 11,225, a 6.9% delta. This score reflects the NVIDIA card's higher FP32 compute rate (1.505 TFLOPS) and faster pixel fill rate (18.82 GPixel/s) compared to the AMD card's 1,428.5 GFLOPS and 14.88 GPixel/s. The GTX 960A also leads in texture rate, 47.04 GTexel/s versus 44.64 GTexel/s, a 5.4% margin.

However, the FirePro W4300 counters with a memory bandwidth advantage of 96.00 GB/s versus 80.19 GB/s — a 19.7% lead — and double the memory capacity. These numbers suggest that the AMD card could outperform in bandwidth-sensitive tasks like large matrix operations or high-resolution image processing, even though it loses the aggregate compute benchmark. The GTX 960A's nearest rival comparison reinforces its standing: it is virtually tied with the GeForce GTX 1080 (0.3% ahead) and beats the Radeon RX 6500 XT by 1.3%, while the FirePro W4300 is essentially tied with the Radeon Pro WX 3200 (0% delta) and trails the GeForce GTX 780M by 0.3%.

Specification Differences

The two cards diverge on nearly every measurable specification. The GTX 960A uses a GM107 chip with 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die, while the FirePro W4300 uses a Bonaire chip with 2,080 million transistors on a 160 mm² die. Transistor density is similar: 12.6M / mm² for NVIDIA versus 13.0M / mm² for AMD. Clock speeds differ significantly: the GTX 960A has a base clock of 1097 MHz and a boost clock of 1176 MHz, while the FirePro W4300 has no listed base or boost clocks — only a memory clock of 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective). The GTX 960A's memory runs at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective).

Memory configuration is a major differentiator: 2 GB GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus for the GTX 960A versus 4 GB GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus for the FirePro W4300. Bandwidth follows: 80.19 GB/s versus 96.00 GB/s. Compute resources favor AMD in raw counts (768 shading units, 48 TMUs) over NVIDIA (640 shading units, 40 TMUs), but both have 16 ROPs. Form factor and interface are entirely different: the GTX 960A is an MXM Module with MXM-B 3.0 interface and no power connectors, while the FirePro W4300 is a single-slot PCIe 3.0 x16 card with a 250 W suggested PSU and 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs. The GTX 960A's dimensions are not listed; the FirePro W4300 measures 171 mm by 69 mm.

Architecture Differences

The GTX 960A is built on NVIDIA's Maxwell architecture (GM107 chip) from the GeForce 900A generation, fabricated on TSMC's 28 nm process. The FirePro W4300 uses AMD's GCN 2.0 architecture (Bonaire chip) from the FirePro GCN (Wx300) generation, also on TSMC's 28 nm process. Both are end-of-life products, but their design lineages point in different directions: Maxwell was optimized for power efficiency and high clock speeds, while GCN 2.0 emphasized parallel compute throughput with more shading units.

API support differs: the GTX 960A supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the FirePro W4300 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The AMD card's DirectX 12 (12_0) support is a feature-level advantage over NVIDIA's 11_0, which could matter for certain modern workloads. The GTX 960A has no listed RT cores or tensor cores, and neither does the FirePro W4300; both rely on traditional rasterization. The GTX 960A's predecessor is the GeForce 800A, while the FirePro W4300's predecessor is the FirePro Terascale and its successor is the Radeon Pro GCN. Release dates are close: the GTX 960A launched on March 12, 2015, and the FirePro W4300 on November 30, 2015.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear but nuanced conclusion. If the priority is raw compute performance in a portable or embedded form factor, the GTX 960A is the pick: it wins the only benchmark, leads in FP32 throughput (1.505 TFLOPS versus 1,428.5 GFLOPS), and offers higher pixel and texture rates. Its 51st percentile ranking versus the FirePro W4300's 50th is a slim but consistent margin.

If the priority is memory capacity, bandwidth, or power efficiency, the FirePro W4300 is the better choice. Its 4 GB frame buffer is double the GTX 960A's 2 GB, its 96.00 GB/s bandwidth is 19.7% higher, and its 50 W TDP is one-third lower. The AMD card also provides a standard PCIe 3.0 x16 slot interface with four mini-DisplayPort outputs, making it a drop-in workstation solution, whereas the GTX 960A's MXM form factor requires a compatible portable chassis.

Benchmark results indicate that the GTX 960A is the faster card overall, but the FirePro W4300 is the more versatile and efficient one for memory-heavy professional workloads. Users who need maximum compute per watt or larger datasets should favor the AMD card; users who need the highest single-threaded OpenCL score and can accommodate an MXM module should choose the NVIDIA card. The 6.9% benchmark delta is real, but the specification gaps in memory and power are equally real — and for many professional use cases, those gaps may matter more than a single synthetic score.