AMD FirePro W4300 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records a single head-to-head benchmark between the AMD FirePro W4300 and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M: Geekbench OpenCL. In this test, the AMD FirePro W4300 scores 11,225, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M scores 11,045. The margin is 1.6% in favor of the AMD part, a modest but measurable lead. This result places the FirePro W4300 just ahead of its direct rival in raw compute throughput as measured by this workload.

Context from the nearest rivals helps clarify the standing of each card. The FirePro W4300 sits at the 50th percentile among all GPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 11,225. Its closest competitor, the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200, averages 11,228, a delta of 0.0%, meaning the two are effectively tied. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M scores 11,261, which is 0.3% higher than the FirePro W4300, while the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q and RTX PRO 6000D Blackwell Max-Q both score 11,088, 1.2% lower. The FirePro W4300 thus holds its own against a range of workstation and mobile parts, landing within a narrow band of performance.

The GTX 960M, by contrast, sits at the 46th percentile, with an average benchmark score of 9,645 across its two recorded tests (OpenCL and Vulkan). Its OpenCL score of 11,045 is close to the FirePro's, but the Vulkan result of 8,245 drags its average down considerably. Among its nearest rivals, the NVIDIA Quadro K5000 averages 9,637 (0.1% lower), the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 averages 9,653 (0.1% higher), the NVIDIA Quadro P4000 averages 9,665 (0.2% higher), and the NVIDIA Tesla C2070 averages 9,716 (0.7% higher). The GTX 960M's OpenCL performance is competitive with the FirePro W4300, but its broader benchmark profile is weaker.

The single head-to-head result shows the FirePro W4300 winning by a narrow 1.6% in OpenCL. That is not a decisive victory, but it does indicate that the AMD card delivers slightly higher compute throughput in this specific test. The GTX 960M's Vulkan score, while not part of the head-to-head comparison, suggests its OpenCL strength does not carry over to other API workloads.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural families and are built for different market segments. The AMD FirePro W4300 uses the Bonaire chip, based on GCN 2.0 architecture, and belongs to the FirePro GCN (Wx300) generation. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M uses the GM107 chip, based on Maxwell architecture, and belongs to the GeForce 900M generation. Both are manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC, so the process node is identical. The FirePro W4300 packs 2,080 million transistors on a 160 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 13.0 million per mm². The GTX 960M has 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die, for a density of 12.6 million per mm². The AMD chip is slightly larger in both transistor count and die area.

Compute resources differ as well. The FirePro W4300 carries 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 16 raster output units. The GTX 960M has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The AMD card therefore has 20% more shaders and TMUs, while ROP counts match. Pixel rate tells a different story: the GTX 960M achieves 18.82 GPixel/s, while the FirePro W4300 manages 14.88 GPixel/s. Texture rate is closer, with the GTX 960M at 47.04 GTexel/s versus 44.64 GTexel/s for the FirePro. Floating-point performance (FP32) is nearly identical: the FirePro W4300 delivers 1,428.5 GFLOPS, while the GTX 960M delivers 1.505 TFLOPS (1,505 GFLOPS). The NVIDIA part holds a slim edge in raw FP32, despite fewer shaders, due to its higher clock speeds.

Memory systems are similar in capacity and type, but bandwidth favors AMD. Both cards use 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus. The FirePro W4300's memory runs at 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective), yielding 96.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 960M's memory runs at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective), yielding 80.19 GB/s. The FirePro W4300 therefore has roughly 20% more memory bandwidth, which can benefit compute-heavy workloads. Clock speeds on the GPU core differ sharply: the GTX 960M has a base clock of 1097 MHz and a boost clock of 1176 MHz, while the FirePro W4300 lists no base or boost clock in the database.

API support shows a notable split. The FirePro W4300 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The GTX 960M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA card supports a newer Vulkan version, while the AMD card supports a higher DirectX feature level. Power and form factor also diverge: the FirePro W4300 is a single-slot card with a 50 W TDP and no power connectors, while the GTX 960M is an MXM module with a 75 W TDP and no power connectors. The FirePro W4300 requires a 250 W suggested PSU, while the GTX 960M lists none. The FirePro W4300 has four mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, while the GTX 960M's display outputs are listed as portable device dependent.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The AMD FirePro W4300 has 768 shading units, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M has 640 shading units.

Q: How does memory bandwidth compare?

A: The FirePro W4300 offers 96.00 GB/s of bandwidth, while the GTX 960M offers 80.19 GB/s. Both use 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus.

Q: What is the TDP of each card?

A: The FirePro W4300 has a TDP of 50 W, while the GTX 960M has a TDP of 75 W. The FirePro W4300 is a single-slot card; the GTX 960M is an MXM module.

Q: Which GPU supports a newer Vulkan version?

A: The GTX 960M supports Vulkan 1.4, while the FirePro W4300 supports Vulkan 1.2.170.

Q: What is the head-to-head OpenCL result?

A: The FirePro W4300 scores 11,225, beating the GTX 960M's 11,045 by 1.6%.

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel rate?

A: The GTX 960M has a pixel rate of 18.82 GPixel/s, while the FirePro W4300 has a pixel rate of 14.88 GPixel/s.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in almost every specification category except for memory capacity, bus width, ROP count, process node, foundry, and production status. Both use 4 GB of GDDR5, a 128-bit bus, 16 ROPs, a 28 nm process, TSMC as the foundry, are end-of-life, and have no power connectors.

Chip and architecture: the FirePro W4300 uses the Bonaire chip with GCN 2.0 architecture, while the GTX 960M uses the GM107 chip with Maxwell architecture. Transistor count is 2,080 million versus 1,870 million, die size is 160 mm² versus 148 mm², and transistor density is 13.0M / mm² versus 12.6M / mm².

Core configuration: shading units are 768 versus 640, TMUs are 48 versus 40, and ROPs are 16 on both. Clock speeds: the GTX 960M has a base clock of 1097 MHz and a boost clock of 1176 MHz; the FirePro W4300 lists no base or boost clock. Memory clock is 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective) versus 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective).

Performance rates: pixel rate is 14.88 GPixel/s versus 18.82 GPixel/s, texture rate is 44.64 GTexel/s versus 47.04 GTexel/s, and FP32 is 1,428.5 GFLOPS versus 1.505 TFLOPS. Memory bandwidth is 96.00 GB/s versus 80.19 GB/s.

Power and physical: TDP is 50 W versus 75 W, slot width is single-slot versus MXM module, suggested PSU is 250 W versus none listed. Bus interface is PCIe 3.0 x16 versus MXM-B (3.0). Display outputs are 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 versus portable device dependent. Dimensions are 171 mm (6.7 inches) length and 69 mm (2.7 inches) height for the FirePro W4300, while the GTX 960M lists no dimensions.

API support: DirectX is 12 (12_0) versus 12 (11_0), OpenGL is 4.6 on both, Vulkan is 1.2.170 versus 1.4. Release dates differ: the FirePro W4300 was released on November 30, 2015, while the GTX 960M was released on March 12, 2015. The FirePro W4300's predecessor is FirePro Terascale and its successor is Radeon Pro GCN; the GTX 960M's predecessor is GeForce 800M and its successor is GeForce 10 Mobile.

The Verdict

The data points to a close contest in compute performance, with the AMD FirePro W4300 taking a narrow 1.6% lead in the only head-to-head OpenCL test. That result aligns with the FirePro W4300's higher shading unit count (768 versus 640) and greater memory bandwidth (96.00 GB/s versus 80.19 GB/s). The GTX 960M counters with higher pixel and texture rates, a faster FP32 throughput, and a newer Vulkan version, but those advantages do not translate into a higher OpenCL score.

For buyers focused on workstation tasks that rely on OpenCL compute, the FirePro W4300 is the stronger choice based on the recorded benchmark. Its 50 W TDP, single-slot design, and four mini-DisplayPort outputs also make it more suited to a fixed workstation environment. The GTX 960M, with its 75 W TDP and MXM form factor, is clearly intended for portable or modular systems, and its portable device dependent display outputs reflect that.

The percentile rankings reinforce this: the FirePro W4300 sits at the 50th percentile among all GPUs, while the GTX 960M sits at the 46th. The GTX 960M's average benchmark score of 9,645 is dragged down by its Vulkan result of 8,245, which is significantly below its OpenCL score of 11,045. The FirePro W4300's average of 11,225 is based solely on OpenCL, so its standing is more consistent.

In practical terms, the FirePro W4300 is the pick for compute-focused workloads where OpenCL performance matters and a stable, low-power workstation card is required. The GTX 960M is the pick for mobile or modular systems where the MXM interface is necessary, and where the newer Vulkan support (1.4) could be relevant. Neither card is a clear winner across the board, but the FirePro W4300's head-to-head victory and higher percentile make it the safer recommendation for raw compute, while the GTX 960M's feature set suits a different physical and software environment.