GPU Comparison

The AMD FirePro W4300 and NVIDIA GeForce MX350 occupy opposite ends of the GPU spectrum: one is a professional workstation card from 2015, the other a mobile consumer chip from 2020. The benchmark data reveals a clear performance hierarchy, but the architectural and feature differences make the choice less straightforward than raw scores suggest.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only shared benchmark in the data is Geekbench OpenCL, and it delivers a decisive result. The AMD FirePro W4300 scores 11,225, while the NVIDIA GeForce MX350 scores 8,689. That is a 29.2% advantage for the AMD card, making it the clear winner in raw compute throughput. The FirePro W4300’s margin is substantial enough to classify it as a different performance tier, not just a minor edge.

Looking at the broader context, the FirePro W4300’s score 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, effectively tied at 0% delta) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M (11,261, a 0.3% deficit). Interestingly, the FirePro W4300 also edges out the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q and RTX PRO 6000D Blackwell Max-Q, both scoring 11,088 with a 1.2% delta in favor of the AMD card. This suggests the FirePro W4300 holds its own in OpenCL workloads even against much newer, higher-tier hardware.

The MX350, by contrast, sits at the 49th percentile with an average benchmark score of 10,883 across its two recorded tests (OpenCL and Vulkan). Its OpenCL score of 8,689 is the weak point, while its Vulkan score of 13,077 shows a different side of its capabilities. The MX350’s nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon Pro 450 (10,804, a 0.7% delta) and NVIDIA Quadro K2200 (10,761, a 1.1% delta), both of which it narrowly beats. However, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER (11,047) and AMD Radeon RX 550 (11,075) both outperform it by 1.5% and 1.7%, respectively.

The headline number is the 29.2% OpenCL win for the FirePro W4300. That is not a marginal difference; it is a generational gap in compute performance. The MX350’s Vulkan score, however, is not directly comparable to any FirePro W4300 result, so any assessment of gaming or graphics API performance must rely on the architectural data alone.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different eras and design philosophies. The AMD FirePro W4300 uses the Bonaire chip based on GCN 2.0 architecture, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The NVIDIA GeForce MX350 uses the GP107S chip based on Pascal architecture, manufactured on a 14 nm process at Samsung. The process node difference is significant: 14 nm allows for much higher transistor density (25.0 million per mm² versus 13.0 million per mm²) despite the MX350’s smaller die size of 132 mm² versus the FirePro W4300’s 160 mm².

Transistor counts tell a similar story. The MX350 packs 3,300 million transistors, while the FirePro W4300 has 2,080 million. This is a 58.7% advantage in raw transistor count for the NVIDIA chip, even though the FirePro W4300 has a larger die. The architectural efficiency of Pascal is evident here, but it does not translate into a compute win in the OpenCL benchmark.

Memory configurations differ sharply. The FirePro W4300 offers 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 96.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The MX350 offers only 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus, yielding 56.06 GB/s. That is a 71.3% bandwidth advantage for the AMD card, which directly impacts memory-bound workloads. The MX350’s memory clock is higher (1752 MHz versus 1500 MHz, with 7 Gbps effective versus 6 Gbps effective), but the narrower bus limits its overall throughput.

Compute resources favor the FirePro W4300 in raw count: 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 16 ROPs versus the MX350’s 640 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The FirePro W4300 also leads in FP32 throughput at 1,428.5 GFLOPS versus the MX350’s 1.879 TFLOPS (which is 1,879 GFLOPS). However, the MX350 has a higher pixel rate (23.49 GPixel/s versus 14.88 GPixel/s) and a slightly higher texture rate (46.98 GTexel/s versus 44.64 GTexel/s), suggesting better efficiency in certain rasterization tasks.

Power consumption is a major differentiator. The MX350 draws only 20 W, while the FirePro W4300 draws 50 W. The MX350 has no suggested PSU rating, while the FirePro W4300 suggests a 250 W power supply. Neither card requires external power connectors, but the FirePro W4300 is a single-slot card with a length of 171 mm (6.7 inches) and height of 69 mm (2.7 inches), while the MX350 is portable-device-dependent with no fixed dimensions.

API support shows the MX350’s newer pedigree: it supports DirectX 12 (12_1) versus the FirePro W4300’s DirectX 12 (12_0), and Vulkan 1.4 versus Vulkan 1.2.170. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The MX350 also has explicit FP16 support at 29.36 GFLOPS (1:64 ratio), while the FirePro W4300 has no listed FP16 capability.

Where Each One Wins

The FirePro W4300 wins decisively in compute-heavy OpenCL workloads, as shown by the 29.2% lead in the head-to-head benchmark. Its 4 GB memory capacity and 96.00 GB/s bandwidth make it suitable for tasks that require larger working sets or high memory throughput. The 768 shading units and 48 TMUs provide a solid foundation for parallel compute tasks, and the 1,428.5 GFLOPS FP32 throughput is respectable for a 50 W card. Its professional heritage is reinforced by four mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, which allow multi-display setups out of the box.

The MX350 wins in power efficiency and portability. At 20 W, it draws less than half the power of the FirePro W4300, making it ideal for thin-and-light laptops. Its 14 nm process and higher transistor density (25.0M per mm²) indicate a more modern design. The MX350’s Vulkan score of 13,077 is its standout metric, suggesting strong graphics API performance that could benefit gaming or Vulkan-based compute applications. Its higher pixel rate (23.49 GPixel/s) and texture rate (46.98 GTexel/s) also hint at better rasterization throughput per watt.

The MX350 also edges ahead in API feature support, with DirectX 12_1 and Vulkan 1.4, which may matter for software that leverages newer rendering features. The FP16 support, though limited to a 1:64 ratio, is present where the FirePro W4300 has none. The bus interface is another split: the FirePro W4300 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the MX350 uses PCIe 3.0 x4, which limits bandwidth to the host system for the NVIDIA part.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous on raw compute: the AMD FirePro W4300 is 29.2% faster than the NVIDIA GeForce MX350 in OpenCL. That is the single most important number in this comparison. For any workload that relies on OpenCL compute, the FirePro W4300 is the stronger choice, despite being five years older. Its 4 GB memory capacity and 96.00 GB/s bandwidth are also superior, which matters for larger datasets.

The MX350 is the better choice only if power consumption and portability are the primary constraints. At 20 W versus 50 W, it is designed for battery-powered devices where the FirePro W4300 would be impractical. The MX350’s Vulkan score of 13,077 is higher than its OpenCL score, suggesting it may perform better in Vulkan-based applications, but there is no head-to-head Vulkan data to confirm a win over the FirePro W4300.

For a workstation desktop environment with access to a 250 W power supply and space for a 171 mm single-slot card, the FirePro W4300 is the obvious pick. Its four mini-DisplayPort outputs and professional FirePro lineage make it suitable for multi-display productivity or compute tasks. For a laptop user who needs modest GPU acceleration with minimal power draw, the MX350 is the only feasible option, but it will deliver significantly lower OpenCL performance.

Neither card has a launch MSRP listed, so pricing cannot be a factor in this analysis. The production status of both is end-of-life, meaning availability may be limited. The choice ultimately comes down to whether the 29.2% OpenCL advantage of the FirePro W4300 justifies its 50 W power draw, or whether the MX350’s 20 W efficiency and portable form factor are more valuable than raw compute speed.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The AMD FirePro W4300 scores 11,225 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the NVIDIA GeForce MX350 scores 8,689, giving the AMD card a 29.2% advantage.

Q: How much memory does each card have?

A: The AMD FirePro W4300 has 4 GB of GDDR5, while the NVIDIA GeForce MX350 has 2 GB of GDDR5.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The AMD FirePro W4300 has a TDP of 50 W, while the NVIDIA GeForce MX350 has a TDP of 20 W.

Q: Does the NVIDIA GeForce MX350 support Vulkan?

A: Yes, the MX350 supports Vulkan 1.4 and has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 13,077. The AMD FirePro W4300 supports Vulkan 1.2.170 but has no recorded Vulkan benchmark score.

Q: Which GPU has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD FirePro W4300 has 96.00 GB/s of memory bandwidth, compared to the NVIDIA GeForce MX350’s 56.06 GB/s.

Q: What are the process nodes for each GPU?

A: The AMD FirePro W4300 is manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC, while the NVIDIA GeForce MX350 is manufactured on a 14 nm process at Samsung.