AMD FirePro W4300 vs NVIDIA Tesla K20Xm Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data paints a clear picture of two very different compute cards with distinct roles. The NVIDIA Tesla K20Xm is the decisive winner in raw compute performance, taking the only head-to-head benchmark victory between these two products. The AMD FirePro W4300, by contrast, does not win any benchmark in the recorded data, but its strengths lie elsewhere: in physical footprint, power requirements, and display functionality.

The Tesla K20Xm wins the compute race outright. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the K20Xm scores 17,215 against the FirePro W4300's 11,225, a 53.4% advantage. This is a massive gap for any single benchmark, and it reflects the fundamental positioning of the two cards. The K20Xm is a compute-first accelerator designed for heavy parallel workloads, while the W4300 is a workstation card built for professional graphics output.

The FirePro W4300 wins the practical deployment category. It is a single-slot card measuring 171 mm (6.7 inches) in length and 69 mm (2.7 inches) in height, versus the K20Xm's dual-slot design at 267 mm (10.5 inches). The W4300 requires no external power connectors and suggests a 250 W power supply, while the K20Xm suggests a 550 W unit. The W4300 also provides four mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, whereas the K20Xm has no display outputs at all. For users needing a compact, low-power card that can drive multiple monitors, the W4300 is the only viable option in this pairing.

The data shows a clean split: the K20Xm wins on compute throughput, the W4300 wins on form factor, power efficiency, and display connectivity. Neither card encroaches on the other's territory.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different architectural generations and design philosophies. The Tesla K20Xm uses NVIDIA's GK110 chip, built on the Kepler architecture. It is fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process with 7,080 million transistors on a 561 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 12.6 million per mm². The FirePro W4300 uses AMD's Bonaire chip, based on GCN 2.0. It also uses TSMC's 28 nm process but packs only 2,080 million transistors on a 160 mm² die, achieving a slightly higher density of 13.0 million per mm².

The compute resources are starkly different. The K20Xm carries 2,688 shading units, 224 texture mapping units, and 48 render output units. The W4300 has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The K20Xm has three and a half times the shading units and nearly five times the TMUs. This explains the raw performance gap in compute workloads.

Memory configurations also diverge significantly. The K20Xm has 6 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 384-bit bus, delivering 249.6 GB/s of bandwidth at an effective 5.2 Gbps. The W4300 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 96.00 GB/s at 6 Gbps effective. The K20Xm's memory bandwidth is 2.6 times higher, which is critical for memory-hungry compute tasks. The W4300's faster clock speed per pin (6 Gbps versus 5.2 Gbps) does not compensate for the narrower bus.

Pixel and texture rates follow the same pattern. The K20Xm achieves 40.99 GPixel/s and 164.0 GTexel/s, while the W4300 manages 14.88 GPixel/s and 44.64 GTexel/s. Floating point performance is equally lopsided: the K20Xm delivers 3.935 TFLOPS FP32, versus the W4300's 1,428.5 GFLOPS.

Power and physical design reveal the intended use cases. The K20Xm has a 235 W TDP, is dual-slot, and has no display outputs. The W4300 has a 50 W TDP, is single-slot, requires no power connectors, and offers four mini-DisplayPort outputs. API support shows minor differences: the W4300 supports DirectX 12 (12_0) versus the K20Xm's DirectX 12 (11_0), while both support OpenGL 4.6. Vulkan versions are close, with the K20Xm at 1.2.175 and the W4300 at 1.2.170.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only recorded head-to-head benchmark is Geekbench OpenCL, and the result is emphatic. The Tesla K20Xm scores 17,215 against the FirePro W4300's 11,225, a delta of 53.4% in favor of the NVIDIA card. This is not a marginal win; it is a decisive margin that defines the entire comparison.

To put the K20Xm's score in context, its average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 12,625. The FirePro W4300's average is 11,225, which is also its only recorded benchmark score. The K20Xm's OpenCL result of 17,215 is well above its own average, suggesting that OpenCL is a strong workload for this card. The W4300's single score of 11,225 is its entire benchmark profile.

Looking at the nearest rivals in the database provides additional perspective. The K20Xm's average score of 12,625 sits just below the AMD Radeon RX 7600M XT (12,710, -0.7%), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670 (12,773, -1.2%), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 590 (12,830, -1.6%), and the AMD Radeon Pro 455 (12,831, -1.6%). These are all within 1.6% of the K20Xm, meaning its average performance is competitive with a cluster of mid-range GPUs, even though its peak OpenCL score is much higher.

The W4300's average of 11,225 is essentially tied with the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 (11,228, 0%), slightly ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M (11,261, -0.3%), and behind the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q and RTX PRO 6000D Blackwell Max-Q (both 11,088, 1.2%). The W4300's performance class is notably lower than the K20Xm's, but the gap in the head-to-head test is even larger than the average scores suggest.

The percentile rankings confirm the overall positioning. The K20Xm sits at the 52nd percentile of all GPUs, while the W4300 sits at the 50th percentile. Both are near the middle of the database, but the K20Xm's peak compute capability is substantially higher.

The Verdict

The data supports a straightforward conclusion: choose the NVIDIA Tesla K20Xm if you need raw compute performance, and choose the AMD FirePro W4300 if you need a compact, low-power card with display outputs.

The K20Xm wins the only head-to-head benchmark by 53.4%, and its architecture provides 3,935 TFLOPS FP32, 249.6 GB/s memory bandwidth, and 6 GB of VRAM. This is a compute accelerator through and through: no display outputs, dual-slot, 235 W TDP, and a suggested 550 W power supply. It is an end-of-life product from the Tesla Kepler generation, released in late 2012, with a launch MSRP of 7,699 USD. Its successor is Tesla Maxwell.

The W4300 is a different beast entirely. It delivers 1,428.5 GFLOPS FP32, 96.00 GB/s bandwidth, and 4 GB of VRAM, but it does so in a single-slot, 50 W package that requires no external power connectors and suggests only a 250 W power supply. It drives up to four displays via mini-DisplayPort 1.2, making it a practical workstation card for multi-monitor setups. It is also end-of-life, from the FirePro GCN generation, released in late 2015, with no launch MSRP recorded.

For compute workloads like OpenCL, the K20Xm is the clear choice. Its 53.4% lead in the head-to-head test is decisive, and its memory bandwidth advantage (249.6 GB/s versus 96.00 GB/s) supports large data sets. For desktop workstation use, the W4300 is the only option with display outputs, and its power efficiency is unmatched in this comparison: 50 W versus 235 W TDP.

The verdict is not about which card is "better" overall; it is about matching the hardware to the task. Compute-intensive users should pick the K20Xm. Users needing a quiet, compact, multi-display workstation card should pick the W4300.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in OpenCL compute workloads?

A: The NVIDIA Tesla K20Xm is significantly faster. In the Geekbench OpenCL head-to-head test, it scores 17,215 versus the AMD FirePro W4300's 11,225, a 53.4% advantage.

Q: Can either card drive multiple monitors?

A: Only the AMD FirePro W4300 can. It has four mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs. The NVIDIA Tesla K20Xm has no display outputs at all.

Q: How do their memory configurations compare?

A: The K20Xm has 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus with 249.6 GB/s bandwidth. The W4300 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The K20Xm has a 235 W TDP and suggests a 550 W power supply. The W4300 has a 50 W TDP, requires no power connectors, and suggests a 250 W power supply.

Q: How do their physical sizes differ?

A: The K20Xm is a dual-slot card at 267 mm (10.5 inches) long. The W4300 is a single-slot card at 171 mm (6.7 inches) long and 69 mm (2.7 inches) tall.

Q: Where does each card rank among all GPUs in the database?

A: The K20Xm is at the 52nd percentile, with an average benchmark score of 12,625. The W4300 is at the 50th percentile, with an average score of 11,225.