AMD FirePro W4300 vs AMD Radeon 890M Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits cleanly between these two AMD parts, but the split is heavily one-sided. The AMD Radeon 890M wins the only directly comparable benchmark in the database, the Geekbench OpenCL test, by a wide margin. The FirePro W4300 does not win any recorded benchmark in the database, with 0 wins against the Radeon 890M's 1 win. That said, the two products serve entirely different operating environments, and the raw score comparison does not capture the full picture of where each part belongs.

The FirePro W4300 is a professional workstation card built around the Bonaire chip with GCN 2.0 architecture. It carries a 50 W TDP, uses a single-slot cooler, draws power entirely from the PCIe slot with no auxiliary power connectors, and outputs video through four mini-DisplayPort 1.2 connections. Its 4 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory over a 128-bit bus delivers 96.00 GB/s of bandwidth. This is a card designed for multi-display professional workstations where driver certification and display connectivity matter more than raw compute throughput. Its production status is end-of-life, and it was released in late 2015.

The Radeon 890M is a mobile integrated graphics processor, part of the Strix Point generation on RDNA 3.5 architecture. It is an IGP with no dedicated memory, using system shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth. It draws only 15 W, requires no power connectors, and its display outputs are portable device dependent. It is an active product released in mid-2024, built on a 4 nm process with 34,000 million transistors. The 890M holds a 45th percentile ranking among all GPUs in the database, while the FirePro W4300 sits at the 50th percentile. Despite the lower percentile, the 890M is dramatically ahead in raw compute performance in the one benchmark where the two can be compared.

For use-case segmentation, the FirePro W4300's advantages are qualitative rather than score-based. It offers a fixed 4 GB frame buffer, dedicated GDDR5 memory, and four independent mini-DisplayPort outputs, which suits fixed-location workstation setups. The Radeon 890M, by contrast, is an integrated solution for portable devices, sharing system memory and relying on the host platform for display routing. Its wins in the database are compute-oriented, with a Geekbench OpenCL score that is roughly three times higher than the FirePro's. The 890M also shows strong results in Vulkan and DirectX 12 workloads in its standalone benchmark list, though those tests were not run on the FirePro W4300.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The AMD Radeon 890M scores 37254 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the AMD FirePro W4300 scores 11225. The delta is 69.9% in favor of the Radeon 890M.

Q: How does the FirePro W4300 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The FirePro W4300's average benchmark score is 11225. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 scores 11228, a 0% delta. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M scores 11261, putting the FirePro 0.3% behind. The NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q and RTX PRO 6000D Blackwell Max-Q each score 11088, placing the FirePro 1.2% ahead of both.

Q: What is the performance gap between the Radeon 890M and its nearest rivals?

A: The Radeon 890M's average benchmark score is 9210. The AMD Radeon Vega 8 scores 9221, a 0.1% gap. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 scores 9273, 0.7% higher. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 465 scores 9294, 0.9% higher. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 850M scores 9302, putting the 890M 1% behind.

Q: What memory configurations do the two GPUs use?

A: The FirePro W4300 has 4 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth. The Radeon 890M uses system shared memory with a system shared bus width and system dependent bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU supports hardware ray tracing?

A: The Radeon 890M includes 16 ray tracing cores. The FirePro W4300 has no ray tracing cores listed in the database.

Q: What are the DirectX support levels for each GPU?

A: The FirePro W4300 supports DirectX 12 (12_0). The Radeon 890M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2).

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains a single head-to-head benchmark between these two GPUs: Geekbench OpenCL. The results are not close. The Radeon 890M scores 37254, while the FirePro W4300 scores 11225. That is a delta of 69.9% in favor of the Radeon 890M. In practical terms, the 890M delivers more than three times the OpenCL compute throughput of the FirePro W4300 in this test.

This margin is consistent with the architectural gulf between the two parts. The FirePro W4300 is a 28 nm GCN 2.0 part from 2015, while the Radeon 890M is a 4 nm RDNA 3.5 part from 2024. The transistor counts alone tell the story: 2,080 million for the FirePro versus 34,000 million for the Radeon. The Radeon also has more shading units (1024 vs 768), more texture mapping units (64 vs 48), and twice the ROPs (32 vs 16). Its pixel rate of 92.80 GPixel/s and texture rate of 185.6 GTexel/s dwarf the FirePro's 14.88 GPixel/s and 44.64 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is listed at 5.939 TFLOPS for the Radeon versus 1,428.5 GFLOPS for the FirePro.

The Radeon 890M's other benchmark results, while not directly comparable to the FirePro because the FirePro lacks those test entries, reinforce its strengths. It scores 40808 in Geekbench Vulkan, 8076 in Passmark G3D, and 4157 in Passmark GPU Compute. Its DirectX 12 result in 3DMark Steel Nomad is 590. These scores position the 890M as a competent all-round mobile GPU, and its OpenCL showing against the FirePro confirms that the older workstation card is simply outclassed in raw compute.

The FirePro W4300's only benchmark entry is the same Geekbench OpenCL test, and its 11225 score places it in the 50th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals cluster tightly around that number, with deltas of 0%, 0.3%, and 1.2% in either direction. This indicates the FirePro is a mid-pack performer in the database's overall GPU landscape, whereas the Radeon 890M, despite its higher raw score, sits at the 45th percentile due to the distribution of other GPUs in the database.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ on nearly every measurable specification. The FirePro W4300 is built on a 28 nm process at TSMC, with 2,080 million transistors on a 160 mm² die. The Radeon 890M uses a 4 nm process, also at TSMC, with 34,000 million transistors on a 233 mm² die. Transistor density is 13.0M per mm² for the FirePro and 145.9M per mm² for the Radeon, a massive difference driven by the process node gap.

Memory is another fundamental split. The FirePro has 4 GB of GDDR5 with a 128-bit bus and 96.00 GB/s bandwidth. The Radeon 890M has no dedicated memory; it uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth and a system shared bus width. The FirePro's memory clock is 1500 MHz, listed as 6 Gbps effective, while the Radeon's memory clock is listed simply as "System Shared".

Compute resources differ across the board. The FirePro has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The Radeon has 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The Radeon adds 16 ray tracing cores; the FirePro has none. Pixel rate is 14.88 GPixel/s for the FirePro versus 92.80 GPixel/s for the Radeon. Texture rate is 44.64 GTexel/s versus 185.6 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 1,428.5 GFLOPS for the FirePro versus 5.939 TFLOPS for the Radeon. The Radeon also lists FP16 at 5.939 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio; the FirePro has no FP16 figure.

Power and physical specifications also diverge. The FirePro has a 50 W TDP, a single-slot cooler, no power connectors, and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The Radeon has a 15 W TDP, is an IGP with no slot width, and no power connectors. The FirePro measures 171 mm in length and 69 mm in height; the Radeon has no listed dimensions. The FirePro uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the Radeon uses PCIe 4.0 x8. Display outputs are 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 for the FirePro versus portable device dependent for the Radeon.

API support differs as well. The FirePro supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The Radeon supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Radeon's higher DirectX feature level and newer Vulkan version reflect its modern architecture.

Production status and release timing are also different. The FirePro is end-of-life, released in late 2015, with a predecessor of FirePro Terascale and a successor of Radeon Pro GCN. The Radeon is active, released in mid-2024, with a predecessor of Navi II IGP and no listed successor.

Architecture Differences

The FirePro W4300 uses the Bonaire chip with GCN 2.0 architecture, part of the FirePro GCN (Wx300) generation. GCN 2.0 is an older graphics compute architecture that predates hardware ray tracing and relies on traditional shader-based rendering. The Radeon 890M uses the Strix Point chip with RDNA 3.5 architecture, part of the Navi III IGP (Strix Point Mobile) generation. RDNA 3.5 is a modern GPU architecture with dedicated ray tracing hardware, represented by the 16 ray tracing cores in the 890M.

The process technology gap is stark. The FirePro is fabricated on TSMC's 28 nm node, while the Radeon uses TSMC's 4 nm node. This node difference explains the transistor density gap: 13.0M transistors per mm² for the FirePro versus 145.9M per mm² for the Radeon. The Radeon packs over 16 times more transistors per square millimeter, and its total transistor count of 34,000 million is more than 16 times the FirePro's 2,080 million.

Memory architecture reflects the different product categories. The FirePro has a traditional discrete memory path with GDDR5 and a fixed 96.00 GB/s bandwidth. The Radeon relies on system shared memory, meaning its bandwidth is determined by the host platform's memory subsystem rather than by the GPU itself. This makes the Radeon's memory performance platform-dependent, while the FirePro's is fixed.

The Radeon's RDNA 3.5 architecture also enables a higher FP16 throughput at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, which is typical of modern AMD GPUs and useful for mixed-precision workloads. The FirePro's GCN 2.0 architecture has no listed FP16 capability. The Radeon's pixel rate of 92.80 GPixel/s and texture rate of 185.6 GTexel/s are roughly six times and four times the FirePro's respective rates, reflecting both higher clock speeds and a wider execution pipeline. The Radeon's boost clock is 2900 MHz with a 400 MHz base clock; the FirePro lists no base or boost clock in the database, only its memory clock.

The Radeon also supports newer API features, including DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, whereas the FirePro caps at DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.2.170. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The Radeon's ray tracing cores, absent from the FirePro, enable hardware-accelerated ray tracing workloads. The bus interface also differs: PCIe 3.0 x16 for the FirePro versus PCIe 4.0 x8 for the Radeon, which is consistent with the Radeon being an integrated part that shares bandwidth with other platform components.

The architecture differences explain the benchmark outcome. The Radeon 890M's modern RDNA 3.5 design, with more shading units, more TMUs, more ROPs, ray tracing cores, a far smaller process node, and a much higher transistor count, produces a Geekbench OpenCL score of 37254 against the FirePro's 11225. The FirePro's GCN 2.0 architecture, while competent for its era, cannot match the raw throughput of a part released nine years later with a fundamentally newer design.