AMD FirePro W4300 vs AMD Radeon Pro 455 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 455 records an average benchmark score of 12,831, while the AMD FirePro W4300 scores 11,225. This places the Radeon Pro 455 in the 52nd percentile of all GPUs, versus the 50th percentile for the FirePro W4300.

Q: How do these two cards compare in the only shared benchmark test?

A: In Geekbench OpenCL, the AMD FirePro W4300 scores 11,225, which is 7.9% higher than the Radeon Pro 455's 10,336. The FirePro W4300 is the clear winner in this head-to-head test.

Q: What are the key memory differences between the two?

A: The Radeon Pro 455 has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing 81.28 GB/s of bandwidth. The FirePro W4300 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on the same 128-bit bus, delivering 96.00 GB/s. The FirePro W4300 offers both more capacity and higher bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has a smaller manufacturing process?

A: The Radeon Pro 455 is built on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries, while the FirePro W4300 uses a 28 nm process at TSMC. The smaller node allows the Radeon Pro 455 to fit 3,000 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, whereas the FirePro W4300 has 2,080 million transistors on a 160 mm² die.

Q: Do both cards support the same API levels?

A: Both support DirectX 12 (12_0) and OpenGL 4.6. However, the Radeon Pro 455 supports Vulkan 1.3, while the FirePro W4300 only supports Vulkan 1.2.170.

Q: What are the physical size and power differences?

A: The Radeon Pro 455 is an MXM Module with a 35 W TDP and no power connectors. The FirePro W4300 is a single-slot card measuring 171 mm (6.7 inches) in length and 69 mm (2.7 inches) in height, with a 50 W TDP, no power connectors, and a suggested PSU of 250 W.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations. The Radeon Pro 455 is based on the Baffin chip using GCN 4.0 architecture, while the FirePro W4300 is built on the Bonaire chip with GCN 2.0. This generational gap is significant, as GCN 4.0 was a major refinement over the earlier GCN 2.0 design, bringing improved efficiency and feature updates.

The manufacturing process highlights this difference clearly. The Radeon Pro 455 uses a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries, allowing for a transistor density of 24.4 million per mm². The FirePro W4300 uses TSMC's 28 nm process, with a much lower density of 13.0 million per mm². Despite having fewer total transistors (2,080 million vs 3,000 million), the FirePro W4300's die is larger at 160 mm² compared to 123 mm² for the Radeon Pro 455.

Both cards share identical core configurations: 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. This means the fundamental compute layout is the same. However, the clock speeds differ. The Radeon Pro 455 has a memory clock of 1270 MHz (5.1 Gbps effective), while the FirePro W4300 runs its memory at 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective). The FirePro W4300 also has a higher pixel rate (14.88 GPixel/s vs 13.68 GPixel/s) and texture rate (44.64 GTexel/s vs 41.04 GTexel/s), indicating higher clock speeds across the board.

FP32 performance follows this pattern: the FirePro W4300 delivers 1,428.5 GFLOPS versus 1,313.3 GFLOPS for the Radeon Pro 455. Interestingly, the Radeon Pro 455 has FP16 performance at a 1:1 ratio with FP32 (1,313.3 GFLOPS), while the FirePro W4300 has no listed FP16 capability. This suggests the newer architecture on the Radeon Pro 455 supports half-precision compute, a feature absent from the older FirePro design.

The bus interface differs as well. The Radeon Pro 455 uses PCIe 3.0 x8, while the FirePro W4300 uses the full PCIe 3.0 x16 interface. The FirePro W4300's display outputs are specified as 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2, whereas the Radeon Pro 455's outputs are listed as portable device dependent, reflecting its MXM form factor intended for laptops or all-in-one systems.

The Verdict

The data supports a nuanced conclusion. In the only direct benchmark comparison available, the AMD FirePro W4300 wins decisively, scoring 7.9% higher in Geekbench OpenCL. Its higher memory bandwidth, larger 4 GB frame buffer, and greater raw compute throughput make it the stronger choice for compute-heavy workloads that fit within its specifications.

However, the Radeon Pro 455 has its own advantages. Its 14 nm process delivers significantly better power efficiency, with a 35 W TDP versus 50 W for the FirePro W4300. The MXM form factor targets mobile workstations, while the FirePro W4300's single-slot design suits desktop towers. The newer GCN 4.0 architecture brings Vulkan 1.3 support and FP16 compute, which could benefit applications leveraging these modern APIs.

For users requiring maximum OpenCL performance and larger memory capacity, the FirePro W4300 is the data-backed choice. For those prioritizing power efficiency, a compact MXM form factor, or the latest API support, the Radeon Pro 455 is preferable. The database shows the FirePro W4300 has one benchmark win, while the Radeon Pro 455 has none, but the overall average score for the Radeon Pro 455 is higher due to additional benchmark results in Metal and Vulkan.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon Pro 455 | AMD FirePro W4300 |

|---|---|---|

| Chip | Baffin | Bonaire |

| Architecture | GCN 4.0 | GCN 2.0 |

| Process Node | 14 nm (GlobalFoundries) | 28 nm (TSMC) |

| Transistors | 3,000 million | 2,080 million |

| Die Size | 123 mm² | 160 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 24.4M / mm² | 13.0M / mm² |

| Memory Size | 2 GB GDDR5 | 4 GB GDDR5 |

| Memory Clock | 1270 MHz (5.1 Gbps effective) | 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Bandwidth | 81.28 GB/s | 96.00 GB/s |

| Pixel Rate | 13.68 GPixel/s | 14.88 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 41.04 GTexel/s | 44.64 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 1,313.3 GFLOPS | 1,428.5 GFLOPS |

| FP16 | 1,313.3 GFLOPS (1:1) | Not listed |

| TDP | 35 W | 50 W |

| Slot Width | MXM Module | Single-slot |

| Suggested PSU | Not listed | 250 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 |

| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.2.170 |

| Dimensions | Not listed | 171 mm x 69 mm (6.7 x 2.7 inches) |

| Release Date | 2016-10-29 | 2015-11-30 |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains exactly one head-to-head benchmark between these two GPUs: Geekbench OpenCL. In this test, the AMD FirePro W4300 scores 11,225, while the AMD Radeon Pro 455 scores 10,336. The FirePro W4300 wins with a delta of -7.9% from the perspective of the Radeon Pro 455, meaning it trails by nearly 8%.

This result is consistent with the FirePro W4300's higher clock rates and memory bandwidth. The 96.00 GB/s of memory bandwidth versus 81.28 GB/s gives the older card a clear advantage in memory-bound operations. Similarly, the higher texture rate (44.64 GTexel/s vs 41.04 GTexel/s) and pixel rate (14.88 GPixel/s vs 13.68 GPixel/s) suggest better throughput in rendering tasks.

However, the overall average benchmark scores tell a different story. The Radeon Pro 455 achieves an average of 12,831 across three tests (Geekbench Metal: 15,916, Geekbench OpenCL: 10,336, Geekbench Vulkan: 12,240). The FirePro W4300 has only one recorded benchmark (Geekbench OpenCL: 11,225). The Radeon Pro 455's higher average is driven by strong Metal and Vulkan results, which are not available for the FirePro W4300.

The nearest rival data for the Radeon Pro 455 shows it performs similarly to the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 590 (0% delta), AMD FirePro W5100 (-0.1% delta), and AMD Radeon 740M (-0.3% delta), while slightly ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670 (0.5% delta). The FirePro W4300, meanwhile, is essentially tied with the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 (0% delta), slightly behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M (-0.3% delta), and ahead of both NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q and RTX PRO 6000D Blackwell Max-Q (1.2% delta each).

Where Each One Wins

The AMD FirePro W4300 wins in raw OpenCL compute performance. Its 7.9% lead in Geekbench OpenCL is backed by higher FP32 throughput (1,428.5 GFLOPS vs 1,313.3 GFLOPS), faster memory (96.00 GB/s vs 81.28 GB/s), and greater pixel/texture rates. The 4 GB frame buffer also gives it a capacity advantage for large datasets or high-resolution textures. This makes it the better option for OpenCL-based professional workloads in a desktop workstation environment.

The AMD Radeon Pro 455 wins in architecture modernity and efficiency. Its 14 nm process node allows for a much lower TDP (35 W vs 50 W) while still delivering competitive performance. The GCN 4.0 architecture supports Vulkan 1.3, a newer version than the FirePro W4300's Vulkan 1.2.170, and offers FP16 compute at a 1:1 ratio, which the FirePro W4300 lacks entirely. The MXM form factor is designed for portable or compact systems where space and power are at a premium.

For specific use cases, the FirePro W4300 is the clear choice for desktop workstations running OpenCL-accelerated applications, especially those requiring 4 GB of VRAM. Its PCIe 3.0 x16 interface and four mini-DisplayPort outputs make it suitable for multi-display professional setups. The Radeon Pro 455, with its portable device dependent outputs, is better suited to mobile workstations or all-in-one systems where the GPU is integrated into the chassis.

Ultimately, the data shows a trade-off between raw compute performance and modern efficiency. The FirePro W4300 delivers more brute-force OpenCL power, while the Radeon Pro 455 offers a more efficient, feature-rich package for newer API support and mobile deployments.