AMD FirePro W4300 vs AMD Radeon Pro 555 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only common benchmark recorded for both cards is Geekbench OpenCL, and the results show a narrow win for the AMD Radeon Pro 555. It posted a score of 11,682 against the AMD FirePro W4300's 11,225, a margin of 4.1%. That is a modest advantage, not a generational gap, but it is consistent across the database's single head-to-head data point.

Context matters here. The Radeon Pro 555 sits at the 54th percentile among all GPUs in the database, while the FirePro W4300 sits at the 50th percentile. The average benchmark score for the Radeon Pro 555 is 13,407, which is considerably higher than its OpenCL result alone, because it also records strong Geekbench Metal and Vulkan scores. The FirePro W4300 has only the OpenCL result recorded, so its average benchmark score is identical to that single test: 11,225.

Looking at the nearest rivals for each card helps frame what these numbers mean. The Radeon Pro 555's average score of 13,407 puts it essentially level with the AMD Radeon HD 8950M (13,376, a delta of 0.2%), the AMD Radeon RX 5500M (13,356, delta of 0.4%), and the AMD FirePro M6100 (13,354, delta of 0.4%). It is only 0.5% behind the NVIDIA P106-090 (13,470). In other words, the Radeon Pro 555's overall standing is that of a solidly mid-pack mobile or compact GPU, trading tenths of a percent with a cluster of similar performers.

The FirePro W4300's nearest rivals tell a similar story at a slightly lower tier. Its average score of 11,225 is statistically tied with the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 (11,228, delta of 0.0%), and it is 0.3% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M (11,261). Against much larger workstation cards, the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q and NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000D Blackwell Max-Q both score 11,088, which puts the FirePro W4300 1.2% ahead of them. This last comparison is a reminder that raw compute in this benchmark does not always scale with product tier or price.

The head-to-head delta of 4.1% in OpenCL is larger than the gap between the two cards' percentile ranks would suggest. A 4.1% lead in a single compute workload is meaningful but not transformative. It indicates that the Radeon Pro 555 has a slight edge in raw OpenCL throughput, likely tied to its newer architecture and higher memory clock, but the FirePro W4300 is not far behind.

There is no recorded head-to-head for Metal or Vulkan because the FirePro W4300 lacks those entries in the database. The Radeon Pro 555, by contrast, has a full suite: 16,236 in Geekbench Metal and 12,303 in Geekbench Vulkan. Those numbers indicate that the Radeon Pro 555 is particularly strong in Apple-centric Metal workloads, where it scores over 30% higher than in OpenCL. The Vulkan score also exceeds its OpenCL result by roughly 5.3%, so the card's compute performance varies notably by API.

For the FirePro W4300, the absence of Metal and Vulkan results in the database means its full capability profile is not directly comparable. Its OpenCL score of 11,225 is the only recorded benchmark, and it is the baseline for any cross-card analysis.

FAQ

Q: Which card wins the only shared benchmark?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 555 wins Geekbench OpenCL with 11,682 points against the AMD FirePro W4300's 11,225 points, a 4.1% advantage.

Q: How do the two cards compare in overall database standing?

A: The Radeon Pro 555 sits at the 54th percentile with an average benchmark score of 13,407, while the FirePro W4300 sits at the 50th percentile with an average score of 11,225.

Q: Does the Radeon Pro 555 have benchmark results beyond OpenCL?

A: Yes, the Radeon Pro 555 also records 16,236 in Geekbench Metal and 12,303 in Geekbench Vulkan. The FirePro W4300 only has the OpenCL result in the database.

Q: What are the closest rivals to the Radeon Pro 555?

A: The AMD Radeon HD 8950M (13,376, 0.2% behind), the AMD Radeon RX 5500M (13,356, 0.4% behind), the AMD FirePro M6100 (13,354, 0.4% behind), and the NVIDIA P106-090 (13,470, 0.5% ahead).

Q: What are the closest rivals to the FirePro W4300?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 (11,228, 0.0% delta), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M (11,261, 0.3% ahead), and the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q and NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000D Blackwell Max-Q (both 11,088, with the FirePro 1.2% ahead).

Q: Does the FirePro W4300's lower average score mean it is far slower?

A: No. The 4.1% OpenCL gap is the only direct comparison, and it is a modest margin. The FirePro W4300's average score is lower partly because it lacks the additional Metal and Vulkan results that raise the Radeon Pro 555's average.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Pro 555 wins the only directly comparable workload, Geekbench OpenCL, by 4.1%. That makes it the better choice for general-purpose compute tasks that rely on OpenCL, assuming the host system can accommodate it. Its advantage in this test is small but consistent, and its percentile rank (54th) is four points higher than the FirePro W4300's (50th). The Radeon Pro 555 also brings recorded Metal and Vulkan performance to the table, so for environments that use those APIs, it has a clear functional edge simply because the FirePro W4300 has no recorded results in those tests.

The AMD FirePro W4300's case is different. It does not win any recorded benchmark, but it is not far behind in OpenCL, and its 50th percentile standing places it within the same general performance band as the Radeon Pro 555. Where the FirePro W4300 likely makes more sense is in its form factor and output configuration. It is a single-slot card with four mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, a 171 mm length, and a height of 69 mm. That makes it a plausible fit for multi-display workstation setups where physical space is constrained. The Radeon Pro 555, by contrast, is an integrated GPU (IGP) with display outputs described as portable device dependent, so it cannot drive a fixed set of workstation monitors in the same way.

For raw compute density, the Radeon Pro 555 is the stronger part. Its 1,305.6 GFLOPS FP32 and 1,305.6 GFLOPS FP16 (at a 1:1 ratio) show a card that can handle half-precision workloads without a throughput penalty. The FirePro W4300 has higher FP32 at 1,428.5 GFLOPS, but no recorded FP16 figure, so it cannot match the Radeon Pro 555's flexibility in mixed-precision compute. In pixel and texture throughput, the FirePro W4300 leads slightly with 14.88 GPixel/s and 44.64 GTexel/s against the Radeon Pro 555's 13.60 GPixel/s and 40.80 GTexel/s.

The choice between the two comes down to context. For a portable or integrated system where the GPU is part of the platform and Metal or Vulkan support matters, the Radeon Pro 555 is the clear winner. For a fixed workstation requiring a compact, single-slot card with multiple display outputs and slightly higher FP32 throughput, the FirePro W4300 holds its own despite the benchmark deficit.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every fundamental specification. The Radeon Pro 555 uses the Polaris 21 chip built on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries, while the FirePro W4300 uses the Bonaire chip on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The Radeon Pro 555 integrates 3,000 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, giving it a transistor density of 24.4M per mm². The FirePro W4300 packs 2,080 million transistors on a larger 160 mm² die, for a density of 13.0M per mm². The newer process node clearly favors the Radeon Pro 555 in density and efficiency terms.

Memory capacity favors the FirePro W4300, which offers 4 GB of GDDR5 against the Radeon Pro 555's 2 GB. Both use a 128-bit bus width, so the FirePro W4300's bandwidth advantage comes from a higher memory clock: 1500 MHz, or 6 Gbps effective output, versus the Radeon Pro 555's 1275 MHz and 5.1 Gbps effective. The result is 96.00 GB/s for the FirePro W4300 versus 81.60 GB/s for the Radeon Pro 555.

Compute resources are identical in count: 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs on both cards. The differences in throughput come from clock behavior and architecture. The Radeon Pro 555 reaches 13.60 GPixel/s pixel rate and 40.80 GTexel/s texture rate, while the FirePro W4300 reaches 14.88 GPixel/s and 44.64 GTexel/s. FP32 also favors the FirePro W4300 at 1,428.5 GFLOPS versus 1,305.6 GFLOPS. The Radeon Pro 555's FP16 capability at 1,305.6 GFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio is unique to it, as the FirePro W4300 has no recorded FP16 figure.

Power and physical specifications diverge sharply. The Radeon Pro 555 is rated at 75 W TDP, is an IGP with no power connectors, and uses a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface. The FirePro W4300 is rated at 50 W TDP, is a single-slot card with no power connectors, and uses a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface. The FirePro W4300 also lists a suggested PSU of 250 W, while the Radeon Pro 555 has no such entry. Display outputs differ completely: the Radeon Pro 555 is portable device dependent, while the FirePro W4300 has four mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs.

API support is close but not identical. Both support DirectX 12 (12_0) and OpenGL 4.6. Vulkan support differs slightly, with the Radeon Pro 555 at Vulkan 1.0.3 and the FirePro W4300 at Vulkan 1.2.170. Release dates are far apart: the FirePro W4300 launched in late 2015, on 2015-11-30, while the Radeon Pro 555 launched in 2017-06-04, roughly a year and a half later.

The FirePro W4300 is 171 mm long and 69 mm tall. The Radeon Pro 555 has no recorded dimensions in the database. Production status is end-of-life for both cards.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split is clear: GCN 4.0 on the Radeon Pro 555 versus GCN 2.0 on the FirePro W4300. The Radeon Pro 555 belongs to the Radeon Pro Mac (500 Series) generation, while the FirePro W4300 belongs to the FirePro GCN (Wx300) generation. The Radeon Pro 555 is built on the Polaris 21 chip at 14 nm, while the FirePro W4300 uses the Bonaire chip at 28 nm. The foundries also differ: GlobalFoundries for the former, TSMC for the latter.

The transistor and die data illustrate the process gap. The Radeon Pro 555 crams 3,000 million transistors into 123 mm², yielding a density of 24.4M per mm². The FirePro W4300 holds 2,080 million transistors on 160 mm², giving 13.0M per mm². That density advantage is the defining architectural difference, and it translates directly into the Radeon Pro 555's lower power draw relative to its compute capabilities, though it still carries a higher absolute TDP of 75 W versus the FirePro W4300's 50 W.

The memory architecture is identical in bus width (128 bit) and type (GDDR5), but the Radeon Pro 555 runs its memory at 1275 MHz (5.1 Gbps effective) versus the FirePro W4300's 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective). The FirePro W4300's bandwidth of 96.00 GB/s is therefore 17.6% higher than the Radeon Pro 555's 81.60 GB/s. The Radeon Pro 555 compensates with a newer memory controller design within GCN 4.0, but the raw bandwidth figure favors the older card.

The Radeon Pro 555's GCN 4.0 architecture brings explicit support for Vulkan 1.3 and a 1:1 FP16 ratio, which is characteristic of the Polaris generation's compute capabilities. The FirePro W4300's GCN 2.0 architecture supports Vulkan 1.2.170 and has no recorded FP16 throughput. Both cards support DirectX 12 at feature level 12_0 and OpenGL 4.6, so API surface for traditional graphics workloads is similar.

The FirePro W4300's predecessor is listed as FirePro Terascale, and its successor is Radeon Pro GCN. The Radeon Pro 555 has no predecessor or successor recorded. The FirePro W4300's interface advantage (PCIe 3.0 x16 versus PCIe 3.0 x8) is a practical architectural difference, as it allows more host bandwidth for data transfer in workstation scenarios, even if the GPU's compute throughput is slightly lower than the Radeon Pro 555.

In short, the Radeon Pro 555 is the newer, denser, more API-complete architecture with FP16 support, while the FirePro W4300 is an older but higher-clocked design with more memory and bandwidth. Their identical shading unit, TMU, and ROP counts mean the architectures scale similarly, but the process node and memory clock differences create the small performance spread seen in the benchmarks.