AMD FirePro S9300 X2 vs NVIDIA RTX A1000 Comparison

NVIDIA RTX A1000 vs AMD FirePro S9300 X2

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a clear hierarchy between these two workstation cards, with the NVIDIA RTX A1000 winning both available head-to-head tests. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RTX A1000 scores 52,078 points against the FirePro S9300 X2’s 27,971, a decisive 86.2% advantage. This is not a marginal gap—it is a near-doubling of compute throughput in a general-purpose workload that stresses raw shader and memory performance. The Vulkan test narrows the margin somewhat, with the RTX A1000 posting 49,574 versus 37,109, a 33.6% lead. Still, the NVIDIA card wins that API outright, suggesting its architectural advantages translate across different software interfaces.

The average benchmark scores reinforce this pattern. The RTX A1000 holds an average score of 34,207 across its three tested workloads (3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, Geekbench OpenCL, and Geekbench Vulkan), while the FirePro S9300 X2 averages 32,540 across its two Geekbench tests. That 5.1% difference in aggregate performance is smaller than the head-to-head deltas, largely because the RTX A1000’s 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 969 drags its average down relative to its Geekbench results. The FirePro S9300 X2 has no DirectX 12 benchmark in the data, so its average reflects only OpenCL and Vulkan, where it is consistently slower.

Percentile rankings place both cards in the upper tier of all GPUs: the RTX A1000 sits at the 79th percentile, the FirePro S9300 X2 at the 77th. The two-point gap is modest, but the benchmark deltas tell a starker story. Against its nearest rivals, the RTX A1000 trails the NVIDIA TITAN V by 0.4% (34,355 vs 34,207) and leads the RTX A2000 12 GB by 0.2% (34,154 vs 34,207), the Radeon RX 560 XT by 0.2%, and the Radeon RX 480 by 0.6%. The FirePro S9300 X2, meanwhile, sits 0.2% below the Radeon RX 590 GME (32,601 vs 32,540), 0.3% above the Radeon RX 7900 GRE (32,456), 0.5% above the FirePro S10000 (32,388), and 0.9% below the NVIDIA T600 Mobile (32,849). These rival deltas are all within a single percentage point, indicating that both cards occupy tightly contested performance bands relative to their contemporaries.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from fundamentally different design eras and philosophies. The NVIDIA RTX A1000 uses the GA107 chip built on Samsung’s 8 nm process, packing 8,700 million transistors into a 200 mm² die. That yields a transistor density of 43.5 million per square millimeter. The AMD FirePro S9300 X2 uses the Capsaicin chip on TSMC’s 28 nm process, with 8,900 million transistors spread across a massive 596 mm² die—a density of just 14.9 million per square millimeter. The transistor counts are nearly identical, but the FirePro’s older process forces it to use three times the silicon area to house them.

The architectural generation gap is stark. The RTX A1000 is based on Ampere, a modern workstation architecture with dedicated ray tracing cores (18 of them) and tensor cores (72). The FirePro S9300 X2 uses GCN 3.0, which predates both ray tracing and tensor core hardware entirely—those fields are null in the data. The RTX A1000 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the FirePro tops out at DirectX 12 (12_0), missing the newer feature level. Vulkan support also differs: the RTX A1000 lists Vulkan 1.4, the FirePro has 1.2.170. OpenGL 4.6 is common to both.

Memory architecture illustrates the biggest philosophical split. The RTX A1000 uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 192.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The FirePro S9300 X2 uses 4 GB of HBM on a 4096-bit bus, delivering 512.0 GB/s—more than 2.6 times the bandwidth. That enormous bus width is characteristic of AMD’s server-focused HBM designs from that era, optimized for bandwidth-hungry compute rather than capacity. The RTX A1000 compensates with twice the memory size, a more modern memory type, and lower power consumption. The FirePro’s memory clocks are listed at 500 MHz (1000 Mbps effective), while the RTX A1000 runs at 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective), but the bus width difference overwhelms the clock advantage.

Compute resources tell a mixed story. The FirePro S9300 X2 has 4,096 shading units, 256 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs. The RTX A1000 has 2,304 shading units, 72 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. Despite fewer shaders, the RTX A1000 achieves 6.737 TFLOPS FP32, versus 7.987 TFLOPS for the FirePro—a 18.6% raw throughput deficit for NVIDIA, but one that is more than offset by the benchmark results. The FirePro’s pixel rate (62.40 GPixel/s) and texture rate (249.6 GTexel/s) both exceed the RTX A1000’s (46.78 GPixel/s and 105.3 GTexel/s), yet this fill-rate advantage does not translate into wins in the actual tests.

The Verdict

The data points to the NVIDIA RTX A1000 as the superior card for general workstation use. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks decisively—86.2% in OpenCL and 33.6% in Vulkan—despite having fewer shading units and lower raw FP32 throughput. The RTX A1000 also carries modern features the FirePro lacks entirely: ray tracing cores, tensor cores, and DirectX 12 Ultimate support. For any workload that leverages these newer APIs or features, the FirePro is simply not competitive.

The AMD FirePro S9300 X2’s one clear advantage is memory bandwidth: 512.0 GB/s versus 192.0 GB/s. That could matter for specific compute workloads that are bandwidth-bound rather than compute-bound, but the benchmark data does not include any test that isolates this. In the two tests that exist, the FirePro loses by large margins. Its higher FP32 throughput (7.987 vs 6.737 TFLOPS) and superior fill rates also fail to produce wins.

The RTX A1000 is the pick for anyone running OpenCL or Vulkan workloads, or any application that can use DirectX 12 Ultimate features. The FirePro S9300 X2 is end-of-life, uses 300 W versus 50 W, requires dual-slot cooling and a 700 W PSU, and has no display outputs. The RTX A1000 is single-slot, draws 50 W, needs no power connectors, and offers four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The RTX A1000 is also the more portable card at 163 mm length versus 267 mm, and it is still an active production product. The FirePro’s 4 GB memory capacity is half the RTX A1000’s 8 GB, which could limit its usefulness in memory-intensive workloads despite the bandwidth advantage.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA RTX A1000 | AMD FirePro S9300 X2 |

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

| Architecture | Ampere | GCN 3.0 |

| Process node | 8 nm (Samsung) | 28 nm (TSMC) |

| Die size | 200 mm² | 596 mm² |

| Transistor density | 43.5M / mm² | 14.9M / mm² |

| Memory size | 8 GB GDDR6 | 4 GB HBM |

| Memory bus | 128 bit | 4096 bit |

| Memory bandwidth | 192.0 GB/s | 512.0 GB/s |

| Shading units | 2304 | 4096 |

| TMUs | 72 | 256 |

| ROPs | 32 | 64 |

| RT cores | 18 | None |

| Tensor cores | 72 | None |

| FP32 | 6.737 TFLOPS | 7.987 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 6.737 TFLOPS (1:1) | Not listed |

| TDP | 50 W | 300 W |

| Slot width | Single-slot | Dual-slot |

| Power connectors | None | 2x 8-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | 700 W |

| Bus interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| Display outputs | 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a | No outputs |

| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (12_0) |

| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.2.170 |

| Length | 163 mm | 267 mm |

| Height | 69 mm | 111 mm |

| Production status | Active | End-of-life |

| Release date | 2024-04-15 | 2016-03-30 |

| Launch MSRP | Not listed | 5,999 USD |

FAQ

Q: Which card wins in OpenCL performance?

A: The NVIDIA RTX A1000 wins with a score of 52,078 against the AMD FirePro S9300 X2’s 27,971, a delta of 86.2%.

Q: Does the AMD FirePro S9300 X2 have any benchmark win over the RTX A1000?

A: No. In the two head-to-head tests available (Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan), the RTX A1000 wins both. The wins tally is 2 for NVIDIA and 0 for AMD.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between the two cards?

A: The FirePro S9300 X2 has 512.0 GB/s bandwidth from its 4096-bit HBM bus, while the RTX A1000 has 192.0 GB/s from its 128-bit GDDR6 bus. The FirePro’s bandwidth is 2.67 times higher.

Q: How do their power requirements compare?

A: The RTX A1000 has a 50 W TDP and needs no power connectors or a suggested PSU of 250 W. The FirePro S9300 X2 has a 300 W TDP, requires two 8-pin connectors, and a 700 W suggested PSU.

Q: Which card supports ray tracing?

A: Only the RTX A1000, which has 18 RT cores. The FirePro S9300 X2 has no RT cores listed. The RTX A1000 also has 72 tensor cores, which the FirePro lacks.

Q: What are the display output capabilities?

A: The RTX A1000 provides four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The FirePro S9300 X2 has no display outputs at all, making it a compute-only card.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA RTX A1000 wins in every benchmark category measured. Its OpenCL score is nearly double the FirePro’s, and its Vulkan score is a third higher. For any workload that relies on OpenCL or Vulkan—common in scientific computing, rendering, and machine learning inference—the RTX A1000 is the clear choice. Its modern architecture also brings ray tracing and tensor cores, which are essential for applications that use DXR or CUDA-accelerated tensor operations. The RTX A1000’s lower power draw (50 W vs 300 W) and single-slot form factor make it suitable for dense multi-GPU configurations or systems with limited cooling and power headroom. Its four display outputs mean it can drive a multi-monitor workstation, something the FirePro cannot do at all.

The AMD FirePro S9300 X2 wins only in specific raw hardware specifications, not in any benchmark. Its 512.0 GB/s memory bandwidth is 2.67 times higher, which could benefit workloads that are bottlenecked purely by data movement rather than compute. Its higher FP32 throughput (7.987 vs 6.737 TFLOPS) and higher texture and pixel fill rates give it theoretical advantages in certain rasterization-heavy tasks, but the benchmark data does not show any test where these translate into a win. The FirePro’s PCIe 3.0 x16 interface provides more lanes at an older standard, but the RTX A1000’s PCIe 4.0 x8 offers double the per-lane bandwidth, netting similar overall throughput. The FirePro’s 2x 8-pin power connectors and 700 W PSU requirement suggest it was designed for server chassis with ample power, not desktop workstations. Its end-of-life production status and 2016 release date mean it lacks the driver optimization and software ecosystem support that the actively produced RTX A1000 enjoys.

In practice, the choice hinges on workload type. For OpenCL and Vulkan compute, the RTX A1000 is 86.2% and 33.6% faster respectively—those are not subtle margins. For any ray-traced or tensor-based workload, the FirePro literally has no hardware support. For memory-bandwidth-bound tasks that can fit within 4 GB, the FirePro’s HBM could theoretically shine, but the absence of any benchmark win in the data makes that a speculative advantage rather than a demonstrated one. The RTX A1000’s active production status, lower power envelope, and display outputs make it the more versatile and future-proof option for a workstation environment. The FirePro S9300 X2 remains a niche product for specific high-bandwidth compute tasks, and even then, its end-of-life status and lack of modern API support are significant liabilities.