GPU Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a split decision between the NVIDIA T600 Mobile and the AMD FirePro S9300 X2, with each card claiming one decisive victory in the two recorded tests. The aggregate scores, however, tell a story of near-total parity: the NVIDIA T600 Mobile averages 32,849 points across both workloads, while the AMD FirePro S9300 X2 trails by a mere 0.9%, posting an average of 32,540 points.

In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the NVIDIA T600 Mobile delivers a commanding performance, scoring 35,486 against the AMD FirePro S9300 X2's 27,971. This represents a 26.9% advantage for the mobile Turing part. The margin is substantial enough that it cannot be dismissed as a statistical anomaly; the T600 Mobile's OpenCL execution is categorically stronger. This result is particularly striking given the architectural gulf between the two, as the FirePro S9300 X2 carries more than four times the shading units and nearly three times the FP32 throughput on paper.

The tables turn completely in the Geekbench Vulkan test. Here, the AMD FirePro S9300 X2 rebounds with a score of 37,109, while the NVIDIA T600 Mobile manages only 30,211. The delta is 18.6% in favor of the AMD card. This is not a narrow scrape but a robust reversal, indicating that the FirePro's GCN 3.0 architecture handles the Vulkan API workload with considerably greater efficiency than the Turing-based mobile part. When examining the nearest rival data, both cards sit within a tight cluster: the T600 Mobile's 0.3% edge over the NVIDIA P104-100 and 0.7% over the AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT underscore how competitive this segment is, while the FirePro S9300 X2's 0.5% lead over the AMD FirePro S10000 and 0.2% deficit to the RX 7800 XT show a similar level of congestion.

The wins are evenly split at one apiece, but the magnitudes differ. The T600 Mobile's OpenCL win is larger in percentage terms than its Vulkan loss, suggesting that its overall average benefits from the sheer scale of that 26.9% blowout. Yet the final average scores are nearly identical, which implies that the Vulkan test carries more weight in the aggregation or that the distribution of scores within each test favors the AMD card's consistency. Either way, the headline is that these two end-of-life professional GPUs produce statistically indistinguishable composite results, despite their radically different designs and the five-year gap in their release dates.

Architecture Differences

The architectural chasm between these two parts is immense, and it explains the divergent benchmark outcomes. The NVIDIA T600 Mobile is built on the TU117 chip using the Turing architecture, fabricated on a 12 nm process at TSMC. It packs 4,700 million transistors onto a 200 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 23.5 million per square millimeter. The AMD FirePro S9300 X2, by contrast, uses the Capsaicin chip with GCN 3.0 architecture, manufactured on an older 28 nm node at the same foundry. It integrates 8,900 million transistors across a massive 596 mm² die, but its transistor density falls to just 14.9 million per square millimeter.

The compute resources differ by an order of magnitude in some areas. The FirePro S9300 X2 fields 4,096 shading units, 256 texture mapping units, and 64 raster operations pipelines. The T600 Mobile counters with just 896 shaders, 56 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. This gives the AMD card a theoretical FP32 throughput of 7.987 TFLOPS versus the NVIDIA card's 2.527 TFLOPS, a 3.2x raw compute advantage. Pixel fill rates follow suit: 62.40 GPixel/s for the FirePro against 45.12 GPixel/s for the T600 Mobile, while texture rates stand at 249.6 GTexel/s versus 78.96 GTexel/s. Neither card features ray tracing or tensor cores, so that comparison is moot.

Memory subsystems present the most striking divergence. The T600 Mobile uses 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 192.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The FirePro S9300 X2 also has 4 GB, but it is HBM on a 4096-bit bus, yielding 512.0 GB/s, 2.7 times the bandwidth. This should theoretically benefit the AMD card in bandwidth-bound workloads, yet the OpenCL results show the opposite. Clock behavior differs as well: the T600 Mobile runs at a base of 780 MHz with a boost of 1410 MHz, while the FirePro's core clocks are not listed in the data. Memory clocks are likewise asymmetric, with the T600 Mobile at 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) and the FirePro at 500 MHz (1000 Mbps effective).

Power and physical characteristics could not be more different. The T600 Mobile is an IGP-class part with a 40 W TDP, no power connectors, and display outputs labeled as "Portable Device Dependent." The FirePro S9300 X2 is a dual-slot server card with a 300 W TDP, two 8-pin power connectors, a suggested 700 W power supply, and no display outputs at all. It measures 267 mm in length and 111 mm in height. The T600 Mobile's dimensions are not provided. API support shows the NVIDIA card with DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4; the AMD card supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. Release dates are separated by five years: the FirePro launched in March 2016 with a launch MSRP of 5,999 USD, while the T600 Mobile arrived in April 2021 with no MSRP listed.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark split maps cleanly onto workload types. For OpenCL-heavy compute tasks, which often include general-purpose GPU computing, physics simulation, and certain rendering workflows, the NVIDIA T600 Mobile is the clear choice. Its 26.9% advantage in Geekbench OpenCL suggests that the Turing architecture's scheduler, driver optimizations, or FP16 path (the T600 Mobile supports 5.053 TFLOPS FP16 with a 2:1 ratio, while the FirePro's FP16 figure is not listed) gives it a practical edge that overcomes its lower raw FP32 count. The T600 Mobile's 76th percentile ranking among all GPUs, tied with the FirePro's percentile, indicates that its OpenCL strength is not an outlier in the broader GPU landscape.

For Vulkan-based workloads, modern game engines, real-time graphics, and cross-platform compute APIs, the AMD FirePro S9300 X2 wins decisively. Its 18.6% lead in Geekbench Vulkan points to a driver and architecture combination that extracts more from the Vulkan API's explicit control model. The FirePro's massive 512.0 GB/s bandwidth likely plays a role here, as Vulkan workloads often stress memory throughput more heavily than OpenCL equivalents. The FirePro's dual-slot, 300 W server design with no display outputs also suggests it was built for compute clusters where Vulkan compute shaders would be a primary use case.

The aggregate picture favors neither card outright. Their average benchmark scores sit within 0.9% of each other, and both hold a 76th percentile ranking versus all GPUs. The nearest rival data reinforces this equilibrium: the T600 Mobile's closest competitors include the P104-100 (0.3% behind), the RX 7800 XT (0.7% behind), and the T550 Mobile (0.9% ahead). The FirePro S9300 X2's rivals overlap almost entirely, with the RX 7800 XT 0.2% ahead, the FirePro S10000 0.5% behind, and the P104-100 0.6% ahead. These are all sub-1% margins, making the selection between these two cards a matter of API preference rather than absolute performance.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA T600 Mobile leads with an average score of 32,849, while the AMD FirePro S9300 X2 trails at 32,540, a difference of 0.9%.

Q: How do the two cards compare in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The NVIDIA T600 Mobile wins decisively, scoring 35,486 against the FirePro S9300 X2's 27,971, a 26.9% advantage.

Q: What happens in the Vulkan benchmark?

A: The AMD FirePro S9300 X2 reverses the result, scoring 37,109 versus the T600 Mobile's 30,211, an 18.6% lead for the AMD card.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units and higher FP32 throughput?

A: The AMD FirePro S9300 X2 has 4,096 shading units and 7.987 TFLOPS FP32, compared to the T600 Mobile's 896 shaders and 2.527 TFLOPS.

Q: What are the memory bandwidth figures for each card?

A: The FirePro S9300 X2 has 512.0 GB/s over a 4096-bit HBM bus, while the T600 Mobile has 192.0 GB/s over a 128-bit GDDR6 bus.

Q: Do both cards support the same API levels?

A: Both support OpenGL 4.6 and DirectX 12, but the T600 Mobile has Vulkan 1.4 and DirectX 12 (12_1), while the FirePro S9300 X2 has Vulkan 1.2.170 and DirectX 12 (12_0).

The Verdict

The data does not crown a single winner; it identifies two specialists. For anyone running OpenCL compute workloads, the NVIDIA T600 Mobile is the superior instrument. Its 26.9% margin in that test is too large to ignore, and its 40 W TDP, IGP form factor, and portable-device-dependent outputs make it a flexible option for mobile or embedded systems where power and space are constrained. The T600 Mobile's 76th percentile ranking and its near-tie with the P104-100 and RX 7800 XT in aggregate scores confirm that it punches well above its modest shader count.

For Vulkan-centric applications, the AMD FirePro S9300 X2 is the stronger pick. Its 18.6% Vulkan win demonstrates that raw compute resources, 4,096 shaders, 249.6 GTexel/s texture rate, and 512.0 GB/s bandwidth, translate into tangible API-specific performance. The FirePro's server-oriented design, with dual-slot cooling, 2x 8-pin power, and no display outputs, makes it suitable for rack-mounted compute nodes where Vulkan compute is the primary workload and the 300 W TDP is manageable. Its launch MSRP of 5,999 USD placed it in a high-end server tier, though the current data shows its performance rivals much newer parts.

The final call depends on the API in question. The T600 Mobile wins the OpenCL contest by a wide margin; the FirePro S9300 X2 wins the Vulkan contest by a substantial but smaller margin. Neither card offers a universal advantage, and their average scores are effectively identical. Buyers should match the card to their software stack: OpenCL users should choose the NVIDIA T600 Mobile, while Vulkan users should select the AMD FirePro S9300 X2. The data provides no basis for a broader recommendation beyond that API-specific split.