Radeon Pro 555 vs FirePro D300
Aggregate performance score
We've compared FirePro D300 with Radeon Pro 555, including specs and performance data.
D300 outperforms Pro 555 by a significant 25% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
Place in the ranking | 444 | 513 |
Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
Power efficiency | 4.66 | 7.45 |
Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2011−2020) | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) |
GPU code name | Pitcairn | Polaris 21 |
Market segment | Workstation | Mobile workstation |
Release date | 18 January 2014 (10 years ago) | 5 June 2017 (7 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
Pipelines / CUDA cores | 1280 | 768 |
Core clock speed | 850 MHz | 850 MHz |
Number of transistors | 2,800 million | 3,000 million |
Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 14 nm |
Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 75 Watt |
Texture fill rate | 68.00 | 40.80 |
Floating-point processing power | 2.176 TFLOPS | 1.306 TFLOPS |
ROPs | 32 | 16 |
TMUs | 80 | 48 |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).
Laptop size | no data | large |
Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
Length | 242 mm | no data |
Width | 1-slot | no data |
Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
VRAM capacity and type
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 2 GB |
Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
Memory clock speed | 1270 MHz | 1275 MHz |
Memory bandwidth | 162.6 GB/s | 81.6 GB/s |
Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.
Display Connectors | 4x DisplayPort | No outputs |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
FreeSync | - | + |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 12 (12_0) |
Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.4 |
OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.0 |
Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.2.131 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
GeekBench 5 OpenCL
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.
GeekBench 5 Vulkan
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses Vulkan API by AMD & Khronos Group.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
Full HD | 40−45
+17.6%
| 34
−17.6%
|
4K | 14−16
+16.7%
| 12
−16.7%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 20
+0%
|
20
+0%
|
Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
Battlefield 5 | 32
+0%
|
32
+0%
|
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
Far Cry 5 | 26
+0%
|
26
+0%
|
Far Cry New Dawn | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
Hitman 3 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
Metro Exodus | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 42
+0%
|
42
+0%
|
Watch Dogs: Legion | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 26
+0%
|
26
+0%
|
Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
Battlefield 5 | 26
+0%
|
26
+0%
|
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
Far Cry 5 | 21
+0%
|
21
+0%
|
Far Cry New Dawn | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
Hitman 3 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
Metro Exodus | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
Watch Dogs: Legion | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
Far Cry 5 | 15
+0%
|
15
+0%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 18
+0%
|
18
+0%
|
Hitman 3 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14
+0%
|
14
+0%
|
Watch Dogs: Legion | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
Battlefield 5 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
Far Cry New Dawn | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
Far Cry 5 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
Hitman 3 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
Metro Exodus | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
Watch Dogs: Legion | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
Battlefield 5 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
Far Cry New Dawn | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
Hitman 3 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 30−33
+0%
|
30−33
+0%
|
Metro Exodus | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Far Cry 5 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
Watch Dogs: Legion | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
4K
Epic Preset
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
This is how FirePro D300 and Pro 555 compete in popular games:
- FirePro D300 is 18% faster in 1080p
- FirePro D300 is 17% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 72 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
Performance score | 10.19 | 8.15 |
Recency | 18 January 2014 | 5 June 2017 |
Chip lithography | 28 nm | 14 nm |
Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 75 Watt |
FirePro D300 has a 25% higher aggregate performance score.
Pro 555, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 3 years, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 100% lower power consumption.
The FirePro D300 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon Pro 555 in performance tests.
Be aware that FirePro D300 is a workstation card while Radeon Pro 555 is a mobile workstation one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.