Radeon Pro 580 vs FirePro W4300
Aggregate performance score
We've compared FirePro W4300 with Radeon Pro 580, including specs and performance data.
Pro 580 outperforms W4300 by a whopping 168% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 524 | 270 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 10.39 | 9.28 |
| Architecture | GCN 2.0 (2013−2017) | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) |
| GPU code name | Bonaire | Polaris 20 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 1 December 2015 (8 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 | 768 | 2304 |
| Core clock speed | 930 MHz | 1100 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1200 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 2,080 million | 5,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 150 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 44.64 | 172.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.428 TFLOPS | 5.53 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 32 |
| TMUs | 48 | 144 |
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).
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 171 mm | no data |
| Width | 1-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 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 | 4 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1500 MHz | 1695 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 96 GB/s | 217.0 GB/s |
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 mini-DisplayPort | No outputs |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 (12_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.3 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 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.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.
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.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 7.50 | 20.09 |
| Recency | 1 December 2015 | 5 June 2017 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 8 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 150 Watt |
FirePro W4300 has 200% lower power consumption.
Pro 580, on the other hand, has a 167.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon Pro 580 is our recommended choice as it beats the FirePro W4300 in performance tests.
Be aware that FirePro W4300 is a workstation card while Radeon Pro 580 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.
