Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) vs FirePro W4300
Aggregate performance score
We've compared FirePro W4300 with Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000), including specs and performance data.
W4300 outperforms RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) by an impressive 67% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 535 | 664 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 33 |
| Power efficiency | 10.37 | 20.72 |
| Architecture | GCN 2.0 (2013−2017) | Vega (2017−2020) |
| GPU code name | Bonaire | Vega Raven Ridge |
| Market segment | Workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 1 December 2015 (9 years ago) | 26 October 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 | 512 |
| Core clock speed | 930 MHz | 300 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1200 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 2,080 million | 9,800 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 15 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 44.64 | 57.60 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.428 TFLOPS | 1.843 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 8 |
| TMUs | 48 | 32 |
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 | IGP |
| 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 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 1500 MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 96 GB/s | no data |
| 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 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_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.3 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.2 |
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.
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 | 27−30
+58.8%
| 17
−58.8%
|
| 4K | 18−20
+63.6%
| 11
−63.6%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9
+0%
|
9
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 10
+0%
|
10
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4
+0%
|
4
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 22
+0%
|
22
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 12
+0%
|
12
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 13
+0%
|
13
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 16
+0%
|
16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 22
+0%
|
22
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3
+0%
|
3
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 22
+0%
|
22
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 17
+0%
|
17
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 18
+0%
|
18
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16
+0%
|
16
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 13
+0%
|
13
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 8
+0%
|
8
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 37
+0%
|
37
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6
+0%
|
6
+0%
|
| Valorant | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| World of Tanks | 42
+0%
|
42
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 6
+0%
|
6
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3
+0%
|
3
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 35
+0%
|
35
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14
+0%
|
14
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10
+0%
|
10
+0%
|
| Valorant | 15
+0%
|
15
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−33
+0%
|
30−33
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| World of Tanks | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Valorant | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14
+0%
|
14
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 15
+0%
|
15
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Valorant | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
This is how FirePro W4300 and RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) compete in popular games:
- FirePro W4300 is 59% faster in 1080p
- FirePro W4300 is 64% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 63 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 7.19 | 4.31 |
| Recency | 1 December 2015 | 26 October 2017 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 15 Watt |
FirePro W4300 has a 66.8% higher aggregate performance score.
RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000), on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 233.3% lower power consumption.
The FirePro W4300 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) in performance tests.
Be aware that FirePro W4300 is a workstation card while Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
