FirePro D300 vs Radeon Pro 560X
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon Pro 560X with FirePro D300, including specs and performance data.
D300 outperforms Pro 560X by a small 5% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 471 | 457 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 8.75 | 4.59 |
| Architecture | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) | GCN 1.0 (2011−2020) |
| GPU code name | Polaris 21 | Pitcairn |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Workstation |
| Release date | 16 July 2018 (6 years ago) | 18 January 2014 (11 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 | 1024 | 1280 |
| Core clock speed | 1004 MHz | 850 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,000 million | 2,800 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 150 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 64.26 | 68.00 |
| Floating-point processing power | 2.056 TFLOPS | 2.176 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 32 |
| TMUs | 64 | 80 |
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 | large | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 242 mm |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | no data |
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 | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1270 MHz | 1270 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 81.28 GB/s | 162.6 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 | No outputs | 4x DisplayPort |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| FreeSync | + | - |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 (11_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.2 |
| 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.
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 | 41
+2.5%
| 40−45
−2.5%
|
| 1440p | 43
−4.7%
| 45−50
+4.7%
|
| 4K | 17
+6.3%
| 16−18
−6.3%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 21−24
+4.8%
|
21−24
−4.8%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+6.3%
|
16−18
−6.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 21−24
+4.8%
|
21−24
−4.8%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 43
−4.7%
|
45−50
+4.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+6.3%
|
16−18
−6.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 37
+5.7%
|
35−40
−5.7%
|
| Fortnite | 66
+1.5%
|
65−70
−1.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 53
−3.8%
|
55−60
+3.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 21−24
−4.3%
|
24−27
+4.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+6.7%
|
30−33
−6.7%
|
| Valorant | 85−90
−2.3%
|
90−95
+2.3%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 21−24
+4.8%
|
21−24
−4.8%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 36
+2.9%
|
35−40
−2.9%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+6.3%
|
16−18
−6.3%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 86
−4.7%
|
90−95
+4.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 71
+1.4%
|
70−75
−1.4%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 33
+10%
|
30−33
−10%
|
| Fortnite | 40
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 21−24
−4.3%
|
24−27
+4.3%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 33
+10%
|
30−33
−10%
|
| Metro Exodus | 19
+5.6%
|
18−20
−5.6%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 34
−2.9%
|
35−40
+2.9%
|
| Valorant | 85−90
−2.3%
|
90−95
+2.3%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 33
+10%
|
30−33
−10%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+6.3%
|
16−18
−6.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 69
−1.4%
|
70−75
+1.4%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 31
+3.3%
|
30−33
−3.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 36
+2.9%
|
35−40
−2.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 21−24
−4.3%
|
24−27
+4.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+6.7%
|
30−33
−6.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 20
+11.1%
|
18−20
−11.1%
|
| Valorant | 26
−3.8%
|
27−30
+3.8%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 32
+6.7%
|
30−33
−6.7%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 57
+3.6%
|
55−60
−3.6%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 12−14
+8.3%
|
12−14
−8.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 11
+10%
|
10−11
−10%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
+1%
|
100−105
−1%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18−20
+5.6%
|
18−20
−5.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 18−20
+5.6%
|
18−20
−5.6%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 30
+0%
|
30−33
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 13
+8.3%
|
12−14
−8.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+4.4%
|
45−50
−4.4%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−35
+10%
|
30−33
−10%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+7.1%
|
14−16
−7.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
This is how Pro 560X and FirePro D300 compete in popular games:
- Pro 560X is 3% faster in 1080p
- FirePro D300 is 5% faster in 1440p
- Pro 560X is 6% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 9.51 | 9.98 |
| Recency | 16 July 2018 | 18 January 2014 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 2 GB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 150 Watt |
Pro 560X has an age advantage of 4 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 100% lower power consumption.
FirePro D300, on the other hand, has a 4.9% higher aggregate performance score.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Radeon Pro 560X and FirePro D300.
Be aware that Radeon Pro 560X is a mobile workstation card while FirePro D300 is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
