FirePro D300 vs Radeon Pro Vega 64
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon Pro Vega 64 and FirePro D300, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
Pro Vega 64 outperforms FirePro D300 by a whopping 233% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 156 | 440 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Architecture | GCN 5.0 (2017−2020) | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) |
| GPU code name | Vega 10 | Pitcairn |
| Market segment | Workstation | Workstation |
| Release date | 27 June 2017 (7 years ago) | 18 January 2014 (10 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 4096 | 1280 |
| Core clock speed | 1250 MHz | 850 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1350 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 12,500 million | 2,800 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 150 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 345.6 | 68.00 |
| Floating-point performance | 11.06 gflops | 2.176 gflops |
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 | 267 mm | 242 mm |
| Width | IGP | 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 | HBM2 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 16 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 2048 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1572 MHz | 5080 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 402.4 GB/s | 162.6 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 | No outputs | 4x DisplayPort |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (11_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.125 | 1.2.131 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance 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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 33.56 | 10.09 |
| Recency | 27 June 2017 | 18 January 2014 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 16 GB | 2 GB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 150 Watt |
Pro Vega 64 has a 232.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.
FirePro D300, on the other hand, has 66.7% lower power consumption.
The Radeon Pro Vega 64 is our recommended choice as it beats the FirePro D300 in performance tests.
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.
