FirePro D300 vs Radeon RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000)
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000) with FirePro D300, including specs and performance data.
D300 outperforms RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000) by an impressive 66% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
Place in the ranking | 595 | 457 |
Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
Power efficiency | 27.73 | 4.59 |
Architecture | Vega (2017−2020) | GCN 1.0 (2011−2020) |
GPU code name | Vega Renoir | Pitcairn |
Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
Release date | 7 January 2020 (5 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 | 384 | 1280 |
Core clock speed | 400 MHz | 850 MHz |
Boost clock speed | 1500 MHz | no data |
Number of transistors | no data | 2,800 million |
Manufacturing process technology | 7 nm | 28 nm |
Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 150 Watt |
Texture fill rate | no data | 68.00 |
Floating-point processing power | no data | 2.176 TFLOPS |
ROPs | no data | 32 |
TMUs | no data | 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).
Interface | no data | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
Length | no data | 242 mm |
Width | no data | 1-slot |
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 | no data | GDDR5 |
Maximum RAM amount | no data | 2 GB |
Memory bus width | no data | 256 Bit |
Memory clock speed | no data | 1270 MHz |
Memory bandwidth | no data | 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 data | 4x DisplayPort |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
DirectX | 12_1 | 12 (11_1) |
Shader Model | no data | 5.1 |
OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
OpenCL | no data | 1.2 |
Vulkan | - | 1.2.131 |
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 | 21
−42.9%
| 30−35
+42.9%
|
1440p | 23
−52.2%
| 35−40
+52.2%
|
4K | 18
−50%
| 27−30
+50%
|
FPS performance in popular games
- Full HD
Low Preset - Full HD
Medium Preset - Full HD
High Preset - Full HD
Ultra Preset - Full HD
Epic Preset - 1440p
High Preset - 1440p
Ultra Preset - 1440p
Epic Preset - 4K
High Preset - 4K
Ultra Preset - 4K
Epic Preset
Atomic Heart | 19
−57.9%
|
30−33
+57.9%
|
Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
−50%
|
18−20
+50%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 13
−61.5%
|
21−24
+61.5%
|
Atomic Heart | 15
−60%
|
24−27
+60%
|
Battlefield 5 | 22
−59.1%
|
35−40
+59.1%
|
Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
−50%
|
18−20
+50%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 10
−60%
|
16−18
+60%
|
Far Cry 5 | 15
−60%
|
24−27
+60%
|
Fortnite | 33
−51.5%
|
50−55
+51.5%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
−53.8%
|
40−45
+53.8%
|
Forza Horizon 5 | 16
−50%
|
24−27
+50%
|
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
−42.9%
|
30−33
+42.9%
|
Valorant | 97
−64.9%
|
160−170
+64.9%
|
Atomic Heart | 9
−55.6%
|
14−16
+55.6%
|
Battlefield 5 | 21
−42.9%
|
30−33
+42.9%
|
Counter-Strike 2 | 8
−50%
|
12−14
+50%
|
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 56
−60.7%
|
90−95
+60.7%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 7
−42.9%
|
10−11
+42.9%
|
Dota 2 | 42
−54.8%
|
65−70
+54.8%
|
Far Cry 5 | 16
−50%
|
24−27
+50%
|
Fortnite | 22
−59.1%
|
35−40
+59.1%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
−53.8%
|
40−45
+53.8%
|
Forza Horizon 5 | 12−14
−61.5%
|
21−24
+61.5%
|
Grand Theft Auto V | 15
−60%
|
24−27
+60%
|
Metro Exodus | 8
−50%
|
12−14
+50%
|
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
−42.9%
|
30−33
+42.9%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16
−50%
|
24−27
+50%
|
Valorant | 73
−64.4%
|
120−130
+64.4%
|
Battlefield 5 | 19
−57.9%
|
30−33
+57.9%
|
Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
−50%
|
18−20
+50%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 8
−50%
|
12−14
+50%
|
Dota 2 | 40
−62.5%
|
65−70
+62.5%
|
Far Cry 5 | 16
−50%
|
24−27
+50%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
−53.8%
|
40−45
+53.8%
|
Forza Horizon 5 | 12−14
−61.5%
|
21−24
+61.5%
|
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
−42.9%
|
30−33
+42.9%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 11
−63.6%
|
18−20
+63.6%
|
Valorant | 19
−57.9%
|
30−33
+57.9%
|
Fortnite | 30−35
−61.8%
|
55−60
+61.8%
|
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 40−45
−59.1%
|
70−75
+59.1%
|
Grand Theft Auto V | 7−8
−42.9%
|
10−11
+42.9%
|
Metro Exodus | 5−6
−60%
|
8−9
+60%
|
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
−52.8%
|
55−60
+52.8%
|
Valorant | 49
−63.3%
|
80−85
+63.3%
|
Battlefield 5 | 8−9
−50%
|
12−14
+50%
|
Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−50%
|
12−14
+50%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−50%
|
6−7
+50%
|
Far Cry 5 | 10−12
−63.6%
|
18−20
+63.6%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−61.5%
|
21−24
+61.5%
|
Forza Horizon 5 | 9−10
−55.6%
|
14−16
+55.6%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
−55.6%
|
14−16
+55.6%
|
Fortnite | 10−12
−63.6%
|
18−20
+63.6%
|
Atomic Heart | 5−6
−60%
|
8−9
+60%
|
Counter-Strike 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
−58.8%
|
27−30
+58.8%
|
Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 0−1 |
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
Valorant | 22
−59.1%
|
35−40
+59.1%
|
Battlefield 5 | 4−5
−50%
|
6−7
+50%
|
Counter-Strike 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
Dota 2 | 19
−57.9%
|
30−33
+57.9%
|
Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−50%
|
9−10
+50%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
−50%
|
12−14
+50%
|
Forza Horizon 5 | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 6−7
−50%
|
9−10
+50%
|
Fortnite | 6−7
−50%
|
9−10
+50%
|
This is how RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000) and FirePro D300 compete in popular games:
- FirePro D300 is 43% faster in 1080p
- FirePro D300 is 52% faster in 1440p
- FirePro D300 is 50% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
Performance score | 6.05 | 10.02 |
Recency | 7 January 2020 | 18 January 2014 |
Chip lithography | 7 nm | 28 nm |
Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 150 Watt |
RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000) has an age advantage of 5 years, a 300% more advanced lithography process, and 900% lower power consumption.
FirePro D300, on the other hand, has a 65.6% higher aggregate performance score.
The FirePro D300 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000) in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is a notebook 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.