AMD FirePro W4300 vs AMD Radeon R9 280

Comparative analysis of AMD FirePro W4300 and AMD Radeon R9 280 videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory, Technologies. Benchmark videocards performance analysis: PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark, Geekbench - OpenCL, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps), 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score.

 

Differences

Reasons to consider the AMD FirePro W4300

• Videocard is newer: launch date 1 year(s) 8 month(s) later
• 4x lower typical power consumption: 50 Watt vs 200 Watt
• Around 33% higher maximum memory size: 4 GB vs 3 GB
• 4.8x more memory clock speed: 6000 MHz vs 1250 MHz
• Around 67% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 6161 vs 3698
• 5.3x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 17597 vs 3337
• Around 67% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 6161 vs 3698
• 5.3x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 17597 vs 3337

Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon R9 280

• 2.3x more texture fill rate: 104.5 GTexel / s vs 44.64 GTexel / s
• 2.3x more pipelines: 1792 vs 768
• 2.3x better floating-point performance: 3,344 gflops vs 1,428 gflops
• Around 98% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 5556 vs 2809
• Around 6% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 665 vs 625
• 2.2x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 67.829 vs 31.528
• Around 53% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 1266.685 vs 828.57
• 2.2x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 6.495 vs 2.986
• Around 35% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 79.909 vs 59.153
• 2.4x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 365.384 vs 152.484
• 2.2x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 7957 vs 3572
• 2.2x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 7957 vs 3572

Compare benchmarks

GPU 1: AMD FirePro W4300
GPU 2: AMD Radeon R9 280

PassMark - G3D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	2809 5556
PassMark - G2D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	625 665
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	31.528 67.829
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	828.57 1266.685
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	2.986 6.495
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	59.153 79.909
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	152.484 365.384
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3572 7957
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	6161 3698
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	17597 3337
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3572 7957
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	6161 3698
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	17597 3337

Compare specifications (specs)