Radeon R7 350 vs FirePro W4300
Aggregate performance score
We've compared FirePro W4300 with Radeon R7 350, including specs and performance data.
W4300 outperforms R7 350 by a substantial 34% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 530 | 603 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 10.29 | 6.96 |
| Architecture | GCN 2.0 (2013−2017) | GCN 1.0 (2011−2020) |
| GPU code name | Bonaire | Cape Verde |
| Market segment | Workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 1 December 2015 (9 years ago) | 6 July 2016 (8 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 | 800 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 2,080 million | 1,500 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 55 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 44.64 | 25.60 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.428 TFLOPS | 0.8192 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 16 |
| 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 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 171 mm | 168 mm |
| Width | 1-slot | 1-slot |
| 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 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1500 MHz | 1125 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 96 GB/s | 72 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 | 4x mini-DisplayPort | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
| HDMI | - | + |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 (11_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.3 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 7.51 | 5.59 |
| Recency | 1 December 2015 | 6 July 2016 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 2 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 55 Watt |
FirePro W4300 has a 34.3% higher aggregate performance score, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and 10% lower power consumption.
R7 350, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 7 months.
The FirePro W4300 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 350 in performance tests.
Be aware that FirePro W4300 is a workstation graphics card while Radeon R7 350 is a desktop one.
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.
