UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs (Rocket Lake) vs FirePro W4300

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared FirePro W4300 with UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs (Rocket Lake), including specs and performance data.

FirePro W4300
2015
4 GB GDDR5, 50 Watt
7.50
+129%

W4300 outperforms UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs (Rocket Lake) by a whopping 129% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking529741
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency10.44no data
ArchitectureGCN 2.0 (2013−2017)Gen. 12 (2021−2023)
GPU code nameBonaireRocket Lake Xe
Market segmentWorkstationDesktop
Release date1 December 2015 (9 years ago)30 March 2021 (3 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 cores76832
Core clock speed930 MHz350 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1450 MHz
Number of transistors2,080 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology28 nm14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)50 Wattno data
Texture fill rate44.64no data
Floating-point processing power1.428 TFLOPSno data
ROPs16no data
TMUs48no data

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).

InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16no data
Length171 mmno data
Width1-slotno data
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno 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 typeGDDR5no data
Maximum RAM amount4 GBno data
Memory bus width128 Bitno data
Memory clock speed1500 MHzno data
Memory bandwidth96 GB/sno data
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 Connectors4x mini-DisplayPortno data

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

Quick Syncno data+

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 (12_0)12_1
Shader Model6.3no data
OpenGL4.6no data
OpenCL2.0no data
Vulkan1.2.131-

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 HD40−45
+122%
18
−122%
1440p45−50
+114%
21
−114%
4K27−30
+125%
12
−125%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Battlefield 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Far Cry 5 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Hitman 3 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 64
+0%
64
+0%
Metro Exodus 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Battlefield 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Far Cry 5 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Hitman 3 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 51
+0%
51
+0%
Metro Exodus 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12
+0%
12
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Far Cry 5 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Hitman 3 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 13
+0%
13
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Far Cry 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Hitman 3 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

This is how FirePro W4300 and UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs (Rocket Lake) compete in popular games:

  • FirePro W4300 is 122% faster in 1080p
  • FirePro W4300 is 114% faster in 1440p
  • FirePro W4300 is 125% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 62 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 7.50 3.28
Recency 1 December 2015 30 March 2021
Chip lithography 28 nm 14 nm

FirePro W4300 has a 128.7% higher aggregate performance score.

UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs (Rocket Lake), on the other hand, has an age advantage of 5 years, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.

The FirePro W4300 is our recommended choice as it beats the UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs (Rocket Lake) in performance tests.

Be aware that FirePro W4300 is a workstation graphics card while UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs (Rocket Lake) is a desktop one.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


AMD FirePro W4300
FirePro W4300
Intel UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs (Rocket Lake)
UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs (Rocket Lake)

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


4.2 23 votes

Rate FirePro W4300 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.9 8 votes

Rate UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs (Rocket Lake) on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.