
FirePro W4300
Popular choices:

Radeon RX 550
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - GPU
About G3D Mark
G3D Mark is a standard benchmark that measures graphics performance in real-world gaming scenarios. It simplifies comparing cards from different brands, where higher scores directly correlate with better fps and smoother gaming experiences.
Head-to-Head Verdict, Benchmarks, Value & Long-Term Outlook
This comparison brings together gaming FPS, raw graphics performance, VRAM, feature set, power efficiency, pricing context, and long-term value so you can see which GPU actually makes more sense.
FirePro W4300
2015Why buy it
- ✅Competitive enough if your priority is price, power, or specific feature preference.
Trade-offs
- ❌No equivalent frame-generation stack like FSR Frame Generation (2023).
- ❌Very weak future-proofing: 2015-era hardware with 4 GB of VRAM is already obsolete for modern gaming and is hard to recommend today.
- ❌379.7% HIGHER MSRP$379 MSRPvs$79 MSRP
- ❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 7.2 vs 33.8 G3D/$ ($379 MSRP vs $79 MSRP).
- ❌10.3% longer card at 171mm vs 155mm.
Radeon RX 550
2017Why buy it
- ✅Costs $300 less on MSRP ($79 MSRP vs $379 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 371.8% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 33.8 vs 7.2 G3D/$ ($79 MSRP vs $379 MSRP).
- ✅Access to a newer frame-generation stack with FSR Frame Generation (2023).
- ✅Less risky long-term buy than FirePro W4300: it remains the more sensible modern option while FirePro W4300 is already obsolete for modern gaming.
- ✅Measures 155mm instead of 171mm, a 16mm shorter card that is more SFF-friendly.
Trade-offs
- ❌Very weak future-proofing: 2017-era hardware with 4 GB of VRAM is already obsolete for modern gaming and is hard to recommend today.
FirePro W4300
2015Radeon RX 550
2017Why buy it
- ✅Competitive enough if your priority is price, power, or specific feature preference.
Why buy it
- ✅Costs $300 less on MSRP ($79 MSRP vs $379 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 371.8% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 33.8 vs 7.2 G3D/$ ($79 MSRP vs $379 MSRP).
- ✅Access to a newer frame-generation stack with FSR Frame Generation (2023).
- ✅Less risky long-term buy than FirePro W4300: it remains the more sensible modern option while FirePro W4300 is already obsolete for modern gaming.
- ✅Measures 155mm instead of 171mm, a 16mm shorter card that is more SFF-friendly.
Trade-offs
- ❌No equivalent frame-generation stack like FSR Frame Generation (2023).
- ❌Very weak future-proofing: 2015-era hardware with 4 GB of VRAM is already obsolete for modern gaming and is hard to recommend today.
- ❌379.7% HIGHER MSRP$379 MSRPvs$79 MSRP
- ❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 7.2 vs 33.8 G3D/$ ($379 MSRP vs $79 MSRP).
- ❌10.3% longer card at 171mm vs 155mm.
Trade-offs
- ❌Very weak future-proofing: 2017-era hardware with 4 GB of VRAM is already obsolete for modern gaming and is hard to recommend today.
Quick Answers
So, is FirePro W4300 better than Radeon RX 550?
Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?
Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper card?
When does Radeon RX 550 make more sense than FirePro W4300?
Games Benchmarks
Real-world benchmarks and performance projections based on comprehensive hardware analysis and comparative metrics. Values represent expected performance on High/Ultra settings at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. Modeled using a Ryzen 7 9800X3D reference profile to minimize specific CPU bottlenecks.
Note: Performance behavior can vary per game. Specific architectures may perform better or worse depending on game engine optimizations and API implementation.

Path of Exile 2
| Preset | FirePro W4300 | Radeon RX 550 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 51 FPS | 40 FPS |
| medium | 33 FPS | 26 FPS |
| high | 24 FPS | 19 FPS |
| ultra | 12 FPS | 10 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 35 FPS | 28 FPS |
| medium | 22 FPS | 17 FPS |
| high | 12 FPS | 9 FPS |
| ultra | 6 FPS | 5 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 11 FPS | 10 FPS |
| medium | 7 FPS | 6 FPS |
| high | 4 FPS | 4 FPS |
| ultra | 3 FPS | 3 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | FirePro W4300 | Radeon RX 550 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 58 FPS | 76 FPS |
| medium | 31 FPS | 47 FPS |
| high | 22 FPS | 35 FPS |
| ultra | 15 FPS | 21 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 28 FPS | 23 FPS |
| medium | 16 FPS | 17 FPS |
| high | 10 FPS | 12 FPS |
| ultra | 7 FPS | 8 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 8 FPS | 6 FPS |
| medium | 5 FPS | 4 FPS |
| high | 4 FPS | 4 FPS |
| ultra | 3 FPS | 2 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | FirePro W4300 | Radeon RX 550 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 122 FPS | 120 FPS |
| medium | 98 FPS | 96 FPS |
| high | 82 FPS | 80 FPS |
| ultra | 61 FPS | 60 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 92 FPS | 90 FPS |
| medium | 73 FPS | 72 FPS |
| high | 61 FPS | 60 FPS |
| ultra | 46 FPS | 45 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 61 FPS | 60 FPS |
| medium | 49 FPS | 48 FPS |
| high | 41 FPS | 40 FPS |
| ultra | 31 FPS | 30 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | FirePro W4300 | Radeon RX 550 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 122 FPS | 120 FPS |
| medium | 98 FPS | 96 FPS |
| high | 82 FPS | 80 FPS |
| ultra | 61 FPS | 60 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 79 FPS | 90 FPS |
| medium | 62 FPS | 72 FPS |
| high | 51 FPS | 60 FPS |
| ultra | 34 FPS | 45 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 43 FPS | 54 FPS |
| medium | 32 FPS | 41 FPS |
| high | 26 FPS | 32 FPS |
| ultra | 17 FPS | 22 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of FirePro W4300 and Radeon RX 550

FirePro W4300
FirePro W4300
The FirePro W4300 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in December 1 2015. It features the GCN 2.0 architecture. The core clock speed is 930 MHz. It has 768 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 50W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 2,719 points.

Radeon RX 550
Radeon RX 550
The Radeon RX 550 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in April 20 2017. It features the GCN 4.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 1100 MHz to 1183 MHz. It has 512 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 50W. Manufactured using 14 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 2,674 points. Launch price was $79.
Graphics Performance
The FirePro W4300 scores 2,719 and the Radeon RX 550 reaches 2,674 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 1.7% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The FirePro W4300 is built on GCN 2.0 while the Radeon RX 550 uses GCN 4.0, both on 28 nm vs 14 nm. Shader units: 768 (FirePro W4300) vs 512 (Radeon RX 550). Raw compute: 1.428 TFLOPS (FirePro W4300) vs 1.211 TFLOPS (Radeon RX 550).
| Feature | FirePro W4300 | Radeon RX 550 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 2,719+2% | 2,674 |
| Architecture | GCN 2.0 | GCN 4.0 |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Shading Units | 768+50% | 512 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 1.428 TFLOPS+18% | 1.211 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 16 |
| TMUs | 48+50% | 32 |
| L1 Cache | 192 KB+50% | 128 KB |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 512 KB+100% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
A critical advantage for the Radeon RX 550 is support for FSR Frame Generation. This allows it to generate entire frames using AI/Algorithms, essentially doubling the frame rate in CPU-bound scenarios or heavy ray-tracing titles. The FirePro W4300 lacks specific hardware/driver support for this native frame generation tier.
| Feature | FirePro W4300 | Radeon RX 550 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | Upscaling support | FSR Upscaling / FSR 4 |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | FSR Frame Generation |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | AMD Anti-Lag |
Video Memory (VRAM)
Both cards feature 4 GB of GDDR5. Bus width: 64-bit vs 128-bit. L2 Cache: 256 KB (FirePro W4300) vs 512 KB (Radeon RX 550) — the Radeon RX 550 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | FirePro W4300 | Radeon RX 550 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 128-bit+100% |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 512 KB+100% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (FirePro W4300) vs 12_0 (Radeon RX 550). Maximum simultaneous displays: 6 vs 3.
| Feature | FirePro W4300 | Radeon RX 550 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 | 12_0 |
| Max Displays | 6+100% | 3 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: VCE 2.0 (FirePro W4300) vs VCE 3.4 (Radeon RX 550). Decoder: UVD 4.2 vs UVD 6.3. Supported codecs: H.264,MPEG-2,VC-1 (FirePro W4300) vs H.264,H.265 (Radeon RX 550).
| Feature | FirePro W4300 | Radeon RX 550 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | VCE 2.0 | VCE 3.4 |
| Decoder | UVD 4.2 | UVD 6.3 |
| Codecs | H.264,MPEG-2,VC-1 | H.264,H.265 |
Power & Dimensions
The FirePro W4300 draws 50W versus the Radeon RX 550's 50W — a 0% difference. The Radeon RX 550 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (FirePro W4300) vs 300W (Radeon RX 550). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs None. Card length: 171mm vs 155mm, occupying 1 vs 2 slots.
| Feature | FirePro W4300 | Radeon RX 550 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 50W | 50W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 300W-14% |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | None |
| Length | 171mm | 155mm |
| Height | 69mm | — |
| Slots | 1-50% | 2 |
| Temp (Load) | 71°C | — |
| Perf/Watt | 54.4+2% | 53.5 |
Value Analysis
The FirePro W4300 launched at $379 MSRP, while the Radeon RX 550 launched at $79. The Radeon RX 550 costs 79.2% less ($300 savings) on MSRP. Performance per dollar on MSRP (G3D Mark / MSRP): 7.2 (FirePro W4300) vs 33.8 (Radeon RX 550) — the Radeon RX 550 offers 369.4% better value. The Radeon RX 550 is the newer GPU (2017 vs 2015).
| Feature | FirePro W4300 | Radeon RX 550 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $379 | $79-79% |
| Performance per Dollar | 7.2 | 33.8+369% |
| Codename | Bonaire | Lexa |
| Release | December 1 2015 | April 20 2017 |
| Ranking | #590 | #617 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.













