AMD FirePro M5100 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670MX Comparison

The AMD FirePro M5100 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670MX are both end-of-life mobile graphics solutions from the 28 nm era, but they target different priorities. The FirePro M5100, based on GCN 1.0 architecture, is positioned as a professional mobile workstation part, while the GTX 670MX, using Kepler architecture, belongs to NVIDIA’s consumer GeForce 600M lineup. The recorded database data includes a single OpenCL benchmark for the FirePro M5100 and both OpenCL and Vulkan results for the GTX 670MX, which allows a direct comparison of compute performance. The FirePro M5100 scores 6830 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the GTX 670MX scores 6125 in the same test, giving the AMD part an 11.5% lead. The GTX 670MX also has a separate Vulkan score of 5316, but no Vulkan result exists for the FirePro M5100 in the database, so cross-API comparison is limited. Both chips are fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process, but they diverge significantly in transistor count, die size, memory configuration, and feature support. The following sections break down the data point by point.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD FirePro M5100 has an average benchmark score of 6830, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670MX has an average benchmark score of 5721. The FirePro M5100 also ranks at the 38th percentile among all GPUs, whereas the GTX 670MX sits at the 33rd percentile.

Q: How do the two compare in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The FirePro M5100 scores 6830, and the GTX 670MX scores 6125. The FirePro M5100 wins this head-to-head test with an 11.5% delta, which is the only benchmark where both have recorded scores.

Q: What is the transistor count difference between the two chips?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670MX uses the GK104 chip with 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die. The AMD FirePro M5100 uses the Venus chip with 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die. The GTX 670MX has more than double the transistor count and a larger physical die.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same DirectX version?

A: No. The FirePro M5100 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), while the GTX 670MX supports DirectX 12 (11_0). Both support OpenGL 4.6, but the GTX 670MX has a newer Vulkan version (1.2.175) compared to the FirePro M5100’s Vulkan 1.2.170.

Q: What memory configurations are recorded for each card?

A: The FirePro M5100 has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, with 72.00 GB/s bandwidth. The GTX 670MX has 3 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 192-bit bus, with 67.20 GB/s bandwidth. The GTX 670MX offers more capacity but slightly lower bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has the higher texture fill rate?

A: The GTX 670MX achieves 48.08 GTexel/s, while the FirePro M5100 achieves 31.00 GTexel/s. The GTX 670MX leads by a wide margin in texture processing throughput.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data shows a clear split between compute and raw graphics throughput. In the only direct head-to-head test, Geekbench OpenCL, the AMD FirePro M5100 wins with a score of 6830 versus 6125 for the GTX 670MX. That 11.5% advantage indicates the FirePro M5100 is stronger in general-purpose compute workloads that exercise OpenCL acceleration. The FirePro M5100 also holds a higher percentile ranking (38th versus 33rd) and a higher average benchmark score (6830 versus 5721), which reflects its ability to outscore the GTX 670MX in the recorded data.

The GTX 670MX, however, wins in several specification-driven categories that are not directly captured by the OpenCL benchmark. Its texture rate is 48.08 GTexel/s, which is 55% higher than the FirePro M5100’s 31.00 GTexel/s. That suggests an advantage in texture-heavy rendering workloads, such as traditional 3D scene drawing where texture sampling is a bottleneck. The GTX 670MX also has more shading units (960 versus 640), more texture mapping units (80 versus 40), and more raster output units (24 versus 16). These counts point to a design that prioritizes parallel pixel and texture processing. The GTX 670MX’s higher FP32 throughput of 1,153.9 GFLOPS versus 992.0 GFLOPS for the FirePro M5100 further reinforces that the NVIDIA part is built for raw shader math.

The memory side is also split. The GTX 670MX has 3 GB of GDDR5, which is 50% more capacity than the FirePro M5100’s 2 GB. For workloads that need large framebuffers or datasets, the GTX 670MX has an edge. The FirePro M5100 counters with a narrower but faster bus: 72.00 GB/s bandwidth versus 67.20 GB/s, a 7% advantage in memory bandwidth. So, the FirePro M5100 wins on memory bandwidth efficiency, while the GTX 670MX wins on capacity.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural lineages. The AMD FirePro M5100 is built on GCN 1.0, with the chip codenamed Venus. GCN 1.0 was AMD’s first unified shader architecture designed for compute-heavy workloads, and the FirePro M5100’s 640 shading units reflect that design. The GTX 670MX uses NVIDIA’s Kepler architecture, with the GK104 chip. Kepler introduced a different scheduling model, and the GTX 670MX packs 960 shading units, which is 50% more than the FirePro M5100.

The die sizes diverge sharply. The GTX 670MX’s GK104 die measures 294 mm² and contains 3,540 million transistors, while the FirePro M5100’s Venus die measures 123 mm² with 1,500 million transistors. The transistor density is nearly identical (12.0M / mm² for NVIDIA, 12.2M / mm² for AMD), but the GTX 670MX simply has a much larger chip. This explains the higher shading unit, TMU, and ROP counts on the NVIDIA side.

Both chips are made by TSMC on a 28 nm process, but they implement different API levels. The FirePro M5100 supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170, while the GTX 670MX supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. The AMD part has a slightly higher DirectX feature level, while the NVIDIA part has a slightly newer Vulkan version. OpenGL support is identical at 4.6 for both.

The bus interface also differs. The FirePro M5100 uses MXM-A (3.0), which is a mobile module standard, while the GTX 670MX uses PCIe 3.0 x16. The FirePro M5100’s slot width is listed as MXM Module, and its display outputs are portable device dependent. The GTX 670MX also has portable device dependent outputs, but it lacks a slot width entry. The FirePro M5100 does not have a recorded TDP, while the GTX 670MX has a TDP of 75 W and no power connectors.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every measured specification. The FirePro M5100 has a base clock of 725 MHz and a boost clock of 775 MHz, while the GTX 670MX has a flat 601 MHz clock for both base and boost. The AMD chip runs at a higher clock speed, which helps close the gap in compute despite fewer shading units. The FirePro M5100’s memory clock is 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective), while the GTX 670MX’s memory clock is 700 MHz (2.8 Gbps effective). The FirePro M5100’s faster memory clock contributes to its higher bandwidth.

Memory configuration: 2 GB GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus for the FirePro M5100, versus 3 GB GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus for the GTX 670MX. The FirePro M5100 has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The GTX 670MX has 960 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 24 ROPs. Pixel rates are close: 12.40 GPixel/s for the FirePro M5100 versus 12.02 GPixel/s for the GTX 670MX, a negligible difference. Texture rates are not close: 31.00 GTexel/s versus 48.08 GTexel/s, a 55% gap. FP32 performance favors the GTX 670MX at 1,153.9 GFLOPS versus 992.0 GFLOPS.

The GTX 670MX has a TDP of 75 W, while the FirePro M5100 has no TDP recorded. The FirePro M5100 uses an MXM-A (3.0) interface, while the GTX 670MX uses PCIe 3.0 x16. The GTX 670MX lists no power connectors, while the FirePro M5100 lists none as well. The FirePro M5100 was released on 2013-10-15, and the GTX 670MX was released on 2012-09-30. The FirePro M5100’s predecessor is FirePro Mobility, and its successor is Radeon Pro Mobile. The GTX 670MX’s predecessor is GeForce 500M, and its successor is GeForce 700M. Neither has a launch MSRP in the database.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains one direct head-to-head benchmark: Geekbench OpenCL. The AMD FirePro M5100 scores 6830, and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670MX scores 6125. The FirePro M5100 wins with an 11.5% delta. This is a meaningful margin in compute tasks. The FirePro M5100’s average benchmark score of 6830 is also higher than the GTX 670MX’s average of 5721, a gap of roughly 19%. The GTX 670MX’s average is dragged down by its Vulkan score of 5316, which is lower than its OpenCL score of 6125. The FirePro M5100 has no recorded Vulkan benchmark, so its average is based solely on the OpenCL result.

Looking at the nearest rivals in the database provides context. The FirePro M5100 is 1% slower than the AMD Radeon R7 M370 (6764), 1.7% slower than the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M (6946), 2% faster than the NVIDIA GeForce GT 1010 (6698), and 2.1% slower than the AMD Radeon R5 M240 (6975). Its position is tightly clustered around these four GPUs, with deltas ranging from -2.1% to +2%. The GTX 670MX, by contrast, sits near the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 (5712, 0.2% faster), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 550 Ti (5731, 0.2% slower), the AMD Radeon HD 8790M (5691, 0.5% faster), and the NVIDIA Quadro M500M (5604, 2.1% faster). The GTX 670MX’s closest rivals are all within a 2.1% delta, but its absolute scores are lower than the FirePro M5100’s rivals.

The biggest win for the FirePro M5100 is the OpenCL benchmark itself, where it beats the GTX 670MX by 705 points. The biggest win for the GTX 670MX is in texture rate, where 48.08 GTexel/s beats 31.00 GTexel/s by 17.08 GTexel/s, a 55% advantage. The GTX 670MX also leads in FP32 (1,153.9 versus 992.0 GFLOPS), shading units (960 versus 640), TMUs (80 versus 40), ROPs (24 versus 16), and memory capacity (3 GB versus 2 GB). The FirePro M5100 leads in memory bandwidth (72.00 versus 67.20 GB/s), pixel rate (12.40 versus 12.02 GPixel/s), base clock (725 versus 601 MHz), and boost clock (775 versus 601 MHz).

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split. The AMD FirePro M5100 is the better choice for compute-oriented tasks that rely on OpenCL. Its 6830 score in Geekbench OpenCL beats the GTX 670MX’s 6125 by 11.5%, and its average benchmark score of 6830 is significantly higher than the GTX 670MX’s 5721. The FirePro M5100 also has a higher percentile ranking (38th versus 33rd), which indicates it sits above more of the GPU population in the database. Users running OpenCL workloads, such as professional compute or certain rendering pipelines, should favor the FirePro M5100 based on the recorded results.

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670MX is the better choice for raw graphics throughput. Its texture rate of 48.08 GTexel/s is 55% higher than the FirePro M5100’s 31.00 GTexel/s, and its FP32 performance of 1,153.9 GFLOPS exceeds the FirePro M5100’s 992.0 GFLOPS. The GTX 670MX also has more shading units, TMUs, ROPs, and 3 GB of memory versus 2 GB. For 3D rendering workloads that stress texture sampling and parallel pixel processing, the GTX 670MX has the specification advantage.

The GTX 670MX has a recorded TDP of 75 W, while the FirePro M5100 has no TDP data, so power comparisons cannot be made from the database. The FirePro M5100 uses an MXM-A (3.0) interface, while the GTX 670MX uses PCIe 3.0 x16, which may affect compatibility in different systems. The FirePro M5100 supports DirectX 12 (11_1) versus the GTX 670MX’s DirectX 12 (11_0), a minor API advantage for AMD. The GTX 670MX has a newer Vulkan version (1.2.175 versus 1.2.170).

In summary, the FirePro M5100 wins the only head-to-head benchmark and has the higher average score, making it the stronger compute performer. The GTX 670MX wins on texture rate, FP32, shading unit count, and memory capacity, making it the stronger graphics throughput performer. The choice depends on whether the workload is OpenCL compute or texture-heavy rendering. The database records only one shared benchmark, so conclusions beyond OpenCL are drawn from specification differences, not direct tests.