AMD FirePro M5100 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M and AMD FirePro M5100 are both end-of-life mobile workstation and gaming GPUs from the 28nm era, but they target very different corners of the laptop market. The data shows a clear overall winner in raw compute, yet the FirePro M5100 holds its own in specific professional contexts. Based on the single head-to-head benchmark available, the GTX 680M leads decisively, but the architectural and specification differences reveal why each card existed. This analysis breaks down the benchmark results, use-case advantages, and key differences to help you decide which of these legacy parts fits your needs.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison in the data is the Geekbench OpenCL test, which measures general-purpose compute performance. Here, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M scores 9,230 against the AMD FirePro M5100’s 6,830. That is a 35.1% advantage for the NVIDIA part, a substantial gap that reflects the fundamental hardware disparity between the two. The GTX 680M’s average benchmark score across all tests is 7,023, while the FirePro M5100 sits at 6,830. This puts the AMD card at roughly 97.3% of the NVIDIA card’s average performance, but the OpenCL result shows the NVIDIA GPU pulls much further ahead in compute-heavy workloads.

Looking at the nearest rivals for each card puts these scores in perspective. The GTX 680M’s 7,023 average score is nearly identical to the NVIDIA T600 (7,035, a -0.2% delta) and slightly ahead of the AMD Radeon R5 M240 (6,975, a +0.7% delta). It also trails the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 (7,157) by only 1.9%. The FirePro M5100’s 6,830 average is just behind the AMD Radeon R7 M370 (6,764, a +1% delta) and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 1010 (6,698, a +2% delta), but it falls short of the GeForce GTX 675M (6,946, a -1.7% delta) and the Radeon R5 M240 (6,975, a -2.1% delta). These figures suggest the GTX 680M punches above its class, landing close to desktop-class GTX 970 territory in average score, while the FirePro M5100 sits in a lower performance tier alongside entry-level discrete GPUs.

In the specific OpenCL test, the 35.1% delta is the single biggest win for either card. No other benchmark results are available for direct comparison, so the GTX 680M takes the sole victory in this head-to-head. The data shows no test where the FirePro M5100 wins; the wins column reads 1 for NVIDIA and 0 for AMD. This makes the benchmark narrative straightforward: the GTX 680M is the faster card in raw compute, and the gap is not marginal.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 680M wins decisively in raw compute performance, as shown by the OpenCL benchmark. Its 35.1% lead over the FirePro M5100 means it is better suited for any workload that leverages general-purpose GPU compute — think OpenCL-accelerated rendering, physics simulations, or data-parallel tasks. Its higher average benchmark score (7,023 vs 6,830) also indicates better overall performance across a wider range of applications. The GTX 680M’s nearest rivals include desktop-class cards like the GTX 970, which suggests it was a high-performance part in its day, capable of handling demanding gaming and professional tasks.

The FirePro M5100, despite losing the compute benchmark, has advantages that don’t show up in raw scores. Its architecture is GCN 1.0, which is designed for compute efficiency, but more importantly, it belongs to the FirePro mobile workstation line. This means it was built for certified professional applications — CAD, DCC, and engineering software — where driver stability and ISV certifications matter more than raw TFLOPS. The data shows its average score (6,830) is close to the GTX 680M’s nearest rival, the Radeon R5 M240 (6,975), but the FirePro’s value lies in its professional feature set, not raw speed. It also has a slightly higher boost clock (775 MHz vs 758 MHz) and a smaller die (123 mm² vs 294 mm²), which could translate to lower power draw in practice, though TDP is not listed for the FirePro.

For gaming, the GTX 680M is the obvious pick. Its 1344 shading units and 115.2 GB/s memory bandwidth dwarf the FirePro’s 640 shading units and 72.00 GB/s, making it far more capable for pixel-pushing workloads. The FirePro M5100, with only 16 ROPs and 31.00 GTexel/s texture rate, would struggle with modern game engines. The data supports this: the GTX 680M’s OpenCL score is 35.1% higher, and that gap likely widens in gaming-specific scenarios where memory bandwidth and texture throughput dominate.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M has an average benchmark score of 7,023, which is 2.8% higher than the AMD FirePro M5100’s 6,830.

Q: How much faster is the GTX 680M in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The GTX 680M scores 9,230 versus the FirePro M5100’s 6,830, giving NVIDIA a 35.1% lead in that specific test.

Q: Do both cards support DirectX 12?

A: Yes, but with different feature levels. The GTX 680M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), while the FirePro M5100 supports DirectX 12 (11_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan (GTX 680M: 1.2.175, FirePro M5100: 1.2.170).

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The GTX 680M has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 115.2 GB/s bandwidth. The FirePro M5100 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 72.00 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The GTX 680M has 1344 shading units, compared to the FirePro M5100’s 640. The NVIDIA card also has more TMUs (112 vs 40) and ROPs (32 vs 16).

Q: Are these GPUs still in production?

A: No, both are marked as end-of-life. The GTX 680M was released on 2012-06-03 and the FirePro M5100 on 2013-10-15.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ significantly in nearly every measured specification. The GTX 680M is built on the GK104 chip with a 294 mm² die size and 3,540 million transistors, while the FirePro M5100 uses the Venus chip with a 123 mm² die and 1,500 million transistors. Transistor density is nearly identical (12.0M / mm² vs 12.2M / mm²), but the NVIDIA chip packs far more hardware into a larger area.

Clock speeds are close: the GTX 680M runs at 719 MHz base and 758 MHz boost, while the FirePro M5100 runs at 725 MHz base and 775 MHz boost. The AMD card actually has slightly higher clocks, but the NVIDIA card’s hardware advantage overwhelms this. Memory is a major differentiator — the GTX 680M has 4 GB GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 115.2 GB/s bandwidth, while the FirePro M5100 has 2 GB GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 72.00 GB/s bandwidth. The GTX 680M also has a higher effective memory clock (3.6 Gbps vs 4.5 Gbps for the FirePro, though the latter’s higher per-pin rate doesn’t compensate for the narrower bus).

Compute resources are heavily skewed toward NVIDIA: 1344 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 32 ROPs versus 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This translates to pixel rates of 21.22 GPixel/s vs 12.40 GPixel/s, texture rates of 84.90 GTexel/s vs 31.00 GTexel/s, and FP32 throughput of 2.038 TFLOPS vs 992.0 GFLOPS. The GTX 680M is also rated at 100 W TDP, while the FirePro M5100 has no TDP listed.

The bus interfaces differ: the GTX 680M uses MXM-B (3.0) while the FirePro M5100 uses MXM-A (3.0). Both are MXM Module form factors and have portable-device-dependent display outputs. The GTX 680M has no power connectors listed, while the FirePro M5100’s power connector field is null.

Architecture Differences

The GTX 680M is based on NVIDIA’s Kepler architecture, while the FirePro M5100 uses AMD’s GCN 1.0. Both are fabricated on 28 nm at TSMC, but the design philosophies diverge sharply. Kepler was optimized for gaming efficiency, with a focus on high shader counts and memory bandwidth. This is evident in the GTX 680M’s 1344 shading units and 115.2 GB/s bandwidth, which are roughly double the FirePro’s figures.

GCN 1.0, by contrast, was designed with compute workloads in mind, but the FirePro M5100’s smaller implementation limits its potential. The GTX 680M has 3,540 million transistors versus 1,500 million for the FirePro, a 2.36x difference that shows in the die size (294 mm² vs 123 mm²). Neither card has ray tracing or tensor cores, which is expected for GPUs from this era.

The architectural difference also affects the feature sets. The GTX 680M supports DirectX 12 (11_0) while the FirePro M5100 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), giving AMD a slight edge in API feature level. However, the NVIDIA card has a newer Vulkan version (1.2.175 vs 1.2.170). Both support OpenGL 4.6. The FirePro’s advantage lies in its professional positioning — the GCN architecture was designed to handle compute and graphics workloads in certified professional applications, which is why it was sold as a workstation part despite lower raw specs.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M is the faster GPU by a wide margin. Its 35.1% lead in Geekbench OpenCL and 2.8% higher average score make it the better choice for anyone prioritizing raw performance, whether for gaming or compute-heavy tasks. The GTX 680M’s 2.038 TFLOPS FP32 throughput, 115.2 GB/s memory bandwidth, and 1344 shading units give it a massive hardware advantage that no architectural optimization can overcome. Its average score places it near the NVIDIA T600 and GTX 970, indicating it competes with much newer hardware.

However, the AMD FirePro M5100 is not without merit. Its higher boost clock (775 MHz vs 758 MHz) and smaller die size suggest better power efficiency, though TDP is not listed. Its DirectX 12 (11_1) support is slightly newer, and its GCN 1.0 architecture was designed for professional compute workloads. For users running certified workstation applications where driver stability is critical, the FirePro’s professional lineage may be worth the performance penalty. But for any general-purpose task — gaming, rendering, or compute — the GTX 680M is the clear winner. The benchmark data shows no scenario where the FirePro M5100 outperforms the GTX 680M. If you have the choice between these two legacy parts, take the NVIDIA card unless you specifically need the FirePro’s professional software certifications, which are not quantified in this data.