AMD FirePro M6100 vs AMD FirePro W4300 Comparison

FAQ

Q: How do the AMD FirePro M6100 and AMD FirePro W4300 compare in the recorded Geekbench OpenCL benchmark?

A: The AMD FirePro M6100 scores 13,354, while the AMD FirePro W4300 scores 11,225. The M6100 wins the head-to-head test by 19%.

Q: What is the percentile ranking of each card in the database?

A: The AMD FirePro M6100 sits at the 54th percentile of all GPUs, while the AMD FirePro W4300 sits at the 50th percentile. This places the M6100 slightly higher in the overall distribution of recorded scores.

Q: Are the architecture and process node the same for both cards?

A: Yes, both the AMD FirePro M6100 and the AMD FirePro W4300 use the GCN 2.0 architecture, are built on a 28 nm process at TSMC, and each contains 2,080 million transistors on a 160 mm² die.

Q: Do the two cards have the same memory bandwidth?

A: Yes, both cards have a 128-bit bus and 96.00 GB/s of bandwidth, using GDDR5 memory at 1500 MHz with 6 Gbps effective speed. The difference is capacity: the M6100 has 2 GB, while the W4300 has 4 GB.

Q: Which card has more shading units and texture mapping units?

A: The AMD FirePro M6100 has 896 shading units and 56 texture mapping units. The AMD FirePro W4300 has 768 shading units and 48 texture mapping units. Both have 16 ROPs.

Q: What is the nearest rival performance for each card?

A: The M6100's closest rival is the AMD Radeon RX 5500M, with an average score of 13,356 and a delta of 0%. The W4300's closest rival is the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200, with an average score of 11,228 and a delta of 0%.

Architecture Differences

Both the AMD FirePro M6100 and the AMD FirePro W4300 belong to the same GCN 2.0 architecture generation, but they are built on different chips. The M6100 uses the Emerald chip, while the W4300 uses the Bonaire chip. Despite this difference, both are fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process, each containing 2,080 million transistors on a 160 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 13.0M / mm² for both.

The fundamental architectural difference shows up in the compute resource counts. The M6100 has 896 shading units, 56 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The W4300 has fewer of these resources: 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. This means the M6100 has a higher raw compute configuration, which is reflected in the recorded rates. The M6100 achieves a pixel rate of 17.60 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 61.60 GTexel/s, while the W4300 achieves 14.88 GPixel/s and 44.64 GTexel/s.

Floating point performance also separates the two. The M6100 delivers 1.971 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, whereas the W4300 delivers 1,428.5 GFLOPS. Neither card has dedicated RT cores or tensor cores, and neither lists FP16 performance in the database.

The memory architecture is similar. Both use GDDR5 with a 128-bit bus and 96.00 GB/s bandwidth, running at 1500 MHz with 6 Gbps effective speed. The key difference in memory is capacity: the M6100 comes with 2 GB, while the W4300 comes with 4 GB.

The form factor and interface also differ. The M6100 is an MXM Module using the MXM-B (3.0) bus interface, designed for portable devices with display outputs listed as "Portable Device Dependent." The W4300 is a Single-slot card using PCIe 3.0 x16, with 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs. The W4300 has explicit dimensions of 171 mm in length and 69 mm in height. The M6100 does not have dimensions recorded.

Power characteristics differ as well. The M6100 has no TDP listed in the database. The W4300 has a recorded TDP of 50 W, a suggested PSU of 250 W, and no power connectors. Both are end-of-life products.

The API support is identical: DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD FirePro M6100 wins on raw compute throughput. With 896 shading units and 56 TMUs, it produces a texture rate of 61.60 GTexel/s and a pixel rate of 17.60 GPixel/s. Its FP32 output of 1.971 TFLOPS is substantially higher than the W4300's 1,428.5 GFLOPS. In the recorded Geekbench OpenCL benchmark, the M6100 scores 13,354 against the W4300's 11,225, a 19% advantage. This makes the M6100 the better option for workloads that stress compute and texture processing.

The AMD FirePro W4300 wins on memory capacity. It has 4 GB of GDDR5, double the M6100's 2 GB, while maintaining the same 128-bit bus and 96.00 GB/s bandwidth. For tasks that require larger working sets, such as larger textures or data buffers that fit in VRAM, the W4300 has the advantage. It also has a recorded TDP of 50 W and a desktop form factor with 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, making it a more straightforward fit for a workstation chassis.

The W4300 also has a lower recorded power envelope, with a TDP of 50 W, while the M6100 has no TDP listed. The W4300's single-slot design and PCIe 3.0 x16 interface make it easier to install in a standard desktop workstation, whereas the M6100's MXM module form factor is tied to portable device integration.

The percentile data reinforces the split. The M6100 ranks at the 54th percentile of all GPUs, while the W4300 ranks at the 50th percentile. The M6100 is the stronger performer overall, but the W4300 offers more memory.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in several key specification fields.

• Chip: The M6100 uses the Emerald chip, the W4300 uses the Bonaire chip.
• Generation: The M6100 is listed under "FirePro Mobile (Mx100)", the W4300 under "FirePro GCN (Wx300)".
• Shading Units: The M6100 has 896, the W4300 has 768.
• TMUs: The M6100 has 56, the W4300 has 48.
• Pixel Rate: The M6100 is 17.60 GPixel/s, the W4300 is 14.88 GPixel/s.
• Texture Rate: The M6100 is 61.60 GTexel/s, the W4300 is 44.64 GTexel/s.
• FP32: The M6100 is 1.971 TFLOPS, the W4300 is 1,428.5 GFLOPS.
• Memory Size: The M6100 has 2 GB, the W4300 has 4 GB.
• TDP: The M6100 has no TDP listed, the W4300 has 50 W.
• Slot Width: The M6100 is an MXM Module, the W4300 is Single-slot.
• Bus Interface: The M6100 uses MXM-B (3.0), the W4300 uses PCIe 3.0 x16.
• Display Outputs: The M6100 is "Portable Device Dependent", the W4300 has 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2.
• Dimensions: The M6100 has no length or height recorded, the W4300 is 171 mm long and 69 mm high.
• Suggested PSU: The M6100 has none listed, the W4300 lists 250 W.
• Release Date: The M6100 was released on 2014-05-26, the W4300 on 2015-11-30.
• Predecessor: The M6100's predecessor is "FirePro Mobility", the W4300's is "FirePro Terascale".
• Successor: The M6100's successor is "Radeon Pro Mobile", the W4300's is "Radeon Pro GCN".

Fields that are identical include architecture (GCN 2.0), process node (28 nm), foundry (TSMC), transistors (2,080 million), die size (160 mm²), transistor density (13.0M / mm²), memory type (GDDR5), memory bus width (128 bit), memory bandwidth (96.00 GB/s), memory clock (1500 MHz, 6 Gbps effective), ROPs (16), API support (DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.2.170), and production status (End-of-life).

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains one head-to-head benchmark between the AMD FirePro M6100 and the AMD FirePro W4300: Geekbench OpenCL. The M6100 scores 13,354, and the W4300 scores 11,225. The winner is the AMD FirePro M6100, with a delta of 19%. This is the only recorded head-to-head comparison, and the M6100 wins it.

Looking at the nearest rivals provides additional context. The M6100's closest rival, the AMD Radeon RX 5500M, scores 13,356, just 2 points higher, with a delta of 0%. The AMD Radeon HD 8950M scores 13,376, which is 0.2% higher than the M6100. The AMD Radeon Pro 555X scores 13,321, which is 0.3% lower, and the AMD Radeon Pro 555 scores 13,407, which is 0.4% higher. This cluster indicates the M6100 performs in a tight band around the 13,300 to 13,400 range, and its 13,354 score places it near the center of that group.

The W4300's nearest rivals tell a similar story. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 scores 11,228, essentially identical with a delta of 0%. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M scores 11,261, 0.3% higher. The NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q scores 11,088, 1.2% lower, and the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000D Blackwell Max-Q also scores 11,088, 1.2% lower. The W4300's score of 11,225 sits in the middle of this group.

The 19% delta between the M6100 and W4300 is the largest gap in the head-to-head results. By comparison, the closest rivals for each card are within 1.2% of their respective scores. This means the difference between the two cards in this test is much larger than the typical variation among their nearest competitors. The M6100's compute advantage, driven by its higher shading unit count and TMU count, translates directly into a substantial OpenCL performance lead.

The M6100 also holds the advantage in derived rates. Its pixel rate of 17.60 GPixel/s is 18% higher than the W4300's 14.88 GPixel/s. Its texture rate of 61.60 GTexel/s is 38% higher than the W4300's 44.64 GTexel/s. Its FP32 compute of 1.971 TFLOPS is 38% higher than the W4300's 1,428.5 GFLOPS. These metrics all point in the same direction: the M6100 is the more capable compute device.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear split between the two cards. The AMD FirePro M6100 is the stronger performer in compute-oriented tasks. It wins the only recorded head-to-head benchmark by 19%, scores 13,354 against 11,225, and holds higher pixel rate, texture rate, and FP32 figures. It also ranks at the 54th percentile of all GPUs, four points above the W4300's 50th percentile. Users who prioritize raw OpenCL throughput, texture processing, or pixel fill should choose the M6100.

The AMD FirePro W4300 is the better choice when memory capacity matters. It doubles the VRAM to 4 GB, which can be decisive for workloads with larger data sets that must reside on the GPU. It also has a recorded TDP of 50 W, a single-slot design with 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, and a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, making it a practical drop-in option for a desktop workstation. Its nearest rival, the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200, scores 11,228, which is effectively identical, confirming the W4300 sits at a solid performance level for its class.

There is no scenario in the recorded data where the W4300 beats the M6100 in a benchmark. The M6100 wins the single head-to-head test, and it leads in every compute rate metric. The W4300's advantages are capacity and form factor, not speed. For a mobile MXM-based system, the M6100 is the only one of the two that fits, as the W4300 is a desktop card. For a desktop system with a free PCIe slot, the W4300 offers more memory and a defined power envelope.

The verdict is straightforward: pick the AMD FirePro M6100 for maximum compute performance, and pick the AMD FirePro W4300 when 4 GB of VRAM and a desktop-oriented form factor are the priority.