AMD FirePro M6100 vs AMD FirePro W5100 Comparison

The AMD FirePro M6100 and AMD FirePro W5100 are both professional-grade GPUs built on the same GCN 2.0 architecture and 28 nm process, but they target different physical environments: one is a mobile MXM module, the other a desktop single-slot card. The data shows a clear performance hierarchy, with the M6100 taking the sole head-to-head benchmark win, yet the W5100 counters with double the memory capacity and a full suite of fixed display outputs. The choice between them hinges on whether raw compute throughput or system integration flexibility matters more for your specific workstation setup.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL compute workloads?

A: The AMD FirePro M6100 wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 13354, which is 12.3% higher than the FirePro W5100’s score of 11888. This makes the M6100 the stronger choice for compute-heavy tasks that rely on OpenCL acceleration.

Q: How do these two cards compare in memory capacity?

A: The FirePro W5100 has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory, while the FirePro M6100 has only 2 GB. Both use a 128-bit bus and deliver identical 96.00 GB/s bandwidth, so the W5100’s advantage is purely capacity, not speed.

Q: Are there any benchmark results where the W5100 wins?

A: Yes. The W5100 has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 13805, a test that the M6100 has no recorded result for. Additionally, the W5100’s average benchmark score across all tests is 12847, while the M6100’s average is 13354, but the W5100 has two benchmarks listed versus one for the M6100.

Q: What is the physical form factor difference between the two?

A: The M6100 is an MXM Module with a bus interface of MXM-B (3.0), designed for laptops or mobile workstations. The W5100 is a Single-slot desktop card with a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, measuring 173 mm in length and 111 mm in height.

Q: Which card has a higher TDP rating?

A: Only the W5100 has a listed TDP of 50 W. The M6100 has no TDP value provided in the data. The W5100 also has a suggested PSU of 250 W, while the M6100 has no such specification.

Q: Do they support the same graphics APIs?

A: Yes, both cards support DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. There are no differences in the supported API versions between the two.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD FirePro M6100 wins decisively in raw compute performance. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 13354 eclipses the W5100’s 11888 by 12.3%, and this is the only head-to-head benchmark where both cards have recorded scores. The M6100 also carries a higher specification sheet across the board: 896 shading units versus 768, 56 texture mapping units versus 48, and a peak FP32 throughput of 1.971 TFLOPS compared to 1,428.5 GFLOPS. This makes the M6100 the clear pick for applications that hammer OpenCL, such as scientific simulation, video encoding, or GPU-accelerated rendering.

The AMD FirePro W5100 wins in system integration and memory capacity. It offers 4 GB of GDDR5, double the M6100’s 2 GB, which is critical for workloads with large working sets like high-resolution textures or complex 3D scenes that exceed 2 GB. The W5100 also has four DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, enabling multi-monitor setups out of the box, whereas the M6100’s display outputs are listed as “Portable Device Dependent,” meaning they vary by laptop manufacturer. The W5100’s single-slot desktop form factor with a 50 W TDP and no power connectors makes it a drop-in solution for existing desktop systems with a 250 W PSU.

Architecture Differences

Both the FirePro M6100 and FirePro W5100 are built on GCN 2.0 architecture, manufactured by TSMC on a 28 nm process. They share the same die size of 160 mm² and identical transistor counts of 2,080 million, resulting in the same transistor density of 13.0M / mm². The underlying architecture is therefore identical; the performance difference comes from how each chip is configured.

The M6100 uses the “Emerald” chip, while the W5100 uses “Bonaire.” Despite the different codenames, both have 16 ROPs. The M6100 is configured with more compute units, leading to 896 shading units and 56 TMUs, versus the W5100’s 768 shading units and 48 TMUs. This directly translates into higher fill rates for the M6100: 17.60 GPixel/s pixel rate and 61.60 GTexel/s texture rate, compared to the W5100’s 14.88 GPixel/s and 44.64 GTexel/s.

The memory subsystem is architecturally similar: both use GDDR5 with a 128-bit bus and identical 96.00 GB/s bandwidth. The memory clock is the same at 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective). The only memory difference is capacity, with the W5100 offering 4 GB versus the M6100’s 2 GB. Neither card has dedicated RT or tensor cores, and FP16 performance is not listed for either.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the two cards:

• Chip: M6100 uses “Emerald”; W5100 uses “Bonaire.”
• Generation: M6100 is from “FirePro Mobile (Mx100)”; W5100 is from “FirePro GCN (Wx100).”
• Shading Units: M6100 has 896; W5100 has 768.
• Texture Mapping Units: M6100 has 56; W5100 has 48.
• Pixel Rate: M6100 is 17.60 GPixel/s; W5100 is 14.88 GPixel/s.
• Texture Rate: M6100 is 61.60 GTexel/s; W5100 is 44.64 GTexel/s.
• FP32 Performance: M6100 is 1.971 TFLOPS; W5100 is 1,428.5 GFLOPS.
• Memory Size: M6100 is 2 GB; W5100 is 4 GB.
• TDP: M6100 has no listed TDP; W5100 is rated at 50 W.
• Slot Width: M6100 is “MXM Module”; W5100 is “Single-slot.”
• Suggested PSU: M6100 has none; W5100 is 250 W.
• Bus Interface: M6100 is “MXM-B (3.0)”; W5100 is “PCIe 3.0 x16.”
• Display Outputs: M6100 is “Portable Device Dependent”; W5100 is “4x DisplayPort 1.2.”
• Dimensions: M6100 has no listed dimensions; W5100 is 173 mm long and 111 mm high.
• Release Date: M6100 released on 2014-05-26; W5100 released on 2014-03-30.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is Geekbench OpenCL. The M6100 scores 13354, while the W5100 scores 11888. This gives the M6100 a 12.3% lead, a significant margin that reflects its higher shader count and texture throughput. In practical terms, a 12.3% advantage means the M6100 will complete OpenCL workloads noticeably faster, whether that’s rendering a frame, processing a filter, or running a compute shader.

Looking at the broader benchmark context, the M6100’s OpenCL score places it in the 54th percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 13354. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 5500M (13356, 0% delta) and the AMD Radeon Pro 555X (13321, 0.3% delta), showing it sits in a competitive mid-range bracket. The W5100, by contrast, has a 52nd percentile ranking with an average score of 12847 across its two benchmarks. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon Pro 455 (12831, 0.1% delta) and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 590 (12830, 0.1% delta), placing it slightly lower in the overall hierarchy.

The W5100 does have a Geekbench Vulkan score of 13805, which is higher than its own OpenCL score of 11888 and higher than the M6100’s OpenCL score. However, since the M6100 has no Vulkan result, this cannot be used for a direct head-to-head comparison. The W5100’s Vulkan score suggests it may have strengths in Vulkan-based workloads, but the absence of an M6100 result leaves this as an open question.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split decision. For pure compute performance, the AMD FirePro M6100 is the unequivocal winner. Its 12.3% OpenCL lead over the W5100, combined with higher shader counts, texture rates, and FP32 throughput, makes it the superior choice for any workload that is bottlenecked by raw processing power. If your application is OpenCL-heavy and you can live with 2 GB of memory, the M6100 will deliver better performance in a mobile form factor.

However, the AMD FirePro W5100 is the better pick for desktop workstation builds requiring multiple displays or larger memory buffers. Its 4 GB of VRAM is double the M6100’s capacity, which is essential for 4K textures or complex CAD assemblies that exceed the 2 GB limit. The W5100 also provides four dedicated DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, eliminating the uncertainty of the M6100’s “Portable Device Dependent” outputs. Its single-slot design and 50 W TDP with no power connectors make it an easy install into any system with a 250 W PSU.

The M6100’s mobile MXM form factor limits its use to laptops that support this module, while the W5100’s PCIe 3.0 x16 interface ensures broad desktop compatibility. The M6100 has no listed TDP, which is a concern for thermal planning in mobile chassis, whereas the W5100’s 50 W rating is clearly documented. Ultimately, the choice comes down to environment: mobile compute power favors the M6100, while desktop versatility and memory capacity favor the W5100.