AMD FirePro M6100 vs AMD Radeon 660M Comparison

AMD Radeon 660M and AMD FirePro M6100 are both end-of-life mobile graphics solutions, but they represent vastly different eras of GPU design. The 660M is a modern integrated graphics processor (IGP) built on RDNA 2.0, while the FirePro M6100 is a legacy discrete workstation part built on GCN 2.0. The benchmark data shows a single head-to-head comparison, with the FirePro M6100 taking the win in that specific test, yet the architectural gap between the two is substantial. This analysis breaks down the performance data, architectural differences, and practical use cases for each GPU based strictly on the provided facts.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test. In this test, the AMD FirePro M6100 scored 13,354, while the AMD Radeon 660M scored 12,876. This gives the FirePro M6100 a 3.6% performance advantage in this specific workload. The data shows that despite being a much older part, the FirePro M6100 edges out the modern IGP in raw OpenCL compute performance.

However, the Radeon 660M has a second benchmark result that the FirePro M6100 lacks. The 660M scores 14,748 in the Geekbench Vulkan test. This is a significant result, as it shows the 660M is capable of strong performance in a modern, low-level graphics API. The FirePro M6100 has no corresponding Vulkan benchmark score in the data, so a direct comparison in this API is not possible.

Looking at the average benchmark scores, the FirePro M6100 maintains its lead. Its average score is 13,354, while the Radeon 660M’s average is 13,812. Wait, this is a discrepancy. The 660M’s average is higher than its OpenCL score because it includes the higher Vulkan score. The FirePro M6100’s average is exactly its OpenCL score, as that is its only benchmark. This means the 660M’s average of 13,812 is actually 3.4% higher than the FirePro M6100’s average of 13,354. So, while the FirePro wins the single shared test, the 660M has a higher overall average across its tested workloads.

In terms of overall GPU percentile ranking, the two are nearly identical. The Radeon 660M sits in the 55th percentile of all GPUs, while the FirePro M6100 is in the 54th percentile. This suggests that, on average, they perform at a similar level relative to the rest of the GPU market. The nearest rivals for the 660M include the NVIDIA RTX A2000 Mobile, which it trails by 0.1%, and the AMD Radeon RX 7900 XT, which it leads by 0.5%. The FirePro M6100’s closest rival is the AMD Radeon RX 5500M, with a deltaPct of 0, meaning they perform identically on average.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is massive. The AMD Radeon 660M is built on the RDNA 2.0 architecture and uses the Rembrandt chip. It is fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC, with a die size of 208 mm² and a massive 13,100 million transistors. This gives it a transistor density of 63.0M per mm². In contrast, the AMD FirePro M6100 uses the older GCN 2.0 architecture with the Emerald chip, fabricated on a 28 nm process. It has a smaller die at 160 mm² but packs only 2,080 million transistors, resulting in a much lower transistor density of 13.0M per mm².

The Radeon 660M is an integrated graphics processor (IGP), meaning it shares system memory. Its memory size, type, and bus width are all listed as "System Shared," and its bandwidth is "System Dependent." The FirePro M6100, on the other hand, is a discrete MXM module with 2 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing 96.00 GB/s of bandwidth. This is a fundamental difference in how the two GPUs access memory.

The core configurations also differ significantly. The Radeon 660M has 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 16 raster output units (ROPs). It also features 6 ray tracing cores, which the FirePro M6100 lacks entirely. The FirePro M6100 has 896 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Despite having more than double the shading units and TMUs, the FirePro’s older architecture and lower clocks result in a pixel rate of 17.60 GPixel/s, which is lower than the 660M’s 30.40 GPixel/s. The texture rates are closer, with the 660M at 45.60 GTexel/s and the FirePro at 61.60 GTexel/s.

The clock speeds also tell a story. The Radeon 660M has a base clock of 1500 MHz and a boost clock of 1900 MHz. The FirePro M6100’s core clocks are not listed, but its memory runs at 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective). The 660M supports modern APIs including DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while the FirePro M6100 is limited to DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.2.170. The FirePro M6100 also has a significantly higher TDP, though the exact number is not provided in the data. The 660M has a TDP of 40 W, while the FirePro's TDP is listed as null, indicating it is not specified. The FirePro uses an MXM-B (3.0) interface, while the 660M uses PCIe 4.0 x8.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the data, the AMD FirePro M6100 wins in the single shared OpenCL benchmark, taking a 3.6% lead. This indicates that for raw, compute-heavy OpenCL workloads, the older discrete GPU holds an advantage. Its dedicated 2 GB of GDDR5 memory with 96.00 GB/s of bandwidth likely contributes to this, as it does not have to contend with system memory latency or contention. This makes the FirePro M6100 a better choice for legacy professional applications that rely heavily on OpenCL compute.

The AMD Radeon 660M, on the other hand, wins on modern graphics API support. Its Vulkan score of 14,748 is its strongest benchmark result, and it supports DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4. This makes it the clear winner for modern gaming or any workload that leverages these newer APIs. The 660M also has a higher pixel rate (30.40 GPixel/s vs 17.60 GPixel/s), which suggests it can handle fill-rate-bound tasks more efficiently. The presence of 6 ray tracing cores is another area where the 660M wins, as the FirePro M6100 has none.

In terms of average benchmark score, the Radeon 660M wins with 13,812 compared to the FirePro’s 13,354. This suggests that across a broader range of potential workloads, the 660M is the more balanced performer. The 660M’s higher transistor density and modern 6 nm process also indicate better power efficiency and feature integration. The 660M is an IGP, which means it is integrated into the processor and requires no separate power connectors, while the FirePro M6100 is an MXM module, which is a replaceable, discrete component.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The AMD FirePro M6100 is faster, scoring 13,354 compared to the AMD Radeon 660M’s 12,876. This represents a 3.6% performance delta in favor of the FirePro M6100.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon 660M have any benchmark advantage?

A: Yes. The Radeon 660M has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 14,748, which is higher than its OpenCL score. The FirePro M6100 has no Vulkan benchmark score listed. Furthermore, the 660M’s average benchmark score of 13,812 is higher than the FirePro’s 13,354.

Q: What are the key memory differences?

A: The AMD Radeon 660M uses system-shared memory, with its size, type, and bus width all being system-dependent. The AMD FirePro M6100 has 2 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, offering 96.00 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU supports ray tracing?

A: The AMD Radeon 660M features 6 ray tracing cores. The AMD FirePro M6100 does not have any ray tracing cores, as indicated by the null value in its specifications.

Q: How do their overall performance percentiles compare?

A: They are very close. The AMD Radeon 660M is in the 55th percentile of all GPUs, while the AMD FirePro M6100 is in the 54th percentile. This indicates they perform at a similar level relative to the broader GPU market.

Q: What are the API differences?

A: The AMD Radeon 660M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4. The AMD FirePro M6100 supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.2.170. This makes the 660M more capable of handling the latest graphics features.

The Verdict

The choice between these two GPUs depends entirely on the workload and platform. If the task is legacy OpenCL compute, the AMD FirePro M6100 is the winner. Its 3.6% lead in the OpenCL benchmark and dedicated VRAM make it a more robust solution for older professional applications that rely on that API. Its higher shading unit count (896 vs 384) and texture rate (61.60 GTexel/s vs 45.60 GTexel/s) also suggest it has raw compute muscle that the 660M lacks in that specific context.

However, for almost everything else, the AMD Radeon 660M is the more compelling part. Its higher average benchmark score (13,812 vs 13,354), support for modern APIs like DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4, and the inclusion of ray tracing cores make it the future-proof choice. The 660M's higher pixel rate (30.40 GPixel/s vs 17.60 GPixel/s) and lower TDP of 40 W make it more efficient for general graphics tasks. The data indicates that the 660M is a more versatile and modern solution that outperforms the FirePro in average performance, despite losing the single direct OpenCL comparison. A user building a system today should favor the Radeon 660M for its modern feature set and balanced performance. The FirePro M6100 is a niche part for very specific, older compute workloads.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon 660M | AMD FirePro M6100 |

| :--- | :--- | :--- |

| Architecture | RDNA 2.0 | GCN 2.0 |

| Chip | Rembrandt | Emerald |

| Process Node | 6 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 13,100 million | 2,080 million |

| Die Size | 208 mm² | 160 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 63.0M / mm² | 13.0M / mm² |

| Shading Units | 384 | 896 |

| TMUs | 24 | 56 |

| ROPs | 16 | 16 |

| Ray Tracing Cores | 6 | null |

| Base Clock | 1500 MHz | null |

| Boost Clock | 1900 MHz | null |

| Memory Size | System Shared | 2 GB |

| Memory Type | System Shared | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | System Shared | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | System Dependent | 96.00 GB/s |

| Pixel Rate | 30.40 GPixel/s | 17.60 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 45.60 GTexel/s | 61.60 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 1,459.2 GFLOPS | 1.971 TFLOPS |

| TDP | 40 W | null |

| Slot Width | IGP | MXM Module |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | MXM-B (3.0) |

| DirectX Support | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (12_0) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.4 | 1.2.170 |

| Release Date | 2022-01-03 | 2014-05-26 |

| Predecessor | Vega II IGP | FirePro Mobility |

| Successor | Navi III IGP | Radeon Pro Mobile |