AMD FirePro M6100 vs AMD Radeon Pro W5500 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains a single direct head-to-head benchmark between the AMD Radeon Pro W5500 and the AMD FirePro M6100. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Radeon Pro W5500 scores 45,615 points against 13,354 points for the FirePro M6100. That is a decisive 241.6% advantage for the newer card, meaning it delivers roughly 3.4 times the compute throughput in this particular workload. The FirePro M6100 does not win a single recorded comparison, and the only shared metric ends in a landslide.

This result is consistent with the broader positioning of each card. The Radeon Pro W5500 sits at the 58th percentile of all GPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 15,679. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti (avg score 15,548, 0.8% behind), the AMD Radeon R9 M380 (15,521, 1% behind), the AMD Radeon RX 7700 (15,852, 1.1% ahead), and the AMD Radeon R9 370X (15,862, 1.2% ahead). So the W5500 is essentially trading blows with a high-end desktop gaming GPU from a few generations back, and it is within a couple of percentage points of newer Radeon parts.

The FirePro M6100, by contrast, sits at the 54th percentile with an average score of 13,354. Its nearest rivals are all mobile or professional parts: the AMD Radeon RX 5500M (13,356, 0% delta), the AMD Radeon HD 8950M (13,376, 0.2% ahead), the AMD Radeon Pro 555X (13,321, 0.3% behind), and the AMD Radeon Pro 555 (13,407, 0.4% ahead). The M6100 is effectively at parity with those parts, which are all much closer to its performance tier than anything the W5500 competes against.

In the single head-to-head test, the W5500's OpenCL score of 45,615 is not just a win; it is a generational leap. The M6100's 13,354 is typical of a mid-range mobile part from its era, while the W5500's score places it in a different class entirely. For any workload that relies on OpenCL compute, the choice is unambiguous from the recorded data.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the only direct benchmark comparison?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro W5500 wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 45,615 versus 13,354 for the AMD FirePro M6100, a 241.6% advantage.

Q: How does the Radeon Pro W5500 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The W5500 has an average benchmark score of 15,679. It is 0.8% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti, 1% ahead of the AMD Radeon R9 M380, 1.1% behind the AMD Radeon RX 7700, and 1.2% behind the AMD Radeon R9 370X.

Q: How does the FirePro M6100 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The M6100 has an average benchmark score of 13,354. It is exactly level with the AMD Radeon RX 5500M, 0.2% behind the AMD Radeon HD 8950M, 0.3% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro 555X, and 0.4% behind the AMD Radeon Pro 555.

Q: What percentile ranking does each card hold in the database?

A: The Radeon Pro W5500 ranks at the 58th percentile of all GPUs, while the FirePro M6100 ranks at the 54th percentile.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The Radeon Pro W5500 has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus with 224.0 GB/s bandwidth. The FirePro M6100 has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What are the production statuses and release dates?

A: Both cards are end-of-life. The Radeon Pro W5500 was released on 2020-02-09, and the FirePro M6100 was released on 2014-05-26.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and process nodes. The Radeon Pro W5500 uses the Navi 14 chip built on RDNA 1.0 architecture, fabricated on a 7 nm process at TSMC. The FirePro M6100 uses the Emerald chip based on GCN 2.0 architecture, also fabricated by TSMC but on a 28 nm process. The node shrink is substantial: 7 nm versus 28 nm, which directly affects transistor density. The W5500 packs 6,400 million transistors into a 158 mm² die, giving a density of 40.5 million transistors per square millimeter. The M6100 has 2,080 million transistors on a 160 mm² die, for a density of 13.0 million per square millimeter. Despite similar die sizes, the W5500 carries more than three times the transistor count.

The compute resources differ accordingly. The W5500 has 1,408 shading units, 88 texture mapping units, and 32 raster operation units. The M6100 has 896 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. That is roughly 57% more shading units, 57% more TMUs, and double the ROP count on the newer card. The pixel rate for the W5500 is 59.36 GPixel/s versus 17.60 GPixel/s for the M6100. The texture rate is 163.2 GTexel/s versus 61.60 GTexel/s. Floating-point performance tells the same story: the W5500 delivers 5.224 TFLOPS FP32, while the M6100 delivers 1.971 TFLOPS. The W5500 also supports FP16 at 10.45 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), whereas the M6100 has no recorded FP16 capability.

API support also separates the two. The W5500 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The M6100 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The W5500 has a newer feature level for DirectX and a more recent Vulkan version. Both are end-of-life, but the W5500 is the newer design by roughly six years, and the architectural gap shows in every measured throughput metric.

Specification Differences

The recorded specifications differ across nearly every field. The Radeon Pro W5500 has a base clock of 1744 MHz and a boost clock of 1855 MHz, while the FirePro M6100 has no recorded base or boost clocks. Memory clocks also differ: the W5500 runs at 1750 MHz with 14 Gbps effective, while the M6100 runs at 1500 MHz with 6 Gbps effective. Memory size is 8 GB GDDR6 versus 2 GB GDDR5. Bus width is the same at 128 bit, but bandwidth is 224.0 GB/s versus 96.00 GB/s.

The W5500 has a TDP of 125 W and uses a single-slot form factor with a 1x 6-pin power connector and a suggested PSU of 300 W. The M6100 is an MXM module with no power connectors and no recorded TDP or suggested PSU. The bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x8 for the W5500 versus MXM-B (3.0) for the M6100. Display outputs are 4x DisplayPort 1.4a on the W5500, while the M6100 is listed as "Portable Device Dependent." The W5500 has physical dimensions of 241 mm length and 111 mm height, while the M6100 has no recorded dimensions.

The W5500 has a launch MSRP of 399 USD, while the M6100 has no recorded launch price. The predecessor and successor relationships differ as well: the W5500 succeeds the Radeon Pro Vega with no recorded successor, while the M6100 succeeds the FirePro Mobility and is succeeded by the Radeon Pro Mobile.

The Verdict

From the recorded data, the AMD Radeon Pro W5500 is the clear performance winner. It dominates the single head-to-head OpenCL benchmark by 241.6%, and its average benchmark score of 15,679 is significantly higher than the FirePro M6100's 13,354. The W5500 also holds a higher percentile ranking (58th versus 54th). In every measurable category that matters for compute and graphics throughput, the W5500 is ahead: more shading units, more TMUs, more ROPs, higher clocks, more memory, faster memory, and a more advanced architecture.

The FirePro M6100's only advantage is that it exists in a different form factor. It is an MXM module, which makes it suitable for portable devices where the W5500's single-slot PCIe card cannot fit. But the M6100 offers no performance benefit in the recorded benchmarks, and its nearest rivals are all at roughly the same level, whereas the W5500 competes with much faster parts.

For a builder choosing between these two, the data points clearly to the W5500 if the system can accommodate a PCIe 4.0 x8 card with a 6-pin power connector and 125 W TDP. The M6100 is only relevant for legacy MXM-based laptops or specialized portable chassis where the W5500's physical form factor is impossible. The performance gap is too large to justify any other conclusion.

Where Each One Wins

The Radeon Pro W5500 wins in every recorded benchmark category. It has the higher OpenCL score by a wide margin, the higher average benchmark score, and the better percentile ranking. It also wins on specifications that predict future performance: more memory (8 GB versus 2 GB), higher bandwidth (224.0 GB/s versus 96.00 GB/s), higher pixel rate (59.36 GPixel/s versus 17.60 GPixel/s), higher texture rate (163.2 GTexel/s versus 61.60 GTexel/s), and higher FP32 throughput (5.224 TFLOPS versus 1.971 TFLOPS). For any task that uses OpenCL, DirectX 12, or Vulkan, the W5500 is the stronger choice.

The FirePro M6100 wins only on form factor and power integration. It is an MXM module with no external power connectors, making it suitable for portable devices where the W5500's single-slot card with a 6-pin connector cannot be used. It also has a lower transistor count and a smaller die, which could be relevant for thermal-constrained environments, but the database records no TDP for the M6100, so that advantage is not quantified. The M6100's only recorded benchmark is OpenCL, and it loses that by 241.6%.

In practical terms, the W5500 is for desktop workstations that need professional-grade compute performance with modern API support. The M6100 is for upgrading or servicing older mobile workstations that require an MXM-B module. If the chassis can accept the W5500, the data says there is no contest. If the chassis only accepts MXM, the M6100 is the only option of the two, but its performance level is comparable to other mobile parts like the Radeon Pro 555 or RX 5500M.