AMD FirePro M6100 vs AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records a single direct comparison between these two mobile and workstation graphics solutions: the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark. In this test, the AMD FirePro M6100 posts a score of 13,354, while the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 scores 11,228. The FirePro M6100 emerges as the clear winner with an 18.9% advantage, a substantial margin that places it firmly ahead in raw compute throughput as measured by this workload.

Looking at the FirePro M6100’s nearest rivals in the database, its score of 13,354 sits within a tightly packed cluster. It is effectively tied with the AMD Radeon RX 5500M, which averages 13,356, a delta of 0%. It also edges out the AMD Radeon Pro 555X by 0.3%, which scores 13,321, while the AMD Radeon HD 8950M trails by 0.2% at 13,376, and the AMD Radeon Pro 555 leads slightly at 13,407, a delta of -0.4% against the FirePro M6100. This positioning places the FirePro M6100 at the 54th percentile among all GPUs in the database, indicating it outperforms a majority of recorded graphics processors.

The Radeon Pro WX 3200, by contrast, lands at the 50th percentile, squarely in the median range. Its score of 11,228 places it near the AMD FirePro W4300, which averages 11,225, a delta of 0%. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M scores 11,261, beating the WX 3200 by 0.3%, while both the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q and the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000D Blackwell Max-Q score 11,088, trailing the WX 3200 by 1.3%. This means the WX 3200 holds its own against a mix of older and newer competitors, but it cannot match the FirePro M6100’s output in this specific benchmark.

The 18.9% delta between the two cards is the headline number. It is not a marginal difference; it is a decisive gap that shows the older FirePro M6100, despite its earlier release, delivers significantly more OpenCL compute performance. The WX 3200’s lower score reflects a different design priority, one that trades raw throughput for other characteristics, as the architecture breakdown below will clarify.

The Verdict

From the recorded data, the AMD FirePro M6100 is the superior choice for anyone prioritizing raw OpenCL compute performance. It wins the sole head-to-head benchmark with an 18.9% margin, and its percentile ranking of 54 versus the WX 3200’s 50 reinforces that it sits higher in the overall performance distribution. The FirePro M6100 also holds its own against modern rivals like the Radeon RX 5500M, matching it exactly, which suggests its compute capabilities have aged gracefully.

The Radeon Pro WX 3200, however, is not without merit. Its score of 11,228, while lower, still places it at the median of all GPUs, and it outperforms the RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q variants by 1.3%. The WX 3200’s advantage lies elsewhere: it offers double the memory capacity at 4 GB versus 2 GB, a newer architecture, and a lower power envelope at 65 W. For workloads that are memory-bound rather than compute-bound, or for systems where power and thermal constraints are paramount, the WX 3200 may be the more sensible pick.

Strictly from the benchmark data, the FirePro M6100 wins the performance crown. But the verdict depends on context: if the task is pure OpenCL number-crunching, the FirePro M6100 is the answer. If the task requires larger datasets or operates within a constrained power budget, the WX 3200’s specifications make it a compelling alternative despite its lower score.

Architecture Differences

The two cards belong to different generations of AMD graphics design. The FirePro M6100 uses the Emerald chip built on GCN 2.0 architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 2,080 million transistors into a die size of 160 mm², resulting in a transistor density of 13.0 million per square millimeter. The Radeon Pro WX 3200, meanwhile, uses the Polaris 23 chip based on GCN 4.0 architecture, built on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It contains 2,200 million transistors on a smaller die of 103 mm², yielding a higher transistor density of 21.4 million per square millimeter.

The compute resources differ notably. The FirePro M6100 fields 896 shading units, 56 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The WX 3200 has fewer shading units at 640, fewer TMUs at 32, but the same 16 ROPs. This disparity explains the FirePro M6100’s higher texture rate of 61.60 GTexel/s versus the WX 3200’s 41.44 GTexel/s, as well as its higher FP32 throughput of 1.971 TFLOPS versus 1.658 TFLOPS. The WX 3200 does achieve a higher pixel rate at 20.72 GPixel/s compared to 17.60 GPixel/s, a result of its higher clock behavior despite fewer shaders.

Memory configurations are similar in bandwidth but differ in capacity. Both use GDDR5 memory with a 128-bit bus and 96.00 GB/s bandwidth, and both run memory at 1500 MHz with 6 Gbps effective speed. However, the FirePro M6100 comes with 2 GB, while the WX 3200 offers 4 GB. This doubling of capacity is significant for workloads that exceed the 2 GB limit.

The WX 3200 also brings a newer feature set. It supports FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, both at 1.658 TFLOPS, whereas the FirePro M6100 has no recorded FP16 capability. The WX 3200 supports Vulkan 1.3, while the FirePro M6100 tops out at Vulkan 1.2.170. Both support DirectX 12 (12_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The WX 3200 is a single-slot card with a 65 W TDP and a suggested PSU of 250 W, while the FirePro M6100 is an MXM module with no recorded TDP. The WX 3200 also offers four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, whereas the FirePro M6100’s outputs are portable device dependent.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The AMD FirePro M6100 scores 13,354, which is 18.9% higher than the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200’s 11,228.

Q: How does the FirePro M6100 compare to its nearest rival, the Radeon RX 5500M?

A: The FirePro M6100 scores 13,354, while the RX 5500M averages 13,356, a delta of 0%, meaning they are effectively tied.

Q: Does the Radeon Pro WX 3200 outperform any of its nearest rivals?

A: Yes, it beats both the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q and the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000D Blackwell Max-Q by 1.3%, with each of those scoring 11,088.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference between the two cards?

A: The FirePro M6100 has 2 GB of GDDR5, while the Radeon Pro WX 3200 has 4 GB of GDDR5. Both use a 128-bit bus with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card has a higher transistor density?

A: The Radeon Pro WX 3200 has a density of 21.4M transistors per mm² on its 103 mm² die, while the FirePro M6100 has 13.0M per mm² on a 160 mm² die.

Q: What is the power consumption of the Radeon Pro WX 3200?

A: The WX 3200 has a TDP of 65 W and a suggested PSU rating of 250 W. The FirePro M6100 has no recorded TDP in the database.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD FirePro M6100 wins decisively in compute-bound scenarios. Its 18.9% OpenCL advantage means any workload that relies heavily on shader throughput, such as general-purpose GPU computing, physics simulations, or rendering tasks that use OpenCL acceleration, will favor this card. Its higher shading unit count of 896 versus 640, combined with a texture rate of 61.60 GTexel/s, gives it a clear edge in tasks that saturate the shader array. The FirePro M6100 also matches the modern Radeon RX 5500M exactly, showing that its compute performance is not just a historical artifact but remains competitive against newer hardware.

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 wins in memory capacity and efficiency scenarios. Its 4 GB frame buffer is double that of the FirePro M6100, making it the better choice for workloads that need to hold larger datasets or textures in VRAM without spilling to system memory. Its lower TDP of 65 W and single-slot form factor make it more suitable for compact or power-constrained systems, where the FirePro M6100’s MXM module and unrecorded power draw introduce uncertainty. The WX 3200 also supports FP16 at full rate, which can accelerate certain machine learning or image processing tasks that leverage half-precision arithmetic, a feature the FirePro M6100 lacks entirely.

Additionally, the WX 3200’s four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs make it a stronger candidate for multi-display workstation setups, whereas the FirePro M6100’s display outputs are dependent on the portable device it is installed into. For users with a fixed power budget, such as a 250 W suggested PSU, the WX 3200 is the safer choice. The FirePro M6100, with no TDP recorded, requires a more capable power delivery system. In sum, the FirePro M6100 is the compute champion, while the WX 3200 is the memory-efficient, low-power workstation card.