AMD FirePro M6100 vs AMD Radeon R9 370X Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison recorded between these two GPUs is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the result is decisive. The AMD Radeon R9 370X scores 25,893, while the AMD FirePro M6100 scores 13,354. That represents a 93.9% advantage for the R9 370X, meaning the desktop card nearly doubles the mobile workstation chip in raw compute performance under this workload.

Looking at the broader database context, the R9 370X sits at the 58th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 15,862. Its nearest rivals are tightly clustered: the AMD Radeon RX 7700 scores 15,852 (0.1% behind), the AMD Radeon RX 9060 scores 16,014 (1% ahead), and the AMD Radeon Pro W5500 scores 15,679 (1.2% behind). The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti sits 1.7% ahead at 16,129. This places the R9 370X in a competitive mid-range bracket, where a few percentage points separate it from modern entries.

The FirePro M6100, by contrast, lands at the 54th percentile with an average score of 13,354. Its nearest rivals are equally tight: the AMD Radeon RX 5500M matches it exactly at 13,356 (0% delta), the AMD Radeon HD 8950M scores 13,376 (0.2% ahead), and the AMD Radeon Pro 555X trails by 0.3% at 13,321. The AMD Radeon Pro 555 sits 0.4% ahead at 13,407. The FirePro M6100 is thus firmly anchored in a lower performance tier, roughly 4 percentile points below the R9 370X in overall standing.

The 93.9% delta in the head-to-head OpenCL test is far larger than any margin seen in the rival clusters. This underscores that the two cards are not merely adjacent in performance; they occupy distinctly different strata. The R9 370X's score of 25,893 in OpenCL is also notably higher than its own average benchmark score of 15,862, suggesting this particular test favors its architecture or driver stack. The FirePro M6100, with only one recorded benchmark, shows no such divergence.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon R9 370X wins the only direct comparison, and it wins by a wide margin. In Geekbench OpenCL, it outperforms the FirePro M6100 by 93.9%, a gap that dwarfs the differences seen between either card and its nearest rivals. This suggests the R9 370X is the clear choice for compute-heavy tasks that leverage OpenCL, such as rendering, scientific simulations, or any general-purpose GPU workload.

The FirePro M6100, despite losing the head-to-head, still has a defined role. Its nearest rival cluster includes mobile GPUs like the Radeon RX 5500M and Radeon Pro 555X, indicating it belongs to the mobile workstation segment. The data shows it is competitive within that class: it sits within 0.4% of its closest peers. For portable systems where the R9 370X cannot physically fit, the FirePro M6100 offers a baseline level of OpenCL performance that is statistically indistinguishable from other mobile options.

The R9 370X also wins on architectural maturity in terms of raw throughput. Its pixel rate of 32.96 GPixel/s versus 17.60 GPixel/s for the FirePro M6100, and its texture rate of 82.40 GTexel/s versus 61.60 GTexel/s, reinforce that the desktop card is designed for higher sustained output. The FirePro M6100, as a mobile MXM module, prioritizes integration over peak performance. The data does not record any benchmark where the FirePro M6100 wins, so any advantage it holds must be inferred from its form factor and feature set rather than measured scores.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs share a common manufacturing foundation but diverge in chip design. Both are built on a 28 nm process at TSMC, yet the R9 370X uses the Trinidad chip with 2,800 million transistors on a 212 mm² die, while the FirePro M6100 uses the Emerald chip with 2,080 million transistors on a 160 mm² die. The transistor density is nearly identical: 13.2M per mm² for the R9 370X versus 13.0M per mm² for the FirePro M6100, confirming the same fabrication node.

The architectural generation differs. The R9 370X is based on GCN 1.0, part of the Pirate Islands (R9 300) generation, while the FirePro M6100 uses GCN 2.0 from the FirePro Mobile (Mx100) generation. This is a notable distinction: the FirePro M6100's newer architecture supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the R9 370X is limited to DirectX 12 (11_1). Both cards support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.170, so API compatibility is otherwise matched.

The compute resources are heavily skewed toward the R9 370X. It has 1,280 shading units, 80 texture mapping units, and 32 raster operation units. The FirePro M6100 has 896 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. These differences explain the measured performance gap: the R9 370X has 43% more shading units and double the ROPs. The FP32 throughput is 2.637 TFLOPS for the R9 370X versus 1.971 TFLOPS for the FirePro M6100, a 34% advantage.

Memory configurations also differ substantially. The R9 370X uses a 256-bit bus with 179.2 GB/s of bandwidth, while the FirePro M6100 uses a 128-bit bus with 96.00 GB/s. Both have 2 GB of GDDR5, but the memory clock differs: the R9 370X runs at 1400 MHz (5.6 Gbps effective), while the FirePro M6100 runs at 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective). The wider bus of the R9 370X more than compensates for its slightly lower memory clock.

Form factor and power delivery are fundamentally different. The R9 370X is a dual-slot desktop card with 2x 6-pin power connectors and a suggested PSU of 450 W, drawing 180 W. The FirePro M6100 is an MXM module with no power connectors, relying on the host system for power, with no TDP listed. The R9 370X uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the FirePro M6100 uses MXM-B (3.0). Display outputs differ sharply: the R9 370X offers 2x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x DisplayPort 1.2, while the FirePro M6100's outputs are described as "Portable Device Dependent."

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R9 370X has an average benchmark score of 15,862, compared to 13,354 for the AMD FirePro M6100. The R9 370X also holds a higher percentile rank at 58 versus 54.

Q: How much faster is the R9 370X in the direct OpenCL comparison?

A: The R9 370X scores 25,893 in Geekbench OpenCL against 13,354 for the FirePro M6100, resulting in a 93.9% performance advantage for the desktop card.

Q: Are there any benchmark tests where the FirePro M6100 wins?

A: No. The recorded head-to-head data includes only one test, Geekbench OpenCL, and the FirePro M6100 loses that test. The wins tally is 1 for the R9 370X and 0 for the FirePro M6100.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same modern APIs?

A: Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.170, but DirectX support differs. The FirePro M6100 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the R9 370X is limited to DirectX 12 (11_1).

Q: How do the memory bandwidth figures compare?

A: The R9 370X offers 179.2 GB/s over a 256-bit bus, while the FirePro M6100 offers 96.00 GB/s over a 128-bit bus. The R9 370X has nearly double the bandwidth, despite a slightly lower effective memory clock.

Q: What are the nearest rivals for each GPU?

A: For the R9 370X, the closest scores come from the AMD Radeon RX 7700 (0.1% behind), AMD Radeon RX 9060 (1% ahead), AMD Radeon Pro W5500 (1.2% behind), and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti (1.7% ahead). For the FirePro M6100, the AMD Radeon RX 5500M matches exactly, while the AMD Radeon HD 8950M is 0.2% ahead and the AMD Radeon Pro 555X is 0.3% behind.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon R9 370X | AMD FirePro M6100 |

|---|---|---|

| Chip | Trinidad | Emerald |

| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | GCN 2.0 |

| Generation | Pirate Islands (R9 300) | FirePro Mobile (Mx100) |

| Transistors | 2,800 million | 2,080 million |

| Die Size | 212 mm² | 160 mm² |

| Base Clock | 980 MHz | Not listed |

| Boost Clock | 1030 MHz | Not listed |

| Memory Clock | 1400 MHz (5.6 Gbps effective) | 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 179.2 GB/s | 96.00 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1280 | 896 |

| TMUs | 80 | 56 |

| ROPs | 32 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 32.96 GPixel/s | 17.60 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 82.40 GTexel/s | 61.60 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 2.637 TFLOPS | 1.971 TFLOPS |

| TDP | 180 W | Not listed |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | MXM Module |

| Power Connectors | 2x 6-pin | None |

| Suggested PSU | 450 W | Not listed |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | MXM-B (3.0) |

| Display Outputs | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 1x DisplayPort 1.2 | Portable Device Dependent |

| DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 12 (12_0) |

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous. The AMD Radeon R9 370X wins the only recorded head-to-head test by 93.9%, placing it in a performance tier that the FirePro M6100 cannot approach. Its average score of 15,862 versus 13,354, its 58th versus 54th percentile rank, and its superior specifications across shading units, ROPs, and memory bandwidth all point to the same conclusion: for any workload that can use the R9 370X, it is the stronger GPU.

The FirePro M6100 is not without merit, but its merits lie outside raw performance. As an MXM module with no power connectors and portable-device-dependent outputs, it is built for laptops and compact systems where the dual-slot, 180 W R9 370X cannot be installed. The data shows it is competitive with its mobile peers, sitting within 0.4% of the Radeon RX 5500M and other similar GPUs. For users who need a mobile workstation GPU with OpenCL support and GCN 2.0's DirectX 12 (12_0) capability, the FirePro M6100 is a viable option within its class.

The R9 370X, however, is the choice for desktop users seeking compute performance. Its GCN 1.0 architecture may be older, but the 2,800 million transistors and 256-bit memory bus deliver results that the FirePro M6100 cannot match. The direct OpenCL score of 25,893 is nearly double the FirePro's 13,354, and the R9 370X's nearest rivals are modern desktop GPUs like the RX 7700 and RTX 3060 Ti, not mobile parts. The verdict is straightforward: pick the R9 370X for performance, pick the FirePro M6100 only when the form factor demands it.