AMD FirePro M6100 vs AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains a single directly comparable benchmark between the AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT and the AMD FirePro M6100: the Geekbench OpenCL test. The results are decisively one-sided. The RX 5500 XT scores 46,965 points, while the FirePro M6100 manages 13,354 points. This translates to a delta of 251.7% in favor of the RX 5500 XT, meaning it delivers roughly three and a half times the OpenCL compute performance of the older FirePro part.

Contextualizing the FirePro M6100's score, it sits at the 54th percentile among all GPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 13,354. Its nearest rivals are all within a razor-thin margin: the AMD Radeon RX 5500M scores 13,356 (a 0% delta), the AMD Radeon HD 8950M scores 13,376 (0.2% below the FirePro), the AMD Radeon Pro 555X scores 13,321 (0.3% above), and the AMD Radeon Pro 555 scores 13,407 (0.4% below). The FirePro M6100 is thus firmly planted in a cluster of mid-range mobile GPUs from its era, with no meaningful separation from any of them in raw compute.

The RX 5500 XT, by contrast, occupies the 57th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 14,692 when considering its full benchmark suite. Its nearest rivals show a different competitive landscape: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770 scores 14,747 (0.4% ahead of the RX 5500 XT), the NVIDIA Quadro M2000 scores 14,532 (1.1% behind), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M scores 14,404 (2% behind), and the AMD Radeon RX Vega 11 scores 14,385 (2.1% behind). The RX 5500 XT is essentially neck-and-neck with the GTX 770, while holding a small but consistent edge over the other three rivals.

The single head-to-head result is stark, but it is also the only direct comparison available. The Geekbench OpenCL workload is compute-heavy and heavily favors architectures with higher raw FLOP throughput. The RX 5500 XT's FP32 rating of 5.196 TFLOPS against the FirePro M6100's 1.971 TFLOPS explains the magnitude of the gap, as does the difference in shading units (1,408 versus 896) and texture units (88 versus 56). The performance delta in the recorded test is far larger than the architectural ratios alone would suggest, indicating that memory bandwidth and driver-level efficiency also play a substantial role. The RX 5500 XT's 224.0 GB/s bandwidth versus 96.00 GB/s for the FirePro M6100 is a 2.33x advantage, closely matching the overall score delta.

No other benchmark results exist for the FirePro M6100 in the database, so the head-to-head section is necessarily limited to this one test. For the RX 5500 XT, the broader benchmark suite shows a more rounded profile: PassMark G3D at 9,083, PassMark GPU Compute at 4,446, Geekbench Metal at 54,842, Geekbench Vulkan at 44,191, and 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 at 1,032. These additional numbers confirm that the RX 5500 XT is a competent all-rounder, but they cannot be compared directly against the FirePro M6100 due to missing data for the latter.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the only direct benchmark comparison in the database?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT wins decisively. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, it scores 46,965 versus 13,354 for the AMD FirePro M6100, a 251.7% advantage.

Q: How does the RX 5500 XT compare to its nearest rivals in average benchmark score?

A: The RX 5500 XT has an average benchmark score of 14,692. It trails the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770 by 0.4% (14,747), but leads the NVIDIA Quadro M2000 by 1.1% (14,532), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M by 2% (14,404), and the AMD Radeon RX Vega 11 by 2.1% (14,385).

Q: Where does the FirePro M6100 sit among its nearest rivals?

A: The FirePro M6100's average score of 13,354 places it effectively in a dead heat with its closest competitors. It matches the AMD Radeon RX 5500M (13,356, 0% delta), trails the AMD Radeon HD 8950M by 0.2% (13,376), leads the AMD Radeon Pro 555X by 0.3% (13,321), and trails the AMD Radeon Pro 555 by 0.4% (13,407).

Q: What is the percentile ranking of each GPU?

A: The RX 5500 XT ranks at the 57th percentile among all GPUs, while the FirePro M6100 ranks at the 54th percentile. The three-percentile gap reflects the RX 5500 XT's higher standing in the overall distribution.

Q: Is there any benchmark where the FirePro M6100 comes out ahead?

A: No. The database contains only one head-to-head benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, and the RX 5500 XT wins it. The FirePro M6100 has no recorded wins in any comparison.

Q: What memory specifications differentiate the two cards?

A: The RX 5500 XT uses 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 224.0 GB/s bandwidth. The FirePro M6100 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth. The RX 5500 XT has both double the capacity and more than double the bandwidth.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 5500 XT wins in every measurable category where both cards have data. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 46,965 is 251.7% higher than the FirePro M6100's 13,354, making it the clear choice for any compute-oriented workload. The FP32 throughput of 5.196 TFLOPS versus 1.971 TFLOPS, the texture rate of 162.4 GTexel/s versus 61.60 GTexel/s, and the pixel rate of 59.04 GPixel/s versus 17.60 GPixel/s all point in the same direction. For gaming, the RX 5500 XT's broader benchmark suite (PassMark G3D at 9,083, 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 at 1,032, Geekbench Vulkan at 44,191) demonstrates competence across multiple APIs, while the FirePro M6100 has no comparable gaming data recorded.

The FirePro M6100's only salvageable advantage is its form factor. As an MXM Module with no power connectors, it is designed for portable and modular systems where the RX 5500 XT's dual-slot, 1x 8-pin power connector layout would not fit. The RX 5500 XT also requires a 300 W suggested PSU, which further reinforces that it targets desktop builds with adequate power delivery. The FirePro M6100's "Portable Device Dependent" display outputs and MXM-B (3.0) bus interface make it a drop-in component for specific laptop or compact workstation chassis, whereas the RX 5500 XT expects a standard PCIe 4.0 x8 slot and discrete display connections.

In terms of use-case split, the RX 5500 XT wins for anyone needing raw performance, modern API support, or high-bandwidth memory. The FirePro M6100 retains relevance only in legacy mobile systems that require its specific MXM form factor and low power draw. Neither card is in production; both are marked end-of-life in the database. The RX 5500 XT, released in December 2019, belongs to the Radeon RX 5000 series with an RDNA 1.0 architecture, while the FirePro M6100, released in May 2014, belongs to the FirePro Mobile (Mx100) generation with GCN 2.0.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every specification field. The RX 5500 XT is built on a 7 nm process, while the FirePro M6100 uses 28 nm. Transistor counts are 6,400 million versus 2,080 million, and die sizes are 158 mm² versus 160 mm². The RX 5500 XT has a much higher transistor density at 40.5M per mm², compared to 13.0M per mm² for the FirePro M6100. Clock speeds show the RX 5500 XT with a base of 1607 MHz, boost of 1845 MHz, and game clock of 1717 MHz; the FirePro M6100 has no recorded base, boost, or game clocks. Memory clocks are 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) for the RX 5500 XT versus 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective) for the FirePro M6100.

Memory configuration differs substantially. The RX 5500 XT has 4 GB of GDDR6 with a 128-bit bus and 224.0 GB/s bandwidth. The FirePro M6100 has 2 GB of GDDR5 with a 128-bit bus and 96.00 GB/s bandwidth. The core geometry also diverges: the RX 5500 XT has 1,408 shading units, 88 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, while the FirePro M6100 has 896 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Pixel rate is 59.04 GPixel/s for the RX 5500 XT versus 17.60 GPixel/s for the FirePro M6100. Texture rate is 162.4 GTexel/s versus 61.60 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 5.196 TFLOPS versus 1.971 TFLOPS. The RX 5500 XT also has FP16 capability at 10.39 TFLOPS (2:1), while the FirePro M6100 has no recorded FP16 rating.

Power and physical specifications are also distinct. The RX 5500 XT has a TDP of 130 W, a dual-slot form factor, a 1x 8-pin power connector, a suggested PSU of 300 W, a PCIe 4.0 x8 bus interface, and a length of 180 mm (7.1 inches). The FirePro M6100 has no recorded TDP, uses an MXM Module slot width, has no power connectors, no suggested PSU, an MXM-B (3.0) bus interface, and no recorded dimensions. Display outputs are 1x HDMI 2.0b plus 3x DisplayPort 1.4a on the RX 5500 XT, while the FirePro M6100's outputs are dependent on the portable device it is installed in. API support differs as well: the RX 5500 XT supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4; the FirePro M6100 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs spans multiple generations of AMD design. The RX 5500 XT uses the Navi 14 chip built on RDNA 1.0, part of the Radeon RX 5000 series with the Navi (RX 5000) generation. The FirePro M6100 uses the Emerald chip built on GCN 2.0, part of the FirePro Mobile (Mx100) generation. RDNA 1.0 represents a significant departure from the older Graphics Core Next designs, with changes to the compute unit layout, wavefront scheduling, and cache hierarchy. GCN 2.0, by contrast, is an incremental evolution of the original GCN architecture, which AMD used across multiple product tiers.

The process node difference is a primary driver of the performance gap. The RX 5500 XT is fabricated on TSMC's 7 nm process, while the FirePro M6100 uses TSMC's 28 nm node. This allows the RX 5500 XT to pack 6,400 million transistors into a 158 mm² die, whereas the FirePro M6100 fits only 2,080 million transistors into a similar 160 mm² die. The transistor density of 40.5M per mm² versus 13.0M per mm² is a 3.1x difference, which directly enables the RX 5500 XT's higher clock speeds and shader counts.

Cache and memory architecture also reflect the generational divide. The RX 5500 XT uses GDDR6 with a 224.0 GB/s bandwidth, more than double the FirePro M6100's GDDR5 at 96.00 GB/s. The RX 5500 XT's memory clock of 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) versus 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective) shows the newer memory standard's efficiency advantage. Neither GPU has ray tracing cores or tensor cores, so those fields remain null for both.

The RX 5500 XT's RDNA 1.0 architecture introduces a redesigned compute unit that pairs 32 shading units per CU, whereas GCN 2.0 uses a different arrangement. This is reflected in the FP16 support: the RX 5500 XT can perform FP16 at 10.39 TFLOPS using a 2:1 ratio relative to FP32, while the FirePro M6100 has no recorded FP16 capability. The DirectX feature level also differs, with the RX 5500 XT supporting 12_1 and the FirePro M6100 limited to 12_0. Vulkan support is newer on the RX 5500 XT (1.4 versus 1.2.170), though both support OpenGL 4.6.

The bus interface is another architectural distinction. The RX 5500 XT uses PCIe 4.0 x8, which doubles the per-lane bandwidth of the older PCIe 3.0 standard that the FirePro M6100's MXM-B (3.0) interface effectively relies on. For a desktop card, PCIe 4.0 x8 provides ample bandwidth for the 224.0 GB/s memory subsystem. The FirePro M6100's MXM interface is a mobile-oriented standard that limits it to laptop and compact workstation implementations. The RX 5500 XT is a successor to the Vega architecture, while the FirePro M6100's predecessor is FirePro Mobility; the RX 5500 XT's successor is Navi II, while the FirePro M6100's successor is Radeon Pro Mobile. These lineage markers confirm that the two cards come from entirely different product families, with the RX 5500 XT aimed at consumer desktop gaming and the FirePro M6100 aimed at professional mobile workstations.