AMD FirePro M6100 vs AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT Comparison

FAQ

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT scores 48,289, while the AMD FirePro M6100 scores 13,354. The RX 6500 XT leads by 34,935 points, which translates to a 72.3% advantage in this specific test.

Q: Which GPU has the higher memory bandwidth?

A: The RX 6500 XT offers 143.9 GB/s of bandwidth, which is significantly higher than the FirePro M6100’s 96.00 GB/s. The newer card also uses a faster memory type, GDDR6, compared to GDDR5 on the older card.

Q: What are the transistor counts for each chip?

A: The FirePro M6100 uses the Emerald chip with 2,080 million transistors on a 28 nm process. The RX 6500 XT uses the Navi 24 chip with 5,400 million transistors on a 6 nm process. The RX 6500 XT packs more than double the transistors into a smaller die.

Q: How do the shading units and texture units compare?

A: The RX 6500 XT has 1,024 shading units and 64 texture mapping units (TMUs). The FirePro M6100 has 896 shading units and 56 TMUs. The newer card holds a modest lead in both counts.

Q: What is the pixel rate difference between the two cards?

A: The RX 6500 XT achieves a pixel rate of 90.08 GPixel/s, while the FirePro M6100 reaches 17.60 GPixel/s. This is a substantial gap, indicating the RX 6500 XT can push far more pixels per second.

Q: Which GPU supports newer graphics APIs?

A: The RX 6500 XT supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4. The FirePro M6100 supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.2.170. The RX 6500 XT also includes ray tracing cores, which the FirePro M6100 lacks.

The Verdict

The data clearly separates these two GPUs by generation and purpose. The AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT is the superior performer in every recorded benchmark metric. In the single shared test, Geekbench OpenCL, it delivers a score of 48,289, which is 72.3% higher than the FirePro M6100’s 13,354. That is not a marginal improvement; it is a generational leap.

For users seeking raw compute performance in a desktop context, the RX 6500 XT is the obvious choice. Its FP32 throughput of 5.765 TFLOPS dwarfs the FirePro M6100’s 1.971 TFLOPS. The newer card also offers double the memory capacity (4 GB versus 2 GB) and a higher bandwidth (143.9 GB/s versus 96.00 GB/s), making it more suitable for modern workloads and texture-heavy applications.

The FirePro M6100, however, was designed for a different environment. It is an MXM module, meaning it fits into specific laptop or workstation chassis with a standardized MXM-B 3.0 interface. It has no power connectors and its display outputs are portable-device dependent. For users with an aging FirePro-compatible system that needs a drop-in upgrade, this card may be the only option. But for someone building or upgrading a standard desktop, the RX 6500 XT is categorically faster and more capable.

The percentile data reinforces this conclusion. The FirePro M6100 sits at the 54th percentile among all GPUs, while the RX 6500 XT sits at the 51st percentile. Despite the RX 6500 XT’s lower overall percentile, its closest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 (avg score 11,960, delta -1%) and the AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT (avg score 11,627, delta 1.9%). The FirePro M6100’s rivals are older midrange parts like the AMD Radeon Pro 555X (avg score 13,321, delta 0.3%). The RX 6500 XT is competing in a higher performance tier, even if its aggregate percentile is slightly lower due to a broader benchmark suite.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct head-to-head benchmark recorded in the database is Geekbench OpenCL, and the result is decisive. The RX 6500 XT scores 48,289, while the FirePro M6100 scores 13,354. The delta is -72.3% for the FirePro M6100, meaning it trails by nearly three-quarters of the newer card’s score.

In relative terms, the RX 6500 XT is roughly 3.6 times faster in this compute-oriented workload. That aligns with the raw specifications: the RX 6500 XT’s FP32 rating is 5.765 TFLOPS versus 1.971 TFLOPS, a factor of about 2.9, while its texture rate of 180.2 GTexel/s is nearly triple the FirePro M6100’s 61.60 GTexel/s. The pixel rate gap is even larger: 90.08 GPixel/s versus 17.60 GPixel/s, a factor of roughly 5.1.

The RX 6500 XT also wins on memory metrics. Its 143.9 GB/s bandwidth is 49.9% higher than the FirePro M6100’s 96.00 GB/s. The newer card’s memory clock runs at 2248 MHz (18 Gbps effective) compared to 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective) on the older card. Even with a narrower 64-bit bus, the RX 6500 XT’s faster GDDR6 memory delivers more throughput.

The FirePro M6100 does not win any recorded benchmark. Its only advantage lies in form factor and legacy compatibility, not performance. For users constrained to an MXM slot, the FirePro M6100 remains a functional option, but the data shows no scenario where it outperforms the RX 6500 XT in raw speed.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every measurable specification. The FirePro M6100 has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, while the RX 6500 XT has 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus. Despite the narrower bus, the RX 6500 XT achieves higher bandwidth due to faster memory clocks.

The FirePro M6100 operates at a memory clock of 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective), while the RX 6500 XT runs at 2248 MHz (18 Gbps effective). The RX 6500 XT also has explicit base, boost, and game clocks (2310 MHz, 2815 MHz, and 2610 MHz, respectively), while the FirePro M6100 has no recorded base or boost clocks.

The RX 6500 XT has more shading units (1,024 versus 896), more TMUs (64 versus 56), and double the ROPs (32 versus 16). It also includes 16 ray tracing cores, which the FirePro M6100 lacks entirely. FP32 compute is 5.765 TFLOPS versus 1.971 TFLOPS, and the RX 6500 XT offers FP16 performance at 11.53 TFLOPS (2:1), while the FirePro M6100 has no recorded FP16 capability.

Power and physical specifications diverge sharply. The RX 6500 XT has a TDP of 107 W, requires a single 6-pin power connector, and comes as a dual-slot card. The FirePro M6100 is an MXM module with no power connectors and a slot width listed as MXM Module. The RX 6500 XT uses a PCIe 4.0 x4 bus interface, while the FirePro M6100 uses MXM-B (3.0). Display outputs also differ: the RX 6500 XT offers 1x HDMI 2.1 and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a, while the FirePro M6100’s outputs are portable-device dependent.

The RX 6500 XT supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while the FirePro M6100 supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.2.170. Both cards support OpenGL 4.6. The RX 6500 XT has a launch MSRP of 199 USD.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs belong to entirely different architectural generations. The FirePro M6100 is built on GCN 2.0, using the Emerald chip, while the RX 6500 XT uses RDNA 2.0 with the Navi 24 chip. The process node tells much of the story: the FirePro M6100 uses a 28 nm process from TSMC, while the RX 6500 XT uses a 6 nm process, also from TSMC.

Transistor density reflects the manufacturing leap. The FirePro M6100 packs 2,080 million transistors into a 160 mm² die, yielding a density of 13.0M transistors per mm². The RX 6500 XT packs 5,400 million transistors into a smaller 107 mm² die, achieving a density of 50.5M transistors per mm². That is nearly four times the density, which explains how the newer chip can include ray tracing cores and a much larger shader array despite a smaller physical footprint.

The architecture also changes how compute works. GCN 2.0 is a scalar-vector design optimized for the compute workloads of its era, while RDNA 2.0 is a gaming-first architecture with a redesigned shader engine, explicit ray tracing support, and a 2:1 FP16 path. The RX 6500 XT’s FP16 rating of 11.53 TFLOPS underscores this capability, while the FirePro M6100 has no recorded FP16 throughput.

Memory architecture also differs fundamentally. The FirePro M6100 uses a 128-bit memory bus with GDDR5, while the RX 6500 XT uses a 64-bit bus with GDDR6. The newer card’s higher effective memory speed (18 Gbps versus 6 Gbps) compensates for the narrower bus, resulting in 143.9 GB/s versus 96.00 GB/s. This is a deliberate design choice for RDNA 2.0, prioritizing bandwidth per pin and lower power consumption.

Finally, the RX 6500 XT belongs to the Radeon RX 6000 series and the Navi II generation, while the FirePro M6100 belongs to the FirePro Mobile (Mx100) generation. The RX 6500 XT’s predecessor is listed as Navi, and its successor is Navi III. The FirePro M6100’s predecessor is FirePro Mobility, and its successor is Radeon Pro Mobile. These lineage differences confirm that the FirePro M6100 is a legacy professional mobile part, while the RX 6500 XT is a modern consumer desktop card.