AMD FirePro M6100 vs Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics Comparison

Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics and AMD FirePro M6100 represent two very different generations of mobile graphics, separated by more than six years of architectural evolution. The Intel part is a Generation 12.1 discrete-class chip built for thin-and-light systems, while the AMD FirePro M6100 is a GCN 2.0-era workstation module. Benchmark data shows a clear, if modest, overall winner, but the underlying specifications tell a more nuanced story.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the results are unambiguous. Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics scores 14315, while AMD FirePro M6100 scores 13354. That gives Intel a 7.2% advantage — a solid, measurable lead in raw compute throughput.

Positioning the Intel part against its nearest rivals adds context. The Iris Xe MAX sits at 56th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 14315. Its closest competitors are AMD Radeon Vega 11 at 14352 (-0.3% delta), NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN at 14373 (-0.4%), and AMD Radeon RX Vega 11 at 14385 (-0.5%). The Intel part is essentially neck-and-neck with these integrated and older flagship parts, trailing by less than half a percent. Interestingly, it edges out the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 Ti at 14277 by 0.3%.

The AMD FirePro M6100, by contrast, sits at 54th percentile, with an average score of 13354. Its nearest rivals are tightly clustered: AMD Radeon RX 5500M at 13356 (0% delta), AMD Radeon HD 8950M at 13376 (-0.2%), AMD Radeon Pro 555X at 13321 (0.3%), and AMD Radeon Pro 555 at 13407 (-0.4%). The FirePro M6100 is within 0.4% of all four, indicating that its compute performance is very much in line with a specific mid-range mobile segment.

The 7.2% delta between the two contenders is meaningful but not transformative. In practical terms, the Intel part’s lead in OpenCL is roughly equivalent to the difference between the FirePro M6100 and its own closest rival — a small but consistent edge. Notably, the Intel part’s score places it in a different performance tier relative to its rivals, while the AMD part clusters with a group of similar performers.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics scores 14315, which is 7.2% higher than AMD FirePro M6100’s 13354.

Q: How does the Intel Iris Xe MAX compare to its nearest rival, the AMD Radeon Vega 11?

A: The Intel part scores 14315 versus the Radeon Vega 11’s 14352, a delta of -0.3%, meaning the AMD integrated GPU is marginally faster in this benchmark.

Q: What is the AMD FirePro M6100’s closest competitor in benchmark performance?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 5500M has an average score of 13356, which is 0% different from the FirePro M6100’s 13354, making them statistically identical.

Q: Does the Intel Iris Xe MAX beat any NVIDIA discrete GPUs in its benchmark cluster?

A: Yes, the Intel part scores 0.3% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 Ti, which averages 14277.

Q: What percentile ranking does each GPU hold among all GPUs?

A: Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics is at the 56th percentile, while AMD FirePro M6100 is at the 54th percentile.

Q: How large is the performance gap between the two GPUs in the head-to-head test?

A: The gap is 7.2%, with Intel winning the single Geekbench OpenCL test. The Intel part wins 1 benchmark, and the AMD part wins 0.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different design philosophies. Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics uses the DG1 chip, built on Generation 12.1 architecture, which is part of the Xe Graphics generation. It is fabricated on a 10 nm process at Intel’s own foundry, with a die size of 95 mm². The architecture supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 — the latter being a notably newer API version.

AMD FirePro M6100, in contrast, uses the Emerald chip, based on GCN 2.0 architecture, belonging to the FirePro Mobile (Mx100) generation. It is manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC, with a much larger die size of 160 mm² and a transistor count of 2,080 million. The transistor density is 13.0M per mm². Its API support includes DirectX 12 (12_0) — one feature level lower than Intel — but also OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.170.

The process node difference is stark: 10 nm versus 28 nm. This explains why Intel packs a similar amount of compute into a significantly smaller die. The Intel part also lacks a stated transistor count, but its smaller die at a more advanced node suggests a much higher transistor density. The AMD part’s GCN 2.0 architecture is older, designed for a different era of mobile workstations, and its Vulkan support is older as well.

Specification Differences

Memory configuration is a major differentiator. Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics comes with 4 GB of LPDDR4X memory on a 128-bit bus, running at 2133 MHz (4.3 Gbps effective), yielding 68.26 GB/s of bandwidth. AMD FirePro M6100 has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, at 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective), providing 96.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The AMD part has higher raw bandwidth by 27.74 GB/s, but half the capacity.

Compute resources differ in interesting ways. Intel has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 24 ROPs. AMD has 896 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Despite having fewer shaders and TMUs, Intel achieves higher throughput rates: its pixel rate is 39.60 GPixel/s versus AMD’s 17.60 GPixel/s, and its texture rate is 79.20 GTexel/s versus AMD’s 61.60 GTexel/s. In FP32 compute, Intel reaches 2.534 TFLOPS, while AMD reaches 1.971 TFLOPS. Intel also lists FP16 at 5.069 TFLOPS (2:1), while AMD has no FP16 figure.

Clock speeds are only partially specified. Intel has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 1650 MHz. AMD lists no base or boost clocks, only the memory clock. This makes direct frequency comparison impossible, but the performance data already accounts for these differences.

Power and physical specifications diverge sharply. Intel is rated at 25 W TDP with a suggested PSU of 200 W, and it uses an IGP slot width with no power connectors. AMD has no TDP listed, uses an MXM Module slot width, has no power connectors, and no suggested PSU. Bus interfaces also differ: Intel uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while AMD uses MXM-B (3.0). Display outputs are another contrast — Intel has no outputs, while AMD’s are portable device dependent.

Where Each One Wins

Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics wins the only head-to-head benchmark, taking the Geekbench OpenCL test by 7.2%. Its strengths are clear: higher FP32 compute (2.534 TFLOPS versus 1.971 TFLOPS), higher pixel fill rate (39.60 GPixel/s versus 17.60 GPixel/s), and higher texture fill rate (79.20 GTexel/s versus 61.60 GTexel/s). The doubling of ROPs from 16 to 24 likely explains the pixel rate advantage. Also, its 4 GB of memory doubles the AMD part’s capacity, which matters for workloads that exceed 2 GB. Intel also supports a newer Vulkan version (1.4 versus 1.2.170) and a higher DirectX feature level (12_1 versus 12_0). The 25 W TDP suggests it can operate in tighter thermal envelopes, making it suitable for ultraportable systems.

AMD FirePro M6100 does not win any benchmark in this comparison, but it retains some advantages. Its memory bandwidth is substantially higher at 96.00 GB/s versus 68.26 GB/s, which could benefit bandwidth-sensitive tasks. It also has more shading units (896 versus 768) and more TMUs (56 versus 48), even if those do not translate to higher fill rates. The GDDR5 memory type, while smaller in capacity, offers lower latency characteristics typical of that memory standard. The MXM-B (3.0) form factor suggests it was designed for modular workstation laptops, potentially offering easier serviceability in that context. Its 28 nm process and larger die (160 mm² versus 95 mm²) may indicate a different thermal profile, though no TDP is listed for the AMD part.

The use-case split is therefore about compute-versus-bandwidth. Intel is the stronger choice for general compute workloads, pixel-heavy rendering, and tasks that need more than 2 GB of memory. AMD’s higher bandwidth could favor specific data-streaming workloads, but the benchmark data shows Intel winning the overall compute race. In practical terms, the Intel part is the better performer in the single measured test, with a 7.2% lead that places it in a higher percentile bracket. The AMD part, while older and slower in this test, still holds its own against its direct contemporaries, which suggests it remains a capable option for its era. The Intel part’s 56th percentile versus AMD’s 54th percentile corroborates the 7.2% head-to-head result.