AMD FirePro M6100 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER Comparison

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER than the AMD FirePro M6100 in the recorded benchmark data?

A: In the only shared benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, the GTX 1650 SUPER scores 43,875 versus 13,354 for the FirePro M6100. This represents a 69.6% advantage for the NVIDIA card, as the delta percentage indicates the FirePro trails by that margin.

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score across all recorded tests?

A: The GTX 1650 SUPER has an average benchmark score of 11,047, while the FirePro M6100 has an average score of 13,354. However, these averages are not directly comparable because the FirePro has only one recorded benchmark, while the NVIDIA card has ten recorded tests across different workloads.

Q: What are the memory specifications of each card?

A: The FirePro M6100 has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth. The GTX 1650 SUPER has 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus with 192.0 GB/s bandwidth, exactly double the bandwidth of the AMD card.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in terms of transistor density?

A: The GTX 1650 SUPER has a transistor density of 23.2M per mm², while the FirePro M6100 has 13.0M per mm². This reflects the newer 12 nm process node used by NVIDIA versus the 28 nm node used by AMD.

Q: Which card has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The GTX 1650 SUPER achieves 55.20 GPixel/s, which is significantly higher than the FirePro M6100's 17.60 GPixel/s. This indicates the NVIDIA card can process pixels more than three times faster in fill-rate-limited scenarios.

Q: What API feature levels does each card support?

A: The FirePro M6100 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The GTX 1650 SUPER supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, with a higher DirectX feature level and newer Vulkan version.

Architecture Differences

The AMD FirePro M6100 is built on GCN 2.0 architecture, using the Emerald chip manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It contains 2,080 million transistors on a 160 mm² die. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER uses the Turing architecture with the TU116 chip, fabricated on a 12 nm process, also by TSMC. This newer process allows NVIDIA to pack 6,600 million transistors onto a 284 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 23.2M per mm² compared to 13.0M per mm² for the AMD part.

The FirePro M6100 belongs to the FirePro Mobile (Mx100) generation and features 896 shading units, 56 texture mapping units, and 16 render output units. The GTX 1650 SUPER, from the GeForce 16 generation, has 1,280 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. These are substantial differences in raw execution resources, with NVIDIA offering 43% more shaders, 43% more TMUs, and double the ROPs.

Memory architecture differs significantly. The FirePro uses 2 GB of GDDR5 with a 128-bit interface and 96.00 GB/s bandwidth. The GTX 1650 SUPER uses 4 GB of GDDR6 with the same 128-bit bus width but achieves 192.0 GB/s bandwidth due to faster 12 Gbps effective memory speed versus 6 Gbps for the FirePro. The NVIDIA card also has a higher base clock of 1530 MHz and boost clock of 1725 MHz, whereas the FirePro's base and boost clocks are not recorded in the database.

The GTX 1650 SUPER supports DirectX 12 (12_1), a higher feature level than the FirePro's DirectX 12 (12_0). Both support OpenGL 4.6, but the NVIDIA card supports Vulkan 1.4 versus Vulkan 1.2.170 for the AMD part. The FirePro is an MXM module with no power connectors, while the GTX 1650 SUPER is a dual-slot card with a 6-pin power connector and a 300 W suggested PSU. The NVIDIA card has a TDP of 100 W, while the FirePro's TDP is not recorded.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains only one directly comparable benchmark between these two GPUs: Geekbench OpenCL. In this test, the GTX 1650 SUPER scores 43,875, while the FirePro M6100 scores 13,354. The delta percentage of -69.6% shows that the FirePro trails by nearly 70%, meaning the NVIDIA card delivers over three times the OpenCL compute performance. This is a decisive victory for the GTX 1650 SUPER in the only head-to-head measurement available.

The GTX 1650 SUPER also has a broader benchmark profile in the database. Its Passmark G3D score is 10,179, and its Passmark GPU Compute score is 4,477. The FirePro M6100 has no recorded Passmark results. In Geekbench Vulkan, the NVIDIA card scores 50,519, though the FirePro has no Vulkan benchmark recorded for comparison.

The FirePro M6100's percentile ranking is 54, meaning it sits above the midpoint of all GPUs in the database. The GTX 1650 SUPER has a percentile ranking of 50, placing it exactly at the median. However, these percentiles are calculated from different benchmark sets, so they do not directly indicate which card is faster overall. The single shared test clearly favors the NVIDIA card.

The FirePro's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 5500M (average score 13,356, delta 0%), the AMD Radeon HD 8950M (13,376, -0.2%), and the AMD Radeon Pro 555X (13,321, +0.3%). The GTX 1650 SUPER's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 550 (11,075, -0.2%), the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000D Blackwell Max-Q (11,088, -0.4%), and the NVIDIA GeForce MX350 (10,883, +1.5%). The FirePro's average score of 13,354 is actually higher than the GTX 1650 SUPER's average of 11,047, but this reflects the different test distributions, not real-world performance equivalence.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unequivocal in the single shared test: the GTX 1650 SUPER is dramatically faster than the FirePro M6100 in OpenCL compute workloads. The 69.6% delta represents a massive performance gap that would be noticeable in any GPU-accelerated application. The NVIDIA card also brings twice the memory capacity (4 GB versus 2 GB) and double the memory bandwidth (192.0 GB/s versus 96.00 GB/s), which matters for texture-heavy workloads and larger datasets.

The FirePro M6100 is an end-of-life mobile workstation part from 2014, designed for MXM modules in laptops. The GTX 1650 SUPER is a desktop card from 2019 with a dual-slot form factor, PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, and standard display outputs (DVI, HDMI 2.0, DisplayPort 1.4a). For any modern use case requiring compute performance, the GTX 1650 SUPER is the clear choice based on the recorded data.

However, the FirePro's higher percentile ranking (54 versus 50) and higher average benchmark score (13,354 versus 11,047) indicate that the AMD card performs respectably within its own benchmark context. The FirePro's nearest rivals are all within 0.4% of its score, showing it is a well-balanced part for its generation. The GTX 1650 SUPER's nearest rivals show more variance, with the GeForce MX350 trailing by 1.5%.

For a builder choosing between these two today, the data strongly favors the GTX 1650 SUPER. The only consideration for the FirePro would be if you specifically need an MXM module for a compatible laptop chassis, but even then, the performance deficit is substantial.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD FirePro M6100 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER |

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

| Architecture | GCN 2.0 | Turing |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 12 nm |

| Transistors | 2,080 million | 6,600 million |

| Die Size | 160 mm² | 284 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 13.0M / mm² | 23.2M / mm² |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bandwidth | 96.00 GB/s | 192.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 896 | 1,280 |

| TMUs | 56 | 80 |

| ROPs | 16 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 17.60 GPixel/s | 55.20 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 61.60 GTexel/s | 138.0 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Compute | 1.971 TFLOPS | 4.416 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Compute | Not recorded | 8.832 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | Not recorded | 100 W |

| Slot Width | MXM Module | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | 1x 6-pin |

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

| DirectX Support | 12 (12_0) | 12 (12_1) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.2.170 | 1.4 |

| Release Date | 2014-05-26 | 2019-11-21 |

Where Each One Wins

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER:

• OpenCL compute performance: 43,875 versus 13,354, a 69.6% advantage in the only shared benchmark.
• Memory bandwidth: 192.0 GB/s versus 96.00 GB/s, beneficial for high-resolution textures and compute workloads.
• Memory capacity: 4 GB versus 2 GB, allowing larger working sets without swapping.
• Pixel fill rate: 55.20 GPixel/s versus 17.60 GPixel/s, advantageous for high-resolution rendering.
• Texture fill rate: 138.0 GTexel/s versus 61.60 GTexel/s, beneficial for texture-heavy scenes.
• FP32 compute: 4.416 TFLOPS versus 1.971 TFLOPS, more than double the raw compute throughput.
• DirectX 12 (12_1) feature level versus 12_0, enabling newer rendering features.
• Vulkan 1.4 support versus 1.2.170, providing access to newer API extensions.
• Desktop form factor with standard display outputs (DVI, HDMI 2.0, DisplayPort 1.4a).
• Dual-slot cooling design with 100 W TDP and 300 W suggested PSU.

AMD FirePro M6100:

• Percentile ranking: 54 versus 50, indicating better relative standing within its recorded benchmark set.
• Average benchmark score: 13,354 versus 11,047, though based on different test distributions.
• MXM module form factor, suitable for specific laptop chassis that accept this form factor.
• No external power connector required, simplifying installation in compatible systems.
• End-of-life production status with a 2014 release date, so it may be available as used or surplus hardware.

The data shows that the GTX 1650 SUPER wins every directly comparable performance metric. The FirePro M6100's advantages are limited to niche form-factor compatibility and its own benchmark context, which does not include the same test suite as the NVIDIA card. For any workload where compute performance, memory bandwidth, or modern API support matters, the GTX 1650 SUPER is the superior choice. The FirePro would only be selected for a specific MXM-based laptop that cannot accept a desktop PCIe card.