AMD FirePro M6100 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 480 Comparison

The AMD FirePro M6100 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 480 are two end-of-life graphics cards from different eras and market segments, yet their benchmark scores land remarkably close together. The data shows a near-tie in raw compute performance, but the underlying specifications and target use cases could not be more different. This analysis breaks down the numbers to see which card holds up better in modern workloads.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, which measures general-purpose compute performance. In this test, the AMD FirePro M6100 scores 13354, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 480 scores 13300. The AMD card wins by a razor-thin margin of 0.4%. This is essentially a statistical dead heat — the delta is so small that real-world application performance would likely vary depending on driver optimizations and workload characteristics.

Looking at the nearest rival data reinforces this picture. The FirePro M6100 sits at the 54th percentile among all GPUs, while the GTX 480 sits at the 53rd percentile. The FirePro M6100’s closest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 5500M (scoring 13356, a 0% delta) and the AMD Radeon HD 8950M (scoring 13376, a -0.2% delta). The GTX 480’s closest rivals include the AMD Radeon Pro 555X (scoring 13321, a -0.2% delta) and the FirePro M6100 itself (scoring 13354, a -0.4% delta). The performance cluster here is extremely tight, with all cards within a 0.6% band of each other.

The takeaway from the head-to-head results is that neither card has a meaningful compute advantage. The FirePro M6100 wins the single available test, but the 0.4% delta is within run-to-run variance. For any practical purpose, these two GPUs deliver identical OpenCL throughput.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two cards is vast, reflecting their different release timelines and design philosophies. The AMD FirePro M6100 uses the Emerald chip built on GCN 2.0 architecture, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 480 uses the GF100 chip built on the Fermi architecture, manufactured on a 40 nm process, also at TSMC. The process node difference is significant — 28 nm versus 40 nm — which directly impacts transistor density. The FirePro M6100 packs 2,080 million transistors into a 160 mm² die, yielding a density of 13.0 million transistors per mm². The GTX 480 packs 3,100 million transistors into a much larger 529 mm² die, yielding only 5.9 million transistors per mm².

The compute layouts diverge sharply. The FirePro M6100 has 896 shading units, 56 texture mapping units, and 16 raster output units. The GTX 480 has only 480 shading units but 60 TMUs and 48 ROPs. This explains the different performance characteristics: the AMD card focuses on raw shader throughput, while the NVIDIA card emphasizes pixel processing and memory bandwidth.

Feature support also differs. The FirePro M6100 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The GTX 480 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but has no Vulkan support listed. The API difference matters for modern games and compute applications that rely on Vulkan. The GTX 480’s DirectX 12 support is limited to the 11_0 feature level, which means it cannot use certain DirectX 12 features.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the benchmark data, the FirePro M6100 wins the single compute test. However, the specification differences point to distinct use cases where each card would excel beyond what the raw OpenCL score suggests.

The FirePro M6100 wins in compute-heavy workloads that leverage its higher shading unit count and 1.971 TFLOPS of FP32 performance. Its GCN 2.0 architecture is designed for general-purpose compute, and the Vulkan 1.2.170 support makes it usable in modern compute APIs. The 2 GB GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus provides 96.00 GB/s of bandwidth, which is modest but sufficient for its target workloads.

The GTX 480, despite losing the benchmark, wins in scenarios that depend on memory bandwidth and pixel throughput. Its 384-bit memory bus delivers 177.4 GB/s of bandwidth — nearly double the FirePro M6100’s — and its 48 ROPs give it a 21.03 GPixel/s pixel rate versus the FirePro’s 17.60 GPixel/s. The GTX 480 also has a higher texture rate of 42.06 GTexel/s, though the FirePro M6100 actually beats it here with 61.60 GTexel/s. The GTX 480’s 1536 MB memory capacity is smaller, but the bandwidth advantage makes it better suited for high-resolution rendering with large textures.

The form factor is another differentiator. The FirePro M6100 is an MXM module, designed for mobile workstations, while the GTX 480 is a dual-slot desktop card measuring 267 mm. The GTX 480 requires a 600 W power supply and uses 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin power connectors, with a 250 W TDP. The FirePro M6100 has no power connectors listed and is portable-device dependent for display outputs.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ on nearly every specification field. The FirePro M6100 uses a 28 nm process; the GTX 480 uses 40 nm. The FirePro has 2,080 million transistors on a 160 mm² die; the GTX 480 has 3,100 million on a 529 mm² die. Transistor density is 13.0M per mm² for AMD versus 5.9M per mm² for NVIDIA.

Memory configurations diverge significantly. The FirePro M6100 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth. The GTX 480 has 1536 MB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus with 177.4 GB/s bandwidth. The memory clock is 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective) for AMD versus 924 MHz (3.7 Gbps effective) for NVIDIA.

Compute resources differ: 896 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 16 ROPs for AMD versus 480 shading units, 60 TMUs, and 48 ROPs for NVIDIA. Pixel rate is 17.60 GPixel/s versus 21.03 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 61.60 GTexel/s versus 42.06 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 1.971 TFLOPS versus 1,345.0 GFLOPS.

The bus interface is MXM-B (3.0) for the mobile card versus PCIe 2.0 x16 for the desktop card. Display outputs are portable-device dependent for the FirePro versus 2x DVI and 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a for the GTX 480. The GTX 480 has a launch MSRP of 499 USD.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The AMD FirePro M6100 scores 13354, which is 0.4% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 480’s 13300. This is a negligible difference.

Q: Does the GTX 480 have more memory bandwidth?

A: Yes. The GTX 480 has a 384-bit bus delivering 177.4 GB/s, while the FirePro M6100 has a 128-bit bus delivering 96.00 GB/s.

Q: Which card has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The FirePro M6100 has 1.971 TFLOPS, which is roughly 46% higher than the GTX 480’s 1,345.0 GFLOPS.

Q: Can the GTX 480 run Vulkan applications?

A: No Vulkan support is listed for the GTX 480. The FirePro M6100 supports Vulkan 1.2.170.

Q: What is the power requirement for the GTX 480?

A: The GTX 480 has a 250 W TDP and requires a 600 W suggested power supply, using 1x 6-pin and 1x 8-pin power connectors.

Q: Are these cards still in production?

A: Both are end-of-life. The FirePro M6100 was succeeded by Radeon Pro Mobile, and the GTX 480 was succeeded by GeForce 500.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear but nuanced conclusion. The AMD FirePro M6100 wins the only direct benchmark, but the margin is too small to declare a definitive performance victor. The real decision comes down to platform and workload.

Choose the FirePro M6100 if you need a mobile workstation card with modern API support. Its GCN 2.0 architecture provides Vulkan 1.2.170 and DirectX 12 (12_0), making it compatible with current compute frameworks. The 896 shading units and 1.971 TFLOPS give it a solid compute advantage, and the MXM form factor fits into portable devices. The 54th percentile ranking among all GPUs shows it remains competitive in its class.

Choose the GTX 480 if you have a desktop system and prioritize memory bandwidth and pixel throughput. The 177.4 GB/s bandwidth and 48 ROPs make it better suited for high-resolution rendering, despite the older Fermi architecture. The 250 W TDP and dual-slot design require a substantial power supply, but the 53rd percentile ranking shows it still delivers comparable compute performance. The lack of Vulkan support and limited DirectX 12 (11_0) feature level are notable drawbacks for modern applications.

The benchmark results indicate these cards are essentially equivalent in raw OpenCL performance, with the FirePro M6100 holding a 0.4% edge. The FirePro M6100’s higher transistor density and newer process node give it efficiency and API advantages, while the GTX 480’s larger die and wider memory bus give it bandwidth advantages. For compute workloads, the FirePro M6100 is the safer choice. For legacy desktop rendering with high memory demands, the GTX 480 retains relevance. The data does not support a clear winner — it supports two different tools for two different jobs.