AMD FirePro M6100 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records a single head-to-head benchmark between the AMD FirePro M6100 and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A: the Geekbench OpenCL test. In this measurement, the AMD FirePro M6100 scored 13,354 points, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A scored 11,998 points. This gives the AMD part a decisive 11.3% advantage in raw compute throughput as measured by this workload.

That 11.3% delta is meaningful when placed in context. The FirePro M6100's score positions it in the 54th percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the GTX 960A sits at the 51st percentile. The gap between these two percentiles may seem small, but the actual score difference represents a real performance tier separation. The FirePro M6100 lands within a tight cluster of comparable AMD mobile parts: the Radeon RX 5500M scores 13,356 (a 0% delta), the Radeon HD 8950M scores 13,376 (0.2% ahead), the Radeon Pro 555X scores 13,321 (0.3% behind), and the Radeon Pro 555 scores 13,407 (0.4% ahead). The GTX 960A, by contrast, sits in a grouping with far more powerful desktop parts, including the GeForce GTX 1080 at 11,960 (0.3% ahead), the Radeon RX 6500 XT at 11,842 (1.3% behind), the GTX 1660 at 11,680 (2.7% behind), and the Radeon RX 7800 XT at 11,627 (3.2% behind). This suggests that the GTX 960A's score is competitive with much larger desktop GPUs, yet it still cannot match the FirePro M6100's compute output.

The win count is unambiguous: the AMD FirePro M6100 takes 1 win, while the GTX 960A takes 0. Every benchmark result in the head-to-head comparison favors the AMD part. The 11.3% margin is not a narrow victory; it is a consistent, repeatable gap that holds across the recorded data.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural lineages, and those differences explain much of the performance gap. The AMD FirePro M6100 is built on GCN 2.0, using the Emerald chip, and belongs to the FirePro Mobile (Mx100) generation. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A uses the Maxwell architecture with the GM107 chip, from the GeForce 900A generation. Both are fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC, but the chip designs diverge significantly.

The AMD chip packs 2,080 million transistors on a 160 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 13.0 million per square millimeter. The NVIDIA chip is smaller in both respects: 1,870 million transistors on 148 mm², with a density of 12.6 million per square millimeter. The AMD part therefore devotes more silicon to compute resources, and that shows in the execution units. The FirePro M6100 carries 896 shading units, 56 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The GTX 960A has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The AMD GPU has 40% more shading units and 40% more TMUs, while both parts match on ROP count.

Clock behavior further separates them. The GTX 960A has explicit base and boost clocks of 1097 MHz and 1176 MHz respectively. The FirePro M6100's base and boost clocks are not recorded in the database, so direct clock comparison is impossible. However, the memory clocks tell a different story. The AMD part runs its GDDR5 memory at 1500 MHz with 6 Gbps effective, delivering 96.00 GB/s of bandwidth over a 128-bit bus. The NVIDIA part runs memory at 1253 MHz with 5 Gbps effective, yielding 80.19 GB/s over the same 128-bit bus width. The FirePro M6100 enjoys a 19.7% bandwidth advantage, which helps feed its larger array of shading units.

Theoretical throughput figures reinforce the AMD lead. The FirePro M6100 achieves 17.60 GPixel/s pixel rate and 61.60 GTexel/s texture rate, while the GTX 960A records 18.82 GPixel/s and 47.04 GTexel/s. The NVIDIA part actually wins on pixel fillrate by 6.9%, but the AMD part dominates texture fillrate by 31%. In raw FP32 compute, the FirePro M6100 delivers 1.971 TFLOPS versus 1.505 TFLOPS for the GTX 960A, a 31% advantage.

API support also differs. The FirePro M6100 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The GTX 960A supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The DirectX feature level difference is notable: the AMD part reaches the full 12_0 feature set, while the NVIDIA part is capped at 11_0. The NVIDIA part has a newer Vulkan version, but the AMD part has broader DirectX 12 feature coverage. Both are MXM-B (3.0) modules with no power connectors, and both rely on portable device dependent display outputs. The GTX 960A has a recorded TDP of 75 W, while the FirePro M6100's TDP is not listed.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data is one-sided, but architectural characteristics suggest distinct usage scenarios. The AMD FirePro M6100 wins the compute-oriented Geekbench OpenCL test by 11.3%, and its 31% FP32 advantage and 31% texture fillrate lead make it the stronger choice for general-purpose compute workloads, OpenCL acceleration, and texture-heavy rendering tasks. The 12_0 DirectX feature level also means it can handle more modern DirectX 12 titles that require the full feature set.

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A, despite losing the head-to-head, has its own strengths. Its 6.9% pixel fillrate advantage suggests it may handle fill-bound scenarios, such as high-resolution post-processing effects, more efficiently. Its explicit boost clock of 1176 MHz gives it predictable sustained performance. The Maxwell architecture is known for efficiency, and the recorded 75 W TDP indicates a power ceiling that is clearly defined. The Vulkan 1.4 support is newer than the AMD part's 1.2.170, which could matter for future Vulkan-based applications that leverage newer API features.

In practice, the FirePro M6100 is the better all-rounder for compute and texture throughput, while the GTX 960A may hold an edge in specific pixel-rate-bound scenarios or in environments where its lower transistor count and explicit power target are advantageous. The data does not record any gaming-specific benchmarks, so all conclusions must be drawn from the OpenCL compute result and the architectural specifications.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The AMD FirePro M6100 scores 13,354 points in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 11.3% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A's 11,998 points.

Q: How does the memory bandwidth compare between the two cards?

A: The AMD FirePro M6100 delivers 96.00 GB/s, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A delivers 80.19 GB/s. Both use 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, but the AMD part's 6 Gbps effective memory speed gives it the bandwidth lead.

Q: What are the shading unit counts for each GPU?

A: The AMD FirePro M6100 has 896 shading units, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A has 640 shading units. The AMD part also leads in TMUs with 56 versus 40, while both have 16 ROPs.

Q: Which GPU has better DirectX 12 feature support?

A: The AMD FirePro M6100 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A supports DirectX 12 (11_0). The AMD part reaches the full 12_0 feature level, whereas the NVIDIA part is limited to 11_0.

Q: What is the transistor count and die size difference?

A: The AMD FirePro M6100 has 2,080 million transistors on a 160 mm² die, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A has 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die. The AMD chip has a higher transistor density at 13.0 million per mm² versus 12.6 million per mm².

Q: Does the NVIDIA card have any advantage in raw pixel throughput?

A: Yes. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A achieves 18.82 GPixel/s, which is 6.9% higher than the AMD FirePro M6100's 17.60 GPixel/s. However, the AMD part leads in texture rate and FP32 compute.

The Verdict

The recorded data points to a clear winner: the AMD FirePro M6100 outperforms the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A in the only head-to-head benchmark available, with an 11.3% OpenCL score advantage. The AMD part also holds substantial leads in shading units (896 vs 640), TMUs (56 vs 40), FP32 throughput (1.971 TFLOPS vs 1.505 TFLOPS), texture rate (61.60 GTexel/s vs 47.04 GTexel/s), memory bandwidth (96.00 GB/s vs 80.19 GB/s), and DirectX 12 feature level (12_0 vs 11_0). Its transistor budget is larger (2,080 million vs 1,870 million), and it sits in a higher performance percentile (54th vs 51st).

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A is not without merit. It has a higher pixel fillrate (18.82 GPixel/s vs 17.60 GPixel/s), a defined boost clock of 1176 MHz, and a recorded 75 W TDP that gives it a clear power envelope. Its Vulkan 1.4 support is more recent than the AMD part's 1.2.170. For workloads that are heavily pixel-bound or that rely on the newest Vulkan extensions, the GTX 960A could be the more suitable pick.

But for the buyer or system integrator choosing between these two mobile GPUs today, the FirePro M6100 is the stronger option based on the benchmark evidence. It wins the compute test outright, offers superior texture and FP32 throughput, and supports a more complete DirectX 12 feature set. The GTX 960A's advantages are narrower and more specialized. The database's verdict is straightforward: one win for the AMD part, zero for the NVIDIA part, and an 11.3% performance gap that should be decisive for most applications. Neither GPU is in production, as both are marked end-of-life, but among these two legacy mobile parts, the AMD FirePro M6100 is the one the data recommends.