AMD FirePro M6100 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M Comparison

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M and AMD FirePro M6100 are both end-of-life mobile graphics solutions built on a 28 nm TSMC process, but they target different segments of the laptop market. The data shows a single head-to-head benchmark result, with the GTX 965M holding a decisive advantage in raw compute performance. This analysis breaks down the measured performance delta, architectural differences, and the specific use cases where each GPU holds an edge based solely on the available benchmark and specification data.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, which measures general-purpose compute performance across a variety of workloads. In this test, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M scores 14,509 points, while the AMD FirePro M6100 scores 13,354 points. This yields a delta of 8.6% in favor of the GTX 965M. This is a meaningful, though not overwhelming, margin — it places the two GPUs in adjacent performance tiers rather than completely different classes.

Context from the nearest rivals clarifies the significance of this score. The GTX 965M’s average benchmark score of 14,404 places it just 0.1% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX Vega 11 (14,385) and 0.2% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN (14,373). It also edges out the AMD Radeon Vega 11 (14,352) by 0.4% and the Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics (14,315) by 0.6%. These are extremely tight margins, indicating that the GTX 965M sits at a competitive midpoint among integrated and older discrete solutions. The FirePro M6100, with an average score of 13,354, is essentially tied with the AMD Radeon RX 5500M (13,356, 0% delta) and trails the AMD Radeon HD 8950M (13,376) by 0.2%. It also slightly outperforms the AMD Radeon Pro 555X (13,321) by 0.3% but falls 0.4% behind the AMD Radeon Pro 555 (13,407).

The 8.6% gap between the two contenders is substantial when viewed against these rival deltas, which are almost all under 1%. In percentile terms, the GTX 965M ranks in the 56th percentile of all GPUs, while the FirePro M6100 ranks in the 54th percentile. The two-point percentile difference reinforces the benchmark result: the GTX 965M is the stronger compute performer, but neither card is a high-end part by modern standards. The FirePro M6100’s OpenCL score of 13,354 is its only recorded benchmark, whereas the GTX 965M also shows a Vulkan score of 14,299, which is consistent with its OpenCL result and suggests stable performance across different APIs.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL compute benchmarks?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M wins the only direct head-to-head test, scoring 14,509 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 13,354 for the AMD FirePro M6100, a delta of 8.6%.

Q: How does the GTX 965M compare to its closest rivals?

A: The GTX 965M’s average benchmark score of 14,404 puts it 0.1% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX Vega 11, 0.2% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN, 0.4% ahead of the AMD Radeon Vega 11, and 0.6% ahead of the Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics.

Q: Where does the FirePro M6100 stand relative to its nearest competitors?

A: The FirePro M6100’s average score of 13,354 is exactly tied with the AMD Radeon RX 5500M, 0.2% behind the AMD Radeon HD 8950M, 0.3% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro 555X, and 0.4% behind the AMD Radeon Pro 555.

Q: Do the two GPUs have similar memory configurations?

A: Yes, both feature 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus. However, the FirePro M6100 has a higher memory bandwidth of 96.00 GB/s compared to 80.19 GB/s for the GTX 965M, due to its higher effective memory clock of 6 Gbps versus 5 Gbps.

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The GTX 965M achieves 30.40 GPixel/s, which is notably higher than the FirePro M6100’s 17.60 GPixel/s. This is largely due to the GTX 965M having 32 ROPs versus only 16 on the FirePro.

Q: Are there API support differences that matter?

A: The GTX 965M supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the FirePro M6100 supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.2.170. The GTX 965M also has a higher OpenCL score, indicating stronger compute API performance in this comparison.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M wins decisively in raw compute throughput. Its OpenCL score of 14,509 is 8.6% higher than the FirePro’s, and its average benchmark score of 14,404 versus 13,354 reflects a consistent advantage. This makes it the better choice for workloads that stress general-purpose GPU compute, such as OpenCL-accelerated applications, video encoding, or physics simulations. The GTX 965M also benefits from a higher pixel rate (30.40 GPixel/s versus 17.60 GPixel/s), which suggests better performance in fill-rate-bound scenarios like high-resolution texture mapping or heavy post-processing effects. Its larger transistor count (5,200 million versus 2,080 million) and bigger die (398 mm² versus 160 mm²) indicate a more complex, capable chip overall.

The AMD FirePro M6100, despite losing the compute benchmark, has specific advantages in memory bandwidth. Its 96.00 GB/s of bandwidth is 19.7% higher than the GTX 965M’s 80.19 GB/s. This could translate to better performance in memory-bandwidth-sensitive tasks, such as large data transfers or certain scientific computing kernels that are less compute-bound. The FirePro also achieves a slightly higher texture rate of 61.60 GTexel/s versus 60.80 GTexel/s, a marginal 1.3% edge that could matter in texture-heavy scenes. For users prioritizing raw FP32 throughput, the FirePro’s 1.971 TFLOPS is technically higher than the GTX 965M’s 1.946 TFLOPS, though this does not translate into a benchmark win. The FirePro’s strength lies in its efficiency per transistor — it delivers comparable compute with 60% fewer transistors — and its superior memory subsystem.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every core specification, with the GTX 965M generally featuring more execution resources. The GTX 965M has 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, while the FirePro M6100 has 896 shading units, 56 TMUs, and only 16 ROPs. This gives the GTX 965M a 14.3% advantage in shading units and TMUs, and a 100% advantage in ROPs. Clock speeds also differ: the GTX 965M has a base clock of 924 MHz and a boost clock of 950 MHz, while the FirePro M6100 has no base or boost clock listed. Memory clocks are a point of differentiation, with the FirePro running at 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective) versus the GTX 965M’s 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective).

The resulting throughput metrics favor different aspects of each card. The GTX 965M produces 30.40 GPixel/s versus 17.60 GPixel/s for the FirePro, a 72.7% advantage in pixel throughput. Texture rates are nearly identical at 60.80 GTexel/s versus 61.60 GTexel/s, with the FirePro holding a slim 1.3% lead. FP32 compute is essentially a tie, with the GTX 965M at 1.946 TFLOPS and the FirePro at 1.971 TFLOPS. Memory bandwidth clearly favors the FirePro at 96.00 GB/s versus 80.19 GB/s. Both cards use 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus. Neither card lists a TDP, and both use an MXM Module slot with no power connectors. Both have the same MXM-B (3.0) bus interface and the same portable-device-dependent display outputs.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split is fundamental: NVIDIA’s Maxwell 2.0 versus AMD’s GCN 2.0. The GTX 965M is built on the GM204 chip with 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 13.1M per mm². The FirePro M6100 uses the Emerald chip with 2,080 million transistors on a 160 mm² die, resulting in a density of 13.0M per mm². Both are fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process, so the density difference is negligible. The GTX 965M is part of the GeForce 900M generation, while the FirePro belongs to the FirePro Mobile (Mx100) generation. Their production statuses are both end-of-life, with the GTX 965M releasing on 2015-01-08 and the FirePro on 2014-05-26.

The API support reflects their architectural generations. The GTX 965M supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the FirePro supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.2.170. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The higher DirectX feature level and newer Vulkan version on the GTX 965M indicate better forward compatibility with modern graphics APIs. Neither card has dedicated ray tracing or tensor cores. The GTX 965M’s predecessor is the GeForce 800M and its successor is the GeForce 10 Mobile, while the FirePro’s predecessor is the FirePro Mobility and its successor is the Radeon Pro Mobile. These lineage details underscore the generational positioning, with the GTX 965M being a newer design by roughly eight months and built on a substantially larger and more transistor-rich chip, which explains its benchmark advantage despite the FirePro’s higher memory bandwidth.