AMD FirePro M6100 vs NVIDIA GeForce MX350 Comparison

FAQ

Q: How does the AMD FirePro M6100 compare to the NVIDIA GeForce MX350 in OpenCL performance?

A: The FirePro M6100 scores 13,354 points in Geekbench OpenCL, while the MX350 scores 8,689. That puts the AMD part 53.7% ahead of the NVIDIA chip in this specific test.

Q: Which GPU has the higher overall benchmark average?

A: The FirePro M6100 averages 13,354 across its recorded benchmarks, while the MX350 averages 10,883 across its OpenCL and Vulkan results. The FirePro sits at the 54th percentile of all GPUs, the MX350 at the 49th.

Q: What are the closest rivals to each card according to the database?

A: The FirePro M6100 sits within 0.4% of the AMD Radeon Pro 555 (13,407), within 0.3% of the AMD Radeon Pro 555X (13,321), and essentially tied with the AMD Radeon RX 5500M (13,356). The MX350 is within 1.7% of the AMD Radeon RX 550 (11,075), 1.5% of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER (11,047), and 0.7% of the AMD Radeon Pro 450 (10,804).

Q: Which GPU has the smaller manufacturing process?

A: The MX350 uses a 14 nm process from Samsung, while the FirePro M6100 uses a 28 nm process from TSMC. The MX350 also packs more transistors per square millimeter: 25.0 million versus 13.0 million.

Q: Do both cards support the same DirectX version?

A: No. The FirePro M6100 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the MX350 supports DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6, but the FirePro lists Vulkan 1.2.170 while the MX350 lists Vulkan 1.4.

Q: What memory configuration does each card use?

A: Both have 2 GB of GDDR5, but the FirePro uses a 128-bit bus with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth, while the MX350 uses a 64-bit bus with 56.06 GB/s bandwidth. The FirePro's memory runs at 6 Gbps effective, the MX350's at 7 Gbps effective.

Architecture Differences

The FirePro M6100 is built on AMD's GCN 2.0 architecture, using the Emerald chip. It was manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC, with 2,080 million transistors packed into a 160 mm² die. The MX350, by contrast, uses NVIDIA's Pascal architecture with the GP107S chip, fabricated on Samsung's 14 nm process. That newer node allows NVIDIA to fit 3,300 million transistors into a smaller 132 mm² die, yielding a much higher transistor density of 25.0 million per square millimeter versus 13.0 million for the AMD part.

The core configurations differ substantially. The FirePro M6100 fields 896 shading units, 56 texture mapping units, and 16 raster output units. The MX350 has 640 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 raster output units. Despite having fewer shading units, the MX350 reaches a higher pixel rate of 23.49 GPixel/s compared to 17.60 GPixel/s for the FirePro, a consequence of its higher clock speeds. The FirePro counters with a higher texture rate of 61.60 GTexel/s versus 46.98 GTexel/s for the MX350, reflecting its larger TMU count.

Raw floating-point throughput is close. The FirePro delivers 1.971 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the MX350 manages 1.879 TFLOPS. The MX350 also lists an FP16 rate of 29.36 GFLOPS, noted at a 1:64 ratio, whereas the FirePro does not report FP16 capabilities. Both cards lack dedicated ray tracing cores and tensor cores.

The bus interfaces differ as well. The FirePro uses MXM-B (3.0), a modular laptop standard, while the MX350 connects via PCIe 3.0 x4. Both rely on portable device dependent display outputs and require no power connectors. The FirePro is packaged as an MXM module, while the MX350's slot width is not specified in the database.

API support shows a generational gap. The FirePro supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The MX350 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The higher DirectX feature level and newer Vulkan version on the MX350 reflect its later release and more modern architecture.

Where Each One Wins

The FirePro M6100 wins the only direct head-to-head benchmark recorded in the database. Its OpenCL score of 13,354 versus the MX350's 8,689 represents a 53.7% advantage. That is a decisive margin, and it places the FirePro in a performance tier alongside the AMD Radeon RX 5500M and Radeon Pro 555X, both of which score within 0.3% of it. For compute workloads that rely on OpenCL, the FirePro is clearly the stronger choice.

The MX350, however, has a second benchmark in its record: a Vulkan score of 13,077. That figure is close to the FirePro's OpenCL result, though the two tests are not directly comparable. The MX350's average score across both tests is 10,883, which is lower than the FirePro's single benchmark average of 13,354, but the Vulkan result suggests the NVIDIA part is capable of strong performance in that API.

Where each card wins depends on the workload. For OpenCL compute tasks, the FirePro's higher shading unit count, wider memory bus, and greater bandwidth give it a clear edge. Its 128-bit bus delivers 96.00 GB/s, while the MX350's 64-bit bus manages only 56.06 GB/s. That bandwidth advantage likely explains much of the FirePro's OpenCL lead. The MX350, with its higher clocks and newer architecture, may be better suited to tasks that leverage Vulkan, where it posts a competitive 13,077 score.

In terms of raw specifications, the FirePro wins on texture rate (61.60 versus 46.98 GTexel/s) and FP32 throughput (1.971 versus 1.879 TFLOPS). The MX350 wins on pixel rate (23.49 versus 17.60 GPixel/s), clock speeds, and transistor density. For users who prioritize compute throughput and memory bandwidth, the FirePro is the stronger part. For those who need modern API support and lower power draw, the MX350 has advantages.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every major specification category. The FirePro M6100 uses a 28 nm process, while the MX350 uses 14 nm. Transistor counts stand at 2,080 million for the AMD part and 3,300 million for the NVIDIA part. Die sizes are 160 mm² and 132 mm², respectively, giving transistor densities of 13.0M per mm² and 25.0M per mm².

Clock speeds show the MX350 with explicit base and boost values of 1354 MHz and 1468 MHz. The FirePro does not list base or boost clocks in the database, only a memory clock of 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective). The MX350's memory runs at 1752 MHz (7 Gbps effective). Memory size is identical at 2 GB, and both use GDDR5, but the bus widths differ: 128-bit for the FirePro, 64-bit for the MX350. This yields bandwidths of 96.00 GB/s and 56.06 GB/s, respectively.

Shading units, TMUs, and ROPs all differ. The FirePro has 896 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The MX350 has 640 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Pixel rates are 17.60 GPixel/s for the FirePro and 23.49 GPixel/s for the MX350. Texture rates are 61.60 GTexel/s and 46.98 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 1.971 TFLOPS versus 1.879 TFLOPS. The MX350 lists FP16 at 29.36 GFLOPS with a 1:64 ratio; the FirePro does not report FP16.

The TDP is listed only for the MX350 at 20 W. The FirePro does not have a TDP value in the database. The FirePro uses an MXM-B (3.0) bus interface and MXM module slot, while the MX350 uses PCIe 3.0 x4. Neither card requires power connectors. Both have portable device dependent display outputs.

Production status shows both as end-of-life. The FirePro was released on May 26, 2014, with the FirePro Mobility as its predecessor and Radeon Pro Mobile as its successor. The MX350 was released on February 9, 2020, with no predecessor or successor listed. The FirePro's DirectX support is 12 (12_0), the MX350's is 12 (12_1). Vulkan support is 1.2.170 for the AMD part and 1.4 for the NVIDIA part.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison in the database is the Geekbench OpenCL test. Here, the FirePro M6100 scores 13,354 against the MX350's 8,689, a delta of 53.7% in favor of the AMD card. That is a substantial gap, far larger than the differences seen among the nearest rivals of either card. The FirePro's closest competitor, the AMD Radeon Pro 555, scores 13,407, just 0.4% higher. The MX350's closest competitor, the AMD Radeon Pro 450, scores 10,804, which is 0.7% higher than the MX350's average. The FirePro's OpenCL result puts it in a completely different performance class than the MX350.

Looking at the MX350's individual results, its OpenCL score of 8,689 is its weaker showing. Its Vulkan score of 13,077 is much stronger, coming within 2.1% of the FirePro's OpenCL number. However, since the FirePro does not have a recorded Vulkan benchmark, direct comparison across APIs is not possible from the database. The MX350's average benchmark score of 10,883 is dragged down by its low OpenCL result, while the FirePro's average of 13,354 reflects its single strong OpenCL performance.

The percentile rankings reinforce this gap. The FirePro sits at the 54th percentile of all GPUs, while the MX350 sits at the 49th. That five-point difference places them on opposite sides of the median. The FirePro's rivals all score within 0.4% of its result, showing that it sits in a tightly clustered performance band. The MX350's rivals span a slightly wider range, from 10,761 to 11,075, a spread of nearly 3%.

The wins tally in the head-to-head column shows one win for the FirePro and zero for the MX350. That single benchmark outcome, however, comes with a caveat: the MX350 has a Vulkan result that suggests its overall capabilities are not fully captured by the OpenCL test alone. The database records only one common test, and in that test, the FirePro wins decisively.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear winner for OpenCL compute workloads: the AMD FirePro M6100. Its 53.7% advantage over the MX350 in the Geekbench OpenCL test is the largest margin recorded between these two cards and their nearest rivals. The FirePro also holds advantages in texture rate, FP32 throughput, and memory bandwidth, with 96.00 GB/s versus 56.06 GB/s. For any application that relies on OpenCL, the FirePro is the stronger choice.

The MX350, however, should not be dismissed outright. Its Vulkan score of 13,077 is competitive, and its newer Pascal architecture brings DirectX 12 (12_1) support and Vulkan 1.4, compared to the FirePro's DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.2.170. The MX350 also draws only 20 W, while the FirePro has no TDP listed, and it achieves a higher pixel rate despite fewer shading units. Its 14 nm process and higher transistor density indicate a more modern design.

Users who need maximum compute performance in OpenCL should select the FirePro M6100. Its benchmark score places it alongside much more recent AMD parts like the Radeon RX 5500M and Radeon Pro 555X, despite its 2014 release. The MX350, while newer, does not approach the FirePro's OpenCL result.

Users who prioritize API compatibility, lower power consumption, or Vulkan performance should consider the MX350. Its Vulkan score of 13,077 shows that it can deliver strong results in that API, and its higher DirectX feature level may matter for certain workloads. The MX350 also has a smaller die and higher transistor density, suggesting better efficiency per square millimeter.

For a pure head-to-head comparison based on recorded benchmarks, the FirePro wins. For a modern feature set and potential efficiency, the MX350 has merits. The choice depends entirely on whether the workload favors OpenCL compute or newer API support. The database records one decisive result in favor of the AMD part, and that result carries the weight of a 53.7% performance gap.