AMD FirePro M6100 vs NVIDIA Quadro M2000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains a single direct comparison between the NVIDIA Quadro M2000 and the AMD FirePro M6100. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Quadro M2000 scores 14,588 against 13,354 for the FirePro M6100, a decisive 9.2% advantage for the NVIDIA part. This is the only head-to-head benchmark available, and it establishes the Quadro M2000 as the clear leader in raw compute performance as measured by this test.

Context from the database's nearest rival comparisons reinforces this result. The Quadro M2000's average benchmark score of 14,532 places it 0.9% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M (14,404), 1% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX Vega 11 (14,385), and 1.1% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN (14,373). It trails the AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT (14,692) by 1.1%. The FirePro M6100's average score of 13,354 is essentially tied with the AMD Radeon RX 5500M (13,356, 0% delta), 0.2% behind the AMD Radeon HD 8950M (13,376), and 0.3% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro 555X (13,321), while sitting 0.4% behind the AMD Radeon Pro 555 (13,407).

These figures show that the Quadro M2000 operates in a higher performance bracket entirely. Its 9.2% head-to-head win over the FirePro M6100 is consistent with the gap between their respective peer groups: the Quadro's nearest rivals cluster around 14,400, while the FirePro's nearest rivals cluster around 13,400. The separation is roughly 1,000 points in average benchmark score, which is a substantial margin in this tier of hardware.

The Geekbench Vulkan result for the Quadro M2000 (14,475) is nearly identical to its OpenCL score (14,588), indicating consistent performance across different compute APIs. No Vulkan score was recorded for the FirePro M6100, so no cross-API comparison can be made for that card.

Architecture Differences

The two cards are built on fundamentally different architectures from different generations. The NVIDIA Quadro M2000 uses the GM206 chip, which is based on the Maxwell 2.0 architecture. It belongs to the Quadro Maxwell (Mx000) generation. The AMD FirePro M6100 uses the Emerald chip, based on GCN 2.0, and belongs to the FirePro Mobile (Mx100) generation.

Both are manufactured on the same 28 nm process at TSMC, but the silicon implementations differ. The Quadro M2000 packs 2,940 million transistors into a 228 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.9 million transistors per square millimeter. The FirePro M6100 has 2,080 million transistors on a 160 mm² die, with a density of 13.0 million per square millimeter. The density is nearly identical, but the Quadro's larger die gives it roughly 41% more transistors.

The compute resources tell a more nuanced story. The FirePro M6100 has more shading units (896 versus 768), more texture mapping units (56 versus 48), but fewer render output units (16 versus 32). This configuration gives the Quadro a much higher pixel rate (37.22 GPixel/s versus 17.60 GPixel/s, a 111% advantage) while the FirePro takes the texture rate lead (61.60 GTexel/s versus 55.82 GTexel/s, about 10% higher). In raw FP32 throughput, the FirePro M6100 is ahead at 1.971 TFLOPS versus 1.786 TFLOPS for the Quadro M2000, a 10.4% difference, yet the OpenCL benchmark shows the Quadro winning, which suggests that architecture efficiency and driver optimization matter more than nominal FLOP counts.

Memory configurations differ as well. The Quadro M2000 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 105.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The FirePro M6100 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on the same 128-bit bus, delivering 96.00 GB/s. The Quadro doubles the capacity and provides about 10% more bandwidth. Memory clocks are 1653 MHz (6.6 Gbps effective) for the Quadro versus 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective) for the FirePro.

The API support also reflects the generational gap. The Quadro M2000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The FirePro M6100 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. Both are end-of-life products, but the Quadro M2000 was released on April 7, 2016, nearly two years after the FirePro M6100's May 26, 2014 release date.

The Verdict

The data points clearly to the NVIDIA Quadro M2000 as the superior product. It wins the only recorded head-to-head benchmark by 9.2%, holds a higher average benchmark score (14,532 versus 13,354), and places in the 56th percentile of all GPUs compared to the FirePro M6100's 54th percentile. The Quadro M2000 also offers double the memory (4 GB versus 2 GB), higher memory bandwidth (105.8 GB/s versus 96.00 GB/s), and a more modern API set including Vulkan 1.4 versus 1.2.170.

The FirePro M6100 does have some nominal advantages: more shading units, more TMUs, higher texture rate, and higher FP32 throughput. But these theoretical advantages do not translate into benchmark wins. The recorded data shows the Quadro M2000 outperforming it in practice, and the Quadro's peer group sits roughly 1,000 points higher in average score.

For users choosing between these two, the Quadro M2000 is the choice when compute performance, memory capacity, and modern API support are priorities. The FirePro M6100's only meaningful advantages are its mobile form factor (MXM Module) and its higher nominal texture rate, which could matter in specific texture-bound workloads, though no benchmark data exists to confirm this advantage in practice.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro M2000 | AMD FirePro M6100 |

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

| Chip | GM206 | Emerald |

| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 | GCN 2.0 |

| Generation | Quadro Maxwell (Mx000) | FirePro Mobile (Mx100) |

| Transistors | 2,940 million | 2,080 million |

| Die Size | 228 mm² | 160 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.9M / mm² | 13.0M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 796 MHz | Not specified |

| Boost Clock | 1163 MHz | Not specified |

| Memory Clock | 1653 MHz (6.6 Gbps effective) | 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 2 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus | 128 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 105.8 GB/s | 96.00 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 768 | 896 |

| TMUs | 48 | 56 |

| ROPs | 32 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 37.22 GPixel/s | 17.60 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 55.82 GTexel/s | 61.60 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 1.786 TFLOPS | 1.971 TFLOPS |

| TDP | 75 W | Not specified |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | MXM Module |

| Power Connectors | None | None |

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | Not specified |

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

| Display Outputs | 4x DisplayPort 1.2 | Portable Device Dependent |

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

| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |

| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.2.170 |

| Dimensions | 201 mm (7.9 inches) length, 111 mm (4.4 inches) height | Not specified |

| Release Date | 2016-04-07 | 2014-05-26 |

| Predecessor | Quadro Kepler | FirePro Mobility |

| Successor | Quadro Pascal | Radeon Pro Mobile |

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M2000 has an average benchmark score of 14,532, while the AMD FirePro M6100 scores 13,354.

Q: What is the performance difference in the head-to-head OpenCL test?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M2000 scores 14,588 versus 13,354 for the AMD FirePro M6100, a 9.2% advantage for the Quadro.

Q: How much memory does each card have?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M2000 has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory, while the AMD FirePro M6100 has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory.

Q: Which card has higher FP32 compute throughput?

A: The AMD FirePro M6100 has a higher nominal FP32 rating at 1.971 TFLOPS, compared to 1.786 TFLOPS for the NVIDIA Quadro M2000.

Q: What are the pixel rate differences between the two cards?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M2000 achieves 37.22 GPixel/s, which is more than double the AMD FirePro M6100's 17.60 GPixel/s.

Q: Which card supports a newer version of Vulkan?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M2000 supports Vulkan 1.4, while the AMD FirePro M6100 supports Vulkan 1.2.170.

Q: How do the nearest rivals compare for each card?

A: The Quadro M2000's closest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M, scores 14,404 (0.9% behind), while the FirePro M6100's closest rival, the AMD Radeon RX 5500M, scores 13,356 (essentially tied).

Where Each One Wins

NVIDIA Quadro M2000 advantages based on recorded data:

• Wins the head-to-head OpenCL benchmark by 9.2%.
• Higher average benchmark score (14,532 versus 13,354), placing in the 56th percentile versus 54th.
• Double the memory capacity (4 GB versus 2 GB), beneficial for large datasets.
• Higher memory bandwidth (105.8 GB/s versus 96.00 GB/s).
• More than double the pixel rate (37.22 GPixel/s versus 17.60 GPixel/s), which matters for fill-rate-bound workloads.
• Newer API support: DirectX 12 (12_1) versus 12 (12_0), and Vulkan 1.4 versus 1.2.170.
• Lower TDP (75 W versus unspecified), making it a more power-efficient choice for desktop workstations.
• PCIe 3.0 x16 interface versus MXM-B (3.0), which is a desktop versus mobile form factor difference.
• Four DisplayPort 1.2 outputs for multi-monitor setups, versus portable-device-dependent outputs.

AMD FirePro M6100 advantages based on recorded data:

• Higher nominal FP32 throughput (1.971 TFLOPS versus 1.786 TFLOPS), a 10.4% theoretical compute advantage.
• More shading units (896 versus 768) and more TMUs (56 versus 48).
• Higher texture rate (61.60 GTexel/s versus 55.82 GTexel/s), about 10% ahead, which could help in texture-heavy workloads.
• MXM Module form factor, suitable for mobile workstation integration.
• Earlier release date (May 2014), which may matter for legacy system compatibility.
• Transistor density is marginally higher (13.0M per mm² versus 12.9M per mm²).

The overall picture is clear: the NVIDIA Quadro M2000 is the stronger product across the recorded benchmarks and most practical specifications. The AMD FirePro M6100 retains only theoretical advantages in compute and texture throughput, with no benchmark evidence confirming these translate into real-world wins. The Quadro M2000 is the recommended choice for users prioritizing performance, memory capacity, and modern software support.