AMD FirePro W2100 vs AMD Radeon R7 M260 Comparison

The AMD Radeon R7 M260 and AMD FirePro W2100 are two end-of-life mobile and workstation GPUs, respectively, that deliver nearly identical average benchmark scores despite fundamentally different designs. The R7 M260 achieves an average benchmark score of 4499, placing it in the 26th percentile of all GPUs, while the FirePro W2100 scores 4295, sitting in the 25th percentile. The head-to-head results are split evenly: the FirePro W2100 wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 4093 versus 3708 (a 9.4% advantage), while the R7 M260 takes the Geekbench Vulkan test with 5289 versus 4497 (a 17.6% advantage). This makes the choice between them entirely dependent on the workload and software API in use.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split decision. For OpenCL compute tasks, the AMD FirePro W2100 is the stronger option. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 4093 beats the Radeon R7 M260’s 3708 by 9.4%, and it also outperforms its own nearest rivals in that metric, sitting 0.3% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M and 1.3% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M. This suggests the FirePro W2100 was the more capable compute-oriented card in legacy OpenCL workloads.

For Vulkan-based applications, the AMD Radeon R7 M260 is decisively better. Its Geekbench Vulkan score of 5289 crushes the FirePro W2100’s 4497 by 17.6%, a substantial margin that reflects its newer GCN 3.0 architecture’s superior Vulkan driver support and feature set. The R7 M260 also holds a higher percentile ranking at 26 versus 25, and its average score of 4499 is 4.7% higher than the FirePro W2100’s 4295.

The verdict for buyers is straightforward. If the primary use case involves modern graphics APIs like Vulkan, the Radeon R7 M260 is the only rational pick, given its 17.6% performance lead. If the workload relies on legacy OpenCL compute, the FirePro W2100 offers a 9.4% advantage, making it the better choice for that specific niche. The FirePro W2100 also has a lower TDP of 26 W and requires no power connectors, whereas the R7 M260 has no listed TDP, suggesting the FirePro is the more power-efficient option for constrained systems.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different generations of AMD’s Graphics Core Next (GCN) architecture. The Radeon R7 M260 uses the Topaz chip built on GCN 3.0, while the FirePro W2100 uses the Oland chip built on the original GCN 1.0. This architectural gap explains many of the performance differences observed in the benchmarks.

The R7 M260’s Topaz chip is fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC, containing 1,550 million transistors on a 125 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.4 million per square millimeter. In contrast, the FirePro W2100’s Oland chip is also built on TSMC’s 28 nm node but packs only 950 million transistors into a 77 mm² die, resulting in a density of 12.3 million per square millimeter. The R7 M260 therefore has 63% more transistors and a 63% larger die, which provides the hardware foundation for its higher compute throughput.

The compute resources differ significantly. The R7 M260 features 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 8 raster operation units (ROPs). The FirePro W2100 has fewer of each: 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. This gives the R7 M260 a 20% advantage in shading units and TMUs, directly contributing to its higher pixel and texture rates. The R7 M260 achieves 7.840 GPixel/s and 23.52 GTexel/s, while the FirePro W2100 manages only 5.440 GPixel/s and 13.60 GTexel/s.

Clock speeds further widen the gap. The R7 M260 runs at a base clock of 940 MHz with a boost of 980 MHz, while the FirePro W2100 operates at a much lower 630 MHz base and 680 MHz boost. This 49% advantage in base clock and 44% in boost clock helps the R7 M260 reach 752.6 GFLOPS of FP32 performance, compared to the FirePro W2100’s 435.2 GFLOPS. Notably, the R7 M260 also supports FP16 at 752.6 GFLOPS (1:1 ratio), while the FirePro W2100 has no listed FP16 capability.

Memory configurations also diverge. Both cards have 2 GB of DDR3 memory, but the FirePro W2100 uses a 128-bit bus width, delivering 28.80 GB/s of bandwidth, exactly double the R7 M260’s 64-bit bus and 14.40 GB/s. The R7 M260 compensates with higher clocks, but the memory bandwidth deficit is a significant architectural limitation. The FirePro W2100 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), while the R7 M260 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), indicating a newer feature level. Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.170.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has better overall average benchmark performance?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M260 has a higher average benchmark score of 4499 compared to the AMD FirePro W2100’s 4295, a difference of 4.7%. The R7 M260 also ranks in the 26th percentile of all GPUs versus the FirePro W2100’s 25th percentile.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in OpenCL performance?

A: The AMD FirePro W2100 wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 4093, beating the Radeon R7 M260’s 3708 by 9.4%. This indicates the FirePro W2100 is the stronger choice for OpenCL compute workloads.

Q: Which GPU is better for Vulkan-based applications?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M260 dominates in Vulkan, scoring 5289 on Geekbench Vulkan versus the FirePro W2100’s 4497, a 17.6% advantage. This is the largest performance gap in the head-to-head results.

Q: What are the key architectural differences between the two chips?

A: The R7 M260 uses the Topaz chip on GCN 3.0 with 1,550 million transistors, 384 shading units, and 24 TMUs. The FirePro W2100 uses the Oland chip on GCN 1.0 with 950 million transistors, 320 shading units, and 20 TMUs. The R7 M260 also has a higher base clock of 940 MHz versus 630 MHz.

Q: Which card has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD FirePro W2100 has significantly higher memory bandwidth at 28.80 GB/s, thanks to its 128-bit bus. The Radeon R7 M260 is limited to 14.40 GB/s with its 64-bit bus, despite both using 2 GB of DDR3 memory.

Q: What are the power requirements for the FirePro W2100?

A: The FirePro W2100 has a TDP of 26 W, requires no power connectors, and has a suggested PSU of 200 W. The Radeon R7 M260 does not list a TDP, power connector, or suggested PSU in its specifications.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every major specification category. The process node is identical at 28 nm from TSMC, but the die sizes diverge: the R7 M260 measures 125 mm² with 1,550 million transistors, while the FirePro W2100 is 77 mm² with 950 million transistors. Transistor density is nearly identical at 12.4M/mm² versus 12.3M/mm².

Clock speeds heavily favor the R7 M260, with a base of 940 MHz and boost of 980 MHz, compared to the FirePro W2100’s 630 MHz base and 680 MHz boost. The memory clock is the same at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective), but the bus widths differ: 64-bit for the R7 M260 versus 128-bit for the FirePro W2100. This results in bandwidth of 14.40 GB/s versus 28.80 GB/s, respectively.

Compute resources show the R7 M260 with 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs, while the FirePro W2100 has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. Pixel rate is 7.840 GPixel/s for the R7 M260 versus 5.440 GPixel/s for the FirePro W2100. Texture rate is 23.52 GTexel/s versus 13.60 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 752.6 GFLOPS versus 435.2 GFLOPS, and the R7 M260 adds FP16 at 752.6 GFLOPS, which the FirePro W2100 lacks.

Power and physical specifications are only listed for the FirePro W2100: 26 W TDP, single-slot width, no power connectors, 200 W suggested PSU, and dimensions of 168 mm length and 69 mm height. The R7 M260 has no listed TDP, slot width, power connectors, or dimensions. The FirePro W2100 also lists 2x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, while the R7 M260 has no display output information. Both use PCIe 3.0 x8 interfaces. DirectX support differs (12_0 for R7 M260, 11_1 for FirePro W2100), while OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.170 are identical.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two available benchmarks tell a story of specialization. In Geekbench OpenCL, the AMD FirePro W2100 emerges victorious with a score of 4093, defeating the Radeon R7 M260’s 3708 by 9.4%. This OpenCL win aligns with the FirePro’s workstation heritage, despite its older GCN 1.0 architecture. The FirePro W2100’s doubled memory bandwidth of 28.80 GB/s likely plays a role in this result, as OpenCL compute kernels often benefit from faster memory access.

The Geekbench Vulkan benchmark flips the outcome decisively. The Radeon R7 M260 scores 5289 against the FirePro W2100’s 4497, a commanding 17.6% lead. This is the largest delta in either direction and reflects the R7 M260’s newer GCN 3.0 architecture and DirectX 12 (12_0) support, which translates to superior Vulkan driver optimization and feature utilization. The R7 M260’s 752.6 GFLOPS of FP32 compute power, 49% higher base clock, and 20% more shading units all contribute to this victory.

Comparing to their respective nearest rivals adds context. The R7 M260’s average score of 4499 places it just 0.1% behind the AMD FirePro W4190M (4505) and 1.3% behind the Intel HD Graphics P530 (4560). It is also 1.5% behind the AMD Radeon RX 560 (4569) and 1.7% behind the AMD Radeon R5 M230 (4577). The FirePro W2100’s average of 4295 puts it 0.3% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M (4282) and 0.6% ahead of the AMD Radeon Vega 3 (4268), while trailing the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 GDDR6 (4335) by 0.9% and leading the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M (4241) by 1.3%.

The overall wins are tied at one apiece. The FirePro W2100 takes the OpenCL crown, while the R7 M260 claims Vulkan dominance. The magnitude of the Vulkan victory (17.6%) is nearly double the magnitude of the OpenCL victory (9.4%), suggesting that the R7 M260’s architectural advantages in compute throughput and newer API support are more impactful in modern workloads. The FirePro W2100’s win is narrower, indicating that its advantages are more specialized and less broadly applicable. For anyone choosing between these two end-of-life GPUs, the decision hinges entirely on whether the target applications prefer OpenCL or Vulkan, with the R7 M260 offering the larger performance swing in its favored API.