AMD FirePro W2100 vs NVIDIA GeForce 825M Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits cleanly between these two mobile-oriented GPUs. The AMD FirePro W2100 wins the only direct head-to-head comparison recorded in the database, taking the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 4093 against the NVIDIA GeForce 825M's 3694. That is a 10.8% advantage, a meaningful margin for compute workloads that lean on OpenCL.

The FirePro W2100 also shows up in the Vulkan test with a score of 4497, while the GeForce 825M has no recorded Vulkan result. That absence matters. For any application that can dispatch work through Vulkan, the FirePro W2100 has a measured capability that the NVIDIA part simply cannot demonstrate from the available data.

The GeForce 825M, however, posts a higher average benchmark score when compared against its own nearest rivals. Its average of 3694 sits within 1.2% of the AMD Radeon HD 6770 and within 0.6% of the NVIDIA Quadro 3000M, while trailing the GeForce GT 740M by 0.6% and the GeForce GT 635M by 1.2%. The FirePro W2100's average benchmark score of 4295 places it ahead of the GeForce GTX 460M by 0.3% and the AMD Radeon Vega 3 by 0.6%, while also edging out the Quadro K3000M by 1.3%. Interestingly, the FirePro's nearest rival list includes the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 GDDR6, which is 0.9% higher, an artifact of the averaging methodology rather than a realistic comparison class.

The percentile standings reinforce the split. The FirePro W2100 lands in the 25th percentile of all GPUs, while the GeForce 825M sits at the 22nd percentile. Both are firmly in entry-level territory, but the FirePro's higher percentile and its win in the only direct benchmark indicate it is the stronger compute part.

For gaming, the picture is less clear because the database contains no DirectX or OpenGL gaming benchmarks for either card. The GeForce 825M has higher raw clock speeds and more shading units, which could favor rasterization, but the recorded data does not include any test that measures that. The only verified head-to-head result is the OpenCL win for the FirePro.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural lineages. The AMD FirePro W2100 uses the Oland chip built on GCN 1.0, while the NVIDIA GeForce 825M uses the GK208 chip built on Kepler 2.0. Both are manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC, but the transistor counts and die sizes differ.

The FirePro W2100 packs 950 million transistors into a 77 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.3 million per square millimeter. The GeForce 825M has a larger transistor budget at 1,020 million, but also a larger die at 87 mm², which gives it a slightly lower density of 11.7 million per square millimeter. The NVIDIA chip is the bigger physical part, but the AMD chip packs its transistors more tightly.

Core configuration differs notably. The FirePro W2100 has 320 shading units, 20 texture mapping units, and 8 ROPs. The GeForce 825M has more of almost everything: 384 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The NVIDIA part has 64 more shaders and 12 more TMUs, which should give it an advantage in texture-heavy workloads. The ROP count is identical at 8.

Clock speeds favor the NVIDIA part as well. The GeForce 825M runs at 850 MHz base and 941 MHz boost, while the FirePro W2100 runs at 630 MHz base and 680 MHz boost. That is a substantial clock gap, roughly 34% higher base and 38% higher boost for the NVIDIA chip. Yet the FirePro still wins the OpenCL compute test, which suggests its GCN architecture extracts more useful work per clock in that workload.

Memory configurations diverge sharply. The FirePro W2100 has 2 GB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 28.80 GB/s of bandwidth. The GeForce 825M has just 1024 MB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, delivering only 14.40 GB/s. The FirePro has exactly twice the memory bus width and twice the bandwidth. That is a structural advantage that no amount of clock speed can fully offset in bandwidth-sensitive tasks.

Power and physical design also differ. The FirePro W2100 is rated at 26 W TDP and uses a single-slot cooler with no power connectors, while the GeForce 825M is rated at 33 W TDP and is an integrated graphics package with no dimensions recorded. The FirePro is a full expansion card at 168 mm long and 69 mm high. The GeForce 825M is portable-device dependent, meaning its display outputs and physical integration depend on the laptop it ships in.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records exactly one head-to-head benchmark between these two GPUs: Geekbench OpenCL. The AMD FirePro W2100 scores 4093, and the NVIDIA GeForce 825M scores 3694. The FirePro wins by 10.8%.

That result is notable given the specification sheet. The GeForce 825M has more shading units, more texture units, and significantly higher clocks. It has 384 shaders versus 320, 32 TMUs versus 20, and a 941 MHz boost clock versus 680 MHz. On paper, the NVIDIA part should dominate raw throughput. Its FP32 rating is 722.7 GFLOPS versus 435.2 GFLOPS for the FirePro, a 66% advantage. Its texture rate is 30.11 GTexel/s versus 13.60 GTexel/s, more than double. Its pixel rate is 7.528 GPixel/s versus 5.440 GPixel/s, a 38% lead.

None of that translates into an OpenCL win. The FirePro's memory bandwidth advantage is the likely culprit. With 28.80 GB/s versus 14.40 GB/s, the FirePro can feed its compute units with data at twice the rate. Many OpenCL workloads are memory-bound, and the FirePro's 128-bit bus is a decisive edge.

The Geekbench OpenCL score is an aggregate of several compute subtests, so it does not tell us which specific kernel the FirePro wins and which the NVIDIA part might win. But the overall result is unambiguous: the FirePro W2100 is 10.8% faster in this compute test.

The FirePro also has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 4497. The GeForce 825M has no Vulkan result in the database. That means the FirePro is the only one of the two with a verified Vulkan compute or graphics workload measurement, and its score is 8.9% higher than its own OpenCL score. The NVIDIA part's absence from the Vulkan test is a gap in its coverage, not necessarily a performance failure, but it does mean the FirePro is the safer choice for Vulkan-based applications based on recorded data alone.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL compute?

A: The AMD FirePro W2100 wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 4093 against the NVIDIA GeForce 825M's 3694, a 10.8% advantage.

Q: Does the NVIDIA GeForce 825M have any benchmark where it beats the FirePro W2100?

A: No. The database records only one head-to-head benchmark between the two, and the FirePro W2100 wins it. The GeForce 825M has no recorded wins in any direct comparison.

Q: Which card has more memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD FirePro W2100 has 28.80 GB/s of bandwidth from a 128-bit DDR3 bus, exactly double the GeForce 825M's 14.40 GB/s from a 64-bit DDR3 bus.

Q: Does the GeForce 825M support Vulkan?

A: The GeForce 825M lists Vulkan 1.2.175 in its API support, but the database contains no Vulkan benchmark result for it. The FirePro W2100 lists Vulkan 1.2.170 and has a recorded Geekbench Vulkan score of 4497.

Q: Which GPU has the higher clock speed?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 825M runs at 850 MHz base and 941 MHz boost. The AMD FirePro W2100 runs at 630 MHz base and 680 MHz boost.

Q: Which GPU sits higher in the overall performance percentile?

A: The AMD FirePro W2100 is in the 25th percentile of all GPUs, while the NVIDIA GeForce 825M is in the 22nd percentile.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD FirePro W2100 | NVIDIA GeForce 825M |

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

| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Kepler 2.0 |

| Chip | Oland | GK208 |

| Transistors | 950 million | 1,020 million |

| Die Size | 77 mm² | 87 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.3M / mm² | 11.7M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 630 MHz | 850 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 680 MHz | 941 MHz |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | 1024 MB |

| Memory Type | DDR3 | DDR3 |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 28.80 GB/s | 14.40 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 320 | 384 |

| TMUs | 20 | 32 |

| ROPs | 8 | 8 |

| Pixel Rate | 5.440 GPixel/s | 7.528 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 13.60 GTexel/s | 30.11 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 435.2 GFLOPS | 722.7 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 26 W | 33 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | IGP |

| Display Outputs | 2x DisplayPort 1.2 | Portable Device Dependent |

| Dimensions | 168 mm x 69 mm | Not recorded |

| DirectX Support | 12 (11_1) | 12 (11_0) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.2.170 | 1.2.175 |

| Release Date | 2014-08-11 | 2014-01-26 |

| Predecessor | FirePro Terascale | GeForce 700M |

| Successor | Radeon Pro Polaris | GeForce 900M |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |

The two GPUs share several traits: both use 28 nm TSMC process technology, both use DDR3 memory, both have 8 ROPs, both have no power connectors, and both use a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface. The differences are concentrated in memory bandwidth, raw compute throughput, and physical form factor. The FirePro W2100 is a discrete single-slot card with DisplayPort outputs, while the GeForce 825M is an integrated part whose outputs depend on the host device. The GeForce 825M has more shaders, higher clocks, and higher theoretical throughput, but the FirePro W2100 wins the only recorded benchmark because its memory subsystem delivers data at twice the rate.