AMD FirePro W2100 vs NVIDIA GeForce 930M Comparison

# NVIDIA GeForce 930M vs AMD FirePro W2100

The NVIDIA GeForce 930M and AMD FirePro W2100 are two end-of-life mobile and workstation-oriented GPUs from the 2014–2015 era, both built on a 28 nm TSMC process. The data shows a split decision: the GeForce 930M wins the OpenCL workload by a significant margin, while the FirePro W2100 takes the Vulkan test decisively. With nearly identical average benchmark scores—4388 for the NVIDIA part versus 4295 for the AMD part—the choice between them hinges entirely on which API and workload profile matters more to the user.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark results reveal two distinct strength profiles. The NVIDIA GeForce 930M dominates in Geekbench OpenCL, scoring 5046 against the FirePro W2100’s 4093, a 23.3% advantage. This is the larger of the two deltas in either direction, making the 930M the clear choice for OpenCL-accelerated compute tasks. Its architecture delivers substantially higher throughput in this specific workload, and the margin is large enough to be practically meaningful for any application relying on OpenCL.

The AMD FirePro W2100, conversely, wins the Geekbench Vulkan test with a score of 4497 versus the 930M’s 3729, a 17.1% lead. This is a significant reversal—the AMD part is faster in Vulkan by nearly the same magnitude that the NVIDIA part is faster in OpenCL. For users targeting Vulkan-based rendering or compute, the FirePro W2100 is the stronger option despite its lower overall compute rating in other metrics.

Both cards win exactly one benchmark each, so there is no overall victor in raw performance. The split is clean: OpenCL favors NVIDIA, Vulkan favors AMD. The practical implication is that workload dictates the correct choice—there is no universal performance king here.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs take fundamentally different architectural approaches. The NVIDIA GeForce 930M uses the GM108S chip based on Maxwell architecture, part of the GeForce 900M generation. It packs 1,020 million transistors into a 77 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 13.2M per mm². The AMD FirePro W2100 uses the Oland chip based on GCN 1.0 architecture, from the FirePro GCN (Wx100) generation. It contains 950 million transistors on the same 77 mm² die, resulting in a slightly lower density of 12.3M per mm².

Clock speeds differ notably. The 930M runs at a fixed 549 MHz for both base and boost, with no boost headroom. The FirePro W2100 runs at 630 MHz base and 680 MHz boost, giving it a 50 MHz boost range. Memory clocks also favor AMD: the 930M’s DDR3 memory runs at 800 MHz (1600 Mbps effective), while the FirePro’s DDR3 runs at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective).

Memory configuration is where the AMD part gains a substantial structural advantage. Both have 2 GB of DDR3, but the FirePro W2100 uses a 128-bit bus yielding 28.80 GB/s bandwidth, exactly double the 930M’s 64-bit bus and 12.80 GB/s. This memory bandwidth gap likely explains part of the FirePro’s Vulkan advantage, as bandwidth-heavy workloads benefit from the wider interface.

Compute resources favor NVIDIA in raw counts. The 930M has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs, versus the FirePro’s 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. However, the FirePro’s higher clocks narrow the gap: its peak FP32 throughput is 435.2 GFLOPS versus 421.6 GFLOPS for the 930M. Pixel rate favors AMD at 5.440 GPixel/s versus 4.392 GPixel/s, while texture rates are nearly tied at 13.60 GTexel/s versus 13.18 GTexel/s.

Power characteristics differ meaningfully. The 930M is rated at 33 W TDP with an IGP slot width and portable-device-dependent display outputs, reflecting its laptop-oriented design. The FirePro W2100 is rated at 26 W TDP with a single-slot form factor, 168 mm length, and dual DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, plus a 200 W suggested PSU. Both use PCIe 3.0 x8 interfaces and require no power connectors.

API support shows minor differences: both support DirectX 12 and OpenGL 4.6, but the 930M supports Vulkan 1.4 while the FirePro supports Vulkan 1.2.170. The NVIDIA part’s newer Vulkan version may explain its compatibility profile, though it does not translate to higher Vulkan performance in this comparison.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench OpenCL test delivers the largest performance gap in this comparison. The NVIDIA GeForce 930M scores 5046, while the AMD FirePro W2100 scores 4093. This 23.3% delta in favor of NVIDIA is substantial—more than a fifth faster in this workload. Given that the 930M has more shading units (384 vs 320) and a higher transistor count (1,020 million vs 950 million), the OpenCL result aligns with the raw compute resource advantage, even though the FirePro has higher peak FP32 throughput. The 930M’s Maxwell architecture appears to extract more real-world OpenCL performance from its resources than GCN 1.0 does.

The Geekbench Vulkan test flips the script entirely. The AMD FirePro W2100 scores 4497, beating the 930M’s 3729 by 17.1%. This is nearly the mirror image of the OpenCL result. The FirePro’s advantage here likely stems from its doubled memory bandwidth (28.80 GB/s vs 12.80 GB/s), which is critical for Vulkan’s modern rendering pipeline that frequently accesses geometry and texture data. The higher boost clock (680 MHz vs 549 MHz) also contributes, as does the faster memory clock (900 MHz vs 800 MHz). Despite having fewer shading units, the FirePro’s bandwidth and clock advantages overcome the NVIDIA part’s compute count in this API.

When placed in the broader context of the nearest rivals, both cards sit in a tight performance cluster. The 930M’s average benchmark score of 4388 places it 0.5% behind the GeForce GT 645M (4411), 0.7% ahead of the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 (4360), 1.2% ahead of the GeForce RTX 4070 GDDR6 (4335), and 2.2% ahead of the FirePro W2100 itself (4295). The FirePro’s 4295 average places it 0.3% ahead of the GTX 460M (4282), 0.6% ahead of the Radeon Vega 3 (4268), 0.9% behind the RTX 4070 GDDR6 (4335), and 1.3% ahead of the Quadro K3000M (4241). Both cards sit near the 25th percentile of all GPUs—the 930M at 26 and the FirePro at 25—confirming that these are entry-level parts in the broader GPU landscape.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher overall average benchmark scores?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 930M leads with an average benchmark score of 4388, versus 4295 for the AMD FirePro W2100, a 2.2% difference.

Q: Why does the AMD FirePro W2100 perform better in Vulkan despite having fewer shading units?

A: The FirePro W2100 has a 128-bit memory bus providing 28.80 GB/s bandwidth, exactly double the 930M’s 64-bit bus and 12.80 GB/s. It also runs at higher clocks (630 MHz base, 680 MHz boost) versus the 930M’s fixed 549 MHz, which likely benefits Vulkan’s bandwidth-intensive workloads.

Q: Are these two GPUs closely matched in overall performance?

A: Yes. The 930M’s average score of 4388 is only 2.2% ahead of the FirePro’s 4295. Both sit near the 25th percentile of all GPUs, and each wins exactly one of the two head-to-head benchmarks.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference between the two cards?

A: Both have 2 GB of DDR3 memory, but the 930M uses a 64-bit bus with 12.80 GB/s bandwidth, while the FirePro W2100 uses a 128-bit bus with 28.80 GB/s bandwidth. The FirePro also runs its memory at 900 MHz versus 800 MHz for the 930M.

Q: Which card has higher peak FP32 compute throughput?

A: The AMD FirePro W2100 has 435.2 GFLOPS peak FP32, slightly ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce 930M’s 421.6 GFLOPS, despite the NVIDIA part having more shading units (384 vs 320).

Q: Do both cards support the same APIs?

A: Both support DirectX 12 and OpenGL 4.6. The 930M supports Vulkan 1.4, while the FirePro W2100 supports Vulkan 1.2.170.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear, workload-dependent choice. For OpenCL-based compute or rendering, the NVIDIA GeForce 930M is the definitive pick—its 23.3% lead over the FirePro W2100 in Geekbench OpenCL is the single largest performance gap in this comparison. Users running OpenCL-accelerated applications such as older compute frameworks or specific media encoders will see meaningfully better throughput from the 930M.

For Vulkan-based workloads, the AMD FirePro W2100 is the stronger option. Its 17.1% advantage in Geekbench Vulkan, driven by doubled memory bandwidth and higher clocks, makes it the better choice for modern Vulkan games or Vulkan-compute applications. Its lower 26 W TDP also makes it more power-efficient than the 930M’s 33 W rating.

The average benchmark scores favor the 930M by 2.2%, but this aggregate hides the fact that neither card wins across the board. The 930M’s edge in the average comes entirely from its OpenCL dominance; the FirePro’s Vulkan win is nearly as large in the opposite direction. The 930M also has a slightly higher percentile ranking (26 vs 25) and a more recent release date (March 2015 vs August 2014), but these are minor factors.

The deciding factor should be software ecosystem. If the target applications are OpenCL-centric, the 930M’s Maxwell architecture delivers superior results. If Vulkan is the primary API—whether for gaming or compute—the FirePro W2100’s memory bandwidth advantage is decisive. There is no objectively better card here; the correct choice depends entirely on the workload. The 930M wins on compute count and OpenCL efficiency; the FirePro wins on bandwidth and Vulkan performance. Choose accordingly.