AMD FirePro W2100 vs NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M Comparison

The AMD FirePro W2100 and NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M are two end-of-life mobile graphics solutions that target different use cases, yet their benchmark scores place them in a similar performance tier. The data shows a clear, albeit narrow, victory for the NVIDIA part in the single available head-to-head test, but the architectural and feature differences tell a more nuanced story. The GeForce GT 755M wins the only direct benchmark comparison, but the FirePro W2100 holds its own in specific compute workloads, making the choice heavily dependent on the intended application.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the results are decisive in favor of the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M. The NVIDIA part scores 4934, while the AMD FirePro W2100 manages 4093. This represents a delta of -17% for the AMD card, meaning the GT 755M is a substantial 17% faster in this particular compute workload. This is not a marginal difference; it is a significant performance gap that indicates the GT 755M has a raw compute throughput advantage in OpenCL applications.

Looking at the average benchmark scores from the broader database, the picture becomes more complex. The FirePro W2100 has an average benchmark score of 4295, which is actually higher than the GT 755M’s average of 4033. This discrepancy is explained by the fact that the FirePro W2100 also has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 4497, a test the GT 755M does not have an entry for. When you average the FirePro’s OpenCL (4093) and Vulkan (4497) scores, you get 4295, which lifts its overall average above the GT 755M’s single OpenCL result. This suggests that while the GT 755M wins the OpenCL test outright, the FirePro W2100 may be more capable in Vulkan-based workloads, where its performance is comparable to its own OpenCL showing.

Contextualizing these scores against their nearest rivals further clarifies their standing. The FirePro W2100’s average score sits 0.3% above the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M and 0.6% above the AMD Radeon Vega 3, but it is 0.9% below the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 GDDR6. The GT 755M’s average score is 0.5% above the AMD FirePro M4150, but 1% below the Intel HD Graphics 630. These tight deltas show that both cards are clustered with a group of mid-to-low-tier performers from their respective eras, and neither card is an outlier in terms of overall compute ability. The GT 755M’s single-test win is clear, but the FirePro W2100’s dual-API performance profile prevents a complete shutout.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures, which explains their divergent performance characteristics. The AMD FirePro W2100 is based on the GCN 1.0 architecture, built on the Oland chip, while the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M uses the Kepler architecture, built on the GK107 chip. Both are manufactured by TSMC on the same 28 nm process node, but their internal designs differ significantly. The AMD chip contains 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 12.3 million per mm². The NVIDIA chip is larger, with 1,270 million transistors on a 118 mm² die, but its density is lower at 10.8 million per mm². This means the GT 755M has more silicon to work with, but the FirePro W2100 packs its transistors more tightly.

These architectural differences lead to distinct resource allocations. The FirePro W2100 has 320 shading units, 20 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 8 render output units (ROPs). The GT 755M, in contrast, offers 384 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The NVIDIA part has a clear advantage in all three categories, which directly contributes to its higher theoretical peak performance. The GT 755M’s pixel rate is 8.160 GPixel/s versus the FirePro’s 5.440 GPixel/s, and its texture rate is 32.64 GTexel/s versus 13.60 GTexel/s. In floating-point performance, the GT 755M delivers 783.4 GFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the FirePro W2100 stops at 435.2 GFLOPS. These are substantial gaps in raw throughput that favor the NVIDIA part across the board.

Clock speeds also favor NVIDIA. The GT 755M has a base clock of 980 MHz and a boost clock of 1020 MHz, while the FirePro W2100 is significantly slower with a 630 MHz base and 680 MHz boost. Memory is another major differentiator. The GT 755M uses faster GDDR5 memory with a 1350 MHz clock and 5.4 Gbps effective speed, while the FirePro W2100 uses slower DDR3 at 900 MHz and 1800 Mbps effective. Both have a 128-bit memory bus, but the GT 755M’s memory bandwidth of 86.40 GB/s is exactly three times that of the FirePro’s 28.80 GB/s. This massive bandwidth advantage is critical for memory-intensive tasks and is a key reason for the GT 755M’s superior OpenCL score.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M is the clear winner in raw compute throughput and memory bandwidth. Its higher shading unit count, TMU count, ROP count, and clock speeds give it a definitive edge in any workload that is heavily parallel and memory-bound. The 17% lead in the OpenCL benchmark is evidence of this. For tasks like general-purpose GPU computing, video encoding, or any application that leverages OpenCL, the GT 755M is the stronger choice. Its 86.40 GB/s of bandwidth is nearly three times that of the FirePro, making it far more capable at handling large datasets or high-resolution textures without stalling. The GT 755M also has a higher pixel rate (8.160 GPixel/s) and texture rate (32.64 GTexel/s), which would translate to better performance in traditional 3D rendering scenarios, even though no DirectX or OpenGL benchmarks are present in the data.

The AMD FirePro W2100, despite losing the OpenCL test, has its own strengths. Its average benchmark score of 4295 is higher than the GT 755M’s 4033, thanks to its Vulkan performance. The FirePro’s Vulkan score of 4497 indicates that in Vulkan-based applications, it can perform at a level comparable to its OpenCL output and potentially exceed the GT 755M, which has no recorded Vulkan score. This makes the FirePro W2100 a more versatile option for modern compute APIs. Additionally, the FirePro W2100 is a professional-grade card, as indicated by its FirePro branding and its display outputs of 2x DisplayPort 1.2, which are standard for workstation monitors. The GT 755M, being a mobile consumer part with "Portable Device Dependent" outputs, is less suited for professional multi-monitor setups. The FirePro also has a significantly lower TDP of 26 W versus the GT 755M’s 50 W, making it a more power-efficient solution for compact or thermally constrained systems.

The Verdict

For users who prioritize raw compute performance in OpenCL, the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M is the definitive pick. Its 17% lead in the head-to-head benchmark, combined with superior specs in every category (shading units, TMUs, ROPs, clocks, memory bandwidth), makes it the more powerful GPU. The data suggests that in any workload that stresses the GPU’s compute or memory subsystems, the GT 755M will outperform the FirePro W2100. This is the card to choose for general-purpose GPU computing or gaming on a laptop, assuming the portable form factor is acceptable.

However, the AMD FirePro W2100 should not be dismissed. Its higher average benchmark score, driven by its Vulkan performance, indicates that it holds up well in modern API environments. The FirePro W2100 also offers a lower TDP (26 W vs 50 W), which is a significant advantage for systems where power draw and heat dissipation are critical. Its professional DisplayPort outputs and workstation branding make it the more sensible choice for a professional workstation environment, particularly one that uses Vulkan-based applications. If the workload is not strictly OpenCL-bound, the FirePro’s versatility and efficiency might make it the better overall package, despite its lower peak performance. The data shows two different philosophies: the GT 755M is a brute-force compute engine, while the FirePro W2100 is a balanced, efficient professional tool.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher score in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M scores 4934, which is 17% higher than the AMD FirePro W2100’s score of 4093.

Q: Does the AMD FirePro W2100 have any benchmark where it performs better?

A: The FirePro W2100 has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 4497, a test the GT 755M does not have a recorded score for. This contributes to the FirePro’s higher average benchmark score of 4295 versus the GT 755M’s 4033.

Q: What is the difference in memory bandwidth between the two cards?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M has a memory bandwidth of 86.40 GB/s, which is exactly three times the AMD FirePro W2100’s 28.80 GB/s.

Q: How do the power requirements of the two GPUs compare?

A: The AMD FirePro W2100 has a TDP of 26 W, while the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M has a TDP of 50 W. The FirePro is the more power-efficient of the two.

Q: What are the shading unit counts for each card?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M has 384 shading units, while the AMD FirePro W2100 has 320 shading units.

Q: What is the process node for both GPUs?

A: Both the AMD FirePro W2100 and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M are manufactured on a 28 nm process node by TSMC.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD FirePro W2100 | NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M |

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

| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Kepler |

| Chip | Oland | GK107 |

| Transistors | 950 million | 1,270 million |

| Die Size | 77 mm² | 118 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.3M / mm² | 10.8M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 630 MHz | 980 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 680 MHz | 1020 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) | 1350 MHz (5.4 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Type | DDR3 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bandwidth | 28.80 GB/s | 86.40 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 320 | 384 |

| TMUs | 20 | 32 |

| ROPs | 8 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 5.440 GPixel/s | 8.160 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 13.60 GTexel/s | 32.64 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 435.2 GFLOPS | 783.4 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 26 W | 50 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | MXM Module |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

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

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

| Vulkan Support | 1.2.170 | 1.2.175 |

| Release Date | 2014-08-11 | 2013-06-24 |

| Predecessor | FirePro Terascale | GeForce 600M |

| Successor | Radeon Pro Polaris | GeForce 800M |