AMD FirePro W2100 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M Comparison

# NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M vs AMD FirePro W2100

The benchmark data presents a decisive matchup. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M holds a 2–0 record in shared tests, with an average benchmark score of 4628 against the AMD FirePro W2100's 4295. The GeForce GTX 970M sits at the 27th percentile of all GPUs, while the FirePro W2100 ranks at the 25th percentile. Across the two overlapping benchmarks, the GTX 970M leads by margins of 362.9% in Geekbench OpenCL and 306.8% in Geekbench Vulkan. These are not close contests; the data indicates a generational and architectural chasm that no driver or workload tweak can bridge.

The Verdict

From the data alone, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M is the clear choice for any workload involving OpenCL or Vulkan compute. It scores 18,946 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 4,093 for the FirePro W2100 — a 362.9% advantage. In Geekbench Vulkan, the GTX 970M posts 18,292 against 4,497, a 306.8% lead. The GTX 970M's average benchmark score of 4628 puts it within 0.2% of the Quadro M3000M (4621) and 1.1% ahead of the Radeon R5 M230 (4577), placing it in a competitive mobile workstation tier. The FirePro W2100's average of 4295 is 0.3% behind the GTX 460M (4282) and 0.6% behind the Radeon Vega 3 (4268), indicating it competes with older or lower-tier parts.

For a user choosing between these two, the GTX 970M wins on every measurable axis. It has 4x the shading units (1280 vs 320), 4x the texture mapping units (80 vs 20), 6x the ROPs (48 vs 8), and more than 6x the FP32 throughput (2.657 TFLOPS vs 435.2 GFLOPS). The FirePro W2100's only advantages are physical: it is a single-slot card with a 26W TDP and no external power connector, while the GTX 970M is an MXM module with a portable-device-dependent display output. If the application demands raw compute or modern API support, the GTX 970M is the only rational pick. If the application is a low-power, compact workstation with minimal 3D demands, the FirePro W2100 might suffice — but the data shows it will be 3–4x slower in compute tasks.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M has an average benchmark score of 4628, while the AMD FirePro W2100 scores 4295. This represents a 7.7% advantage for the GTX 970M (calculated from the raw scores, not a listed deltaPct).

Q: How much faster is the GTX 970M in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The GTX 970M scores 18,946 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 362.9% higher than the FirePro W2100's 4,093. This is the largest margin of any shared benchmark.

Q: Does the FirePro W2100 win in any benchmark?

A: No. In the two head-to-head benchmarks available (Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan), the FirePro W2100 loses both. The win count is 2 for the GTX 970M and 0 for the FirePro W2100.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The GTX 970M has 6 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 192-bit bus with 120.3 GB/s bandwidth. The FirePro W2100 has 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus with 28.80 GB/s bandwidth. The GTX 970M has over 4x the memory bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has a higher transistor density?

A: The GTX 970M has a transistor density of 13.1M per mm², while the FirePro W2100 has 12.3M per mm². Both are manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC, but the GTX 970M packs 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die versus 950 million on 77 mm² for the FirePro W2100.

Q: How do their percentile rankings compare?

A: The GTX 970M is at the 27th percentile of all GPUs, and the FirePro W2100 is at the 25th percentile. Despite the 2-point difference, the GTX 970M's nearest rival (Quadro M3000M) averages 4621, while the FirePro W2100's nearest rival (GTX 460M) averages 4282.

Architecture Differences

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M is built on the Maxwell 2.0 architecture using the GM204 chip, while the AMD FirePro W2100 uses the GCN 1.0 architecture with the Oland chip. This is a fundamental design split: Maxwell 2.0 is a refined, efficiency-focused architecture from 2014, designed for high throughput per clock and strong DirectX 12 feature support. GCN 1.0 is AMD's first-generation Graphics Core Next, which introduced unified shaders and compute-friendly design but lacks the later refinements of GCN iterations.

The GTX 970M has 1,280 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. The FirePro W2100 has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. These ratios explain the performance gap: the GTX 970M has 4x the shading units, 4x the TMUs, and 6x the ROPs. The GTX 970M also has a substantially larger die (398 mm² vs 77 mm²) and more transistors (5,200 million vs 950 million), reflecting its position as a high-end mobile part versus a low-end workstation card.

Process node is identical: both are 28 nm at TSMC. However, the GTX 970M has a slightly higher transistor density (13.1M per mm² vs 12.3M per mm²), indicating a more compact layout despite the larger absolute size. The FirePro W2100's smaller die and lower transistor count make it a much simpler chip, which aligns with its lower power envelope (26W TDP versus no listed TDP for the GTX 970M, though the latter is an MXM module with no power connector listed).

API support differs significantly. The GTX 970M supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The FirePro W2100 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The GTX 970M has a higher DirectX 12 feature level and a newer Vulkan version, which directly impacts the Vulkan benchmark results. The GTX 970M also has no listed FP16 support, and neither GPU lists RT or tensor cores, so ray tracing and AI acceleration are absent from both.

Specification Differences

The most striking difference is in memory subsystem. The GTX 970M has 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus, delivering 120.3 GB/s. The FirePro W2100 has 2 GB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 28.80 GB/s. This is a 4.2x bandwidth advantage for the GTX 970M, which is critical for texture-heavy workloads and large compute kernels.

Clock speeds differ as well. The GTX 970M runs at a base of 924 MHz with a boost of 1038 MHz. The FirePro W2100 runs at 630 MHz base and 680 MHz boost. The GTX 970M's boost clock is 52.6% higher than the FirePro W2100's boost clock. Memory clocks are also different: 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) for the GTX 970M versus 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) for the FirePro W2100.

Compute rates show the scale of the gap. The GTX 970M achieves 49.82 GPixel/s pixel rate and 83.04 GTexel/s texture rate, versus 5.440 GPixel/s and 13.60 GTexel/s for the FirePro W2100. FP32 performance is 2.657 TFLOPS versus 435.2 GFLOPS — a 6.1x difference. Neither GPU has FP16, RT, or tensor cores listed.

Physical specifications diverge. The GTX 970M is an MXM Module with an MXM-B (3.0) bus interface and display outputs that are "Portable Device Dependent." The FirePro W2100 is a single-slot card with a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface and 2x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs. The FirePro W2100 has listed dimensions of 168 mm by 69 mm and a TDP of 26W with a suggested PSU of 200W. The GTX 970M has no listed TDP, length, or power supply requirement. Both have no power connectors. The FirePro W2100's predecessor is FirePro Terascale, while the GTX 970M's predecessor is GeForce 800M. Their successors are Radeon Pro Polaris and GeForce 10 Mobile, respectively.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two shared benchmarks tell a consistent story of NVIDIA dominance. In Geekbench OpenCL, the GTX 970M scores 18,946 against the FirePro W2100's 4,093. The delta is 362.9%, meaning the GTX 970M is nearly 4.6x faster. This benchmark exercises general-purpose compute, where the GTX 970M's 1280 shading units and 2.657 TFLOPS FP32 throughput overwhelm the FirePro W2100's 320 shading units and 435.2 GFLOPS.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the GTX 970M scores 18,292 versus 4,497, a 306.8% advantage. The GTX 970M's Vulkan 1.4 support versus the FirePro W2100's Vulkan 1.2.170 may contribute to the gap, but the raw compute difference is the primary driver. The GTX 970M's higher boost clock (1038 MHz vs 680 MHz) and larger memory bandwidth (120.3 GB/s vs 28.80 GB/s) also play a role.

The GTX 970M also has additional benchmark scores not shared with the FirePro W2100. In PassMark G3D, it scores 5704, and in PassMark G2D it scores 381. Its PassMark DirectX 9 score is 99, DirectX 10 is 28, DirectX 11 is 42, and DirectX 12 is 24. GPU compute in PassMark is 2289, and 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 is 472. These scores, while not directly comparable to the FirePro W2100 (which has no PassMark or 3DMark results in the data), reinforce the GTX 970M's position as a mid-range performer. The FirePro W2100's only benchmarks are the two Geekbench tests, both of which it loses decisively.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M wins in every scenario with data support. For OpenCL compute workloads — common in scientific simulation, video encoding, and general-purpose GPU programming — the GTX 970M's 362.9% lead in Geekbench OpenCL makes it the only viable option. For Vulkan-based applications, the 306.8% margin in Geekbench Vulkan is equally decisive. The GTX 970M's higher DirectX 12 feature level (12_1 vs 11_1) suggests better support for modern DirectX 12 titles, though no DirectX benchmark is shared between the two.

The GTX 970M's memory configuration (6 GB GDDR5, 192-bit, 120.3 GB/s) gives it a clear edge in texture-heavy 3D rendering and large dataset compute. Its 48 ROPs versus 8 ROPs means pixel fill rate is 49.82 GPixel/s versus 5.440 GPixel/s — a 9.2x advantage that matters for high-resolution rendering. The GTX 970M's 80 TMUs versus 20 TMUs provides 83.04 GTexel/s versus 13.60 GTexel/s, crucial for detailed texture mapping.

The AMD FirePro W2100 wins only in physical footprint and power consumption. It has a 26W TDP, a single-slot profile, and a 200W suggested PSU. The GTX 970M has no listed TDP or power supply requirement, but as an MXM module it is designed for laptops where power is shared with the CPU. The FirePro W2100 also has fixed DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, while the GTX 970M's outputs depend on the portable device. For a compact, low-power workstation that only needs basic 2D display output or light 3D acceleration, the FirePro W2100 could be acceptable — but the benchmark data shows it will be 3–4x slower than the GTX 970M in any compute task. For any workload that leverages OpenCL or Vulkan, the GTX 970M is the definitive winner.