AMD FirePro W600 vs AMD Radeon 610M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a single direct comparison between these two GPUs, and the result is decisive. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the AMD FirePro W600 scores 6223, while the AMD Radeon 610M scores 4535. That is a 37.2% advantage for the FirePro W600, a substantial gap that places the two parts in different performance tiers despite their shared manufacturer.

Looking at the database’s broader rival comparisons, the FirePro W600’s score sits within a tight cluster. It is 0.2% ahead of the AMD Radeon HD 6950 (6210), and 0.7% behind both the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 (6270) and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti SUPER (6270). The NVIDIA Quadro K620 (6282) is 0.9% ahead. This places the FirePro W600 in a narrow band where every neighboring GPU is within roughly one percentage point, meaning its OpenCL performance is highly competitive with much more recent hardware.

The Radeon 610M, by contrast, anchors its rival list at the lower end. It is 0.4% behind the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 (5467), 0.5% ahead of the AMD Radeon R7 M365X (5416), 0.7% behind the AMD Radeon R7 M440 (5483), and 1.0% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M (5501). The 610M’s average benchmark score of 5444 sits below all but one of these rivals, though the deltas are small, ranging from -1.0% to +0.5%. The FirePro W600’s single score is 6223, which is 779 points higher than the 610M’s average of 5444, a 14.3% margin in absolute terms.

The benchmark summary shows one win for the FirePro W600 and zero for the Radeon 610M. There is no recorded Vulkan comparison in the head-to-head data, even though the 610M has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 6353. That score is notably higher than its OpenCL figure, but without a direct FirePro W600 Vulkan result, the database does not support a cross-API victory claim. The only measurable head-to-head outcome is the OpenCL contest, and the FirePro W600 wins it outright.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two parts is generational and fundamental. The FirePro W600 uses the Cape Verde chip built on GCN 1.0 architecture, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The Radeon 610M uses the Mendocino chip with RDNA 2.0 architecture, also from TSMC but on a 6 nm process. The process node difference is stark: 28 nm versus 6 nm, which explains much of the efficiency and feature divergence.

The FirePro W600 packs 1,500 million transistors into a 123 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.2 million per mm². The Radeon 610M’s die size is smaller at 100 mm², but the database does not list its transistor count or density. The 610M compensates with a much higher base clock of 1500 MHz and a boost clock of 1900 MHz, while the FirePro W600 has no base or boost clock listed, only a memory clock of 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective).

Core counts tell a reverse story. The FirePro W600 has 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 raster operation pipelines. The Radeon 610M has 128 shading units, 8 TMUs, and 4 ROPs. Despite having four times the shading units and TMUs, the FirePro W600’s pixel rate is 12.00 GPixel/s versus the 610M’s 7.600 GPixel/s, and its texture rate is 24.00 GTexel/s versus 15.20 GTexel/s. The FirePro W600 also leads in FP32 throughput at 768.0 GFLOPS, while the 610M manages 486.4 GFLOPS. The 610M does offer FP16 at 972.8 GFLOPS (2:1), a capability the FirePro W600 lacks entirely.

Memory architecture is another major split. The FirePro W600 uses dedicated 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The Radeon 610M uses system shared memory, with the bus width and bandwidth listed as system dependent. The 610M also includes 2 ray tracing cores, while the FirePro W600 has none. The FirePro W600 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The Radeon 610M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, giving it a more modern API feature set.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear conclusion: the AMD FirePro W600 is the stronger GPU for raw compute workloads. Its OpenCL score of 6223 beats the Radeon 610M’s 4535 by 37.2%, and it holds its own against much newer discrete GPUs like the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti SUPER, which is only 0.7% ahead. The FirePro W600’s dedicated GDDR5 memory, higher shading unit count, and superior pixel and texture rates make it the obvious choice for any task that stresses OpenCL or traditional rasterization.

The Radeon 610M is not without merit, but its strengths lie elsewhere. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4, includes ray tracing cores, and operates at a 15 W TDP versus the FirePro W600’s 75 W. Its Vulkan score of 6353 is higher than its OpenCL score, suggesting it may be better suited to modern API workloads, but the database does not provide a direct Vulkan comparison against the FirePro W600. In the only recorded head-to-head, the FirePro W600 wins.

For users prioritizing compute performance, dedicated memory, and established driver maturity, the FirePro W600 is the data-backed pick. For users needing low power consumption, modern API support, and ray tracing capability, the Radeon 610M has a case, but it cannot match the FirePro W600’s raw throughput numbers.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every specification category. The FirePro W600 uses a 28 nm TSMC process with 1,500 million transistors and a 123 mm² die; the Radeon 610M uses a 6 nm TSMC process with a 100 mm² die and no listed transistor count. The FirePro W600 has no base or boost clock, while the 610M lists a 1500 MHz base and 1900 MHz boost. Memory is dedicated GDDR5 (2 GB, 128-bit, 64.00 GB/s) on the FirePro W600 versus system shared memory on the 610M. Shading units are 512 versus 128, TMUs are 32 versus 8, and ROPs are 16 versus 4. The 610M adds 2 ray tracing cores, which the FirePro W600 lacks. Pixel rate is 12.00 GPixel/s versus 7.600 GPixel/s, texture rate is 24.00 GTexel/s versus 15.20 GTexel/s, and FP32 is 768.0 GFLOPS versus 486.4 GFLOPS. The 610M has FP16 at 972.8 GFLOPS, while the FirePro W600 has none. TDP is 75 W versus 15 W. The FirePro W600 is a single-slot card with 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs and a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface; the 610M is an IGP with portable device dependent outputs and a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface. API support differs: DirectX 12 (11_1) versus DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), Vulkan 1.2.170 versus 1.4, with OpenGL 4.6 on both. The FirePro W600 has a launch MSRP of 599 USD, while the 610M has no listed launch MSRP.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins in OpenCL performance?

A: The AMD FirePro W600 wins the OpenCL benchmark with a score of 6223, beating the AMD Radeon 610M’s 4535 by 37.2%.

Q: Does the Radeon 610M have any benchmark advantage?

A: The database records zero head-to-head wins for the Radeon 610M. It does have a separate Geekbench Vulkan score of 6353, but there is no Vulkan comparison against the FirePro W600 in the recorded data.

Q: How does the FirePro W600 compare to recent NVIDIA GPUs?

A: The FirePro W600 is 0.7% behind both the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti SUPER, which both score 6270.

Q: What are the memory configurations?

A: The FirePro W600 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth. The Radeon 610M uses system shared memory, with bandwidth listed as system dependent.

Q: Which GPU supports ray tracing?

A: The Radeon 610M includes 2 ray tracing cores. The FirePro W600 has none.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The FirePro W600 has a TDP of 75 W, while the Radeon 610M has a TDP of 15 W.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD FirePro W600 wins in raw compute and traditional graphics throughput. Its OpenCL score is 37.2% higher than the Radeon 610M’s, and its dedicated memory subsystem provides 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth versus the 610M’s system dependent figures. The FirePro W600 also leads in pixel rate (12.00 GPixel/s versus 7.600 GPixel/s), texture rate (24.00 GTexel/s versus 15.20 GTexel/s), and FP32 performance (768.0 GFLOPS versus 486.4 GFLOPS). It is the better choice for OpenCL-heavy workloads, workstation compute tasks, and any application that benefits from dedicated VRAM. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Quadro K620 (0.9% ahead) and the AMD Radeon HD 6950 (0.2% behind), indicating it competes well within its performance tier.

The AMD Radeon 610M wins in efficiency and modern API support. Its 15 W TDP is one-fifth of the FirePro W600’s 75 W, making it suitable for power-constrained portable devices. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, both newer than the FirePro W600’s DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170. It also includes ray tracing cores, a feature entirely absent from the FirePro W600. Its Vulkan score of 6353 is higher than its OpenCL score of 4535, hinting that it may perform better in modern API environments, though no direct Vulkan comparison exists in the database. The 610M’s nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 (0.4% ahead) and the AMD Radeon R7 M440 (0.7% ahead), placing it slightly below those parts in average score.

The use-case split is clear. The FirePro W600 is for compute-focused tasks where performance per watt is secondary to raw output. The Radeon 610M is for lightweight, power-efficient systems where modern API features and ray tracing matter more than peak OpenCL throughput. Based on the recorded data, the FirePro W600 is the faster GPU, and the only direct benchmark confirms it.