AMD FirePro W600 vs AMD Radeon 760M Comparison

AMD FirePro W600 and AMD Radeon 760M occupy opposite ends of the GPU spectrum, and the benchmark data confirms a decisive generational gap. The Radeon 760M utterly dominates the FirePro W600 in the sole shared benchmark, delivering a Geekbench OpenCL score of 20,255 against the older card’s 6,223—a massive 69.3% advantage. Despite this, both GPUs sit in nearly identical percentile standings (36th for the FirePro, 35th for the Radeon), which highlights how the W600’s specialized workstation pedigree and the 760M’s integrated nature each attract different performance profiles. The data does not support any notion of parity; the 760M is the clear compute winner, while the W600’s legacy lies in its specific output configuration and hardware features.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable metric is Geekbench OpenCL, and the result is lopsided. The AMD Radeon 760M scores 20,255 points, while the AMD FirePro W600 manages just 6,223 points. This represents a delta of -69.3% for the FirePro, meaning the 760M is roughly 3.25 times faster in raw OpenCL compute throughput. This is not a marginal improvement; it is a full generational leap in processing capability.

The Radeon 760M’s nearest rivals in the database include the AMD Radeon RX 6400 (avg score 6,001, delta 0.3%), NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M (6,000, 0.3%), and NVIDIA Quadro P2000 (6,049, -0.5%). The 760M’s average benchmark score of 6,019 across all tests places it in the same performance tier as these discrete mobile and entry-level desktop cards. However, in the specific Geekbench OpenCL test, the 760M far exceeds its own average, showing exceptional compute scaling in that workload.

The FirePro W600’s nearest rivals paint a different picture. Its 6,223 OpenCL score sits within 1% of the AMD Radeon HD 6950 (6,210, 0.2%), NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 (6,270, -0.7%), and NVIDIA Quadro K620 (6,282, -0.9%). The W600’s performance is essentially indistinguishable from these cards in OpenCL, despite the massive architectural differences between them. This clustering suggests the W600’s compute performance is firmly locked in its 2012-era bracket.

The delta between the two contenders is the single most important number in this comparison. A 69.3% deficit for the FirePro W600 is not a close race; it is a rout. Benchmark results indicate that any workload relying on OpenCL compute will see dramatic improvements with the Radeon 760M. The FirePro W600’s 768.0 GFLOPS FP32 throughput versus the 760M’s 5.323 TFLOPS corroborates this, but even without clock specs, the raw score differential is conclusive.

Architecture Differences

The architectural chasm between these two GPUs is vast. The FirePro W600 uses the Cape Verde chip built on GCN 1.0 architecture, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 1,500 million transistors into a 123 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.2M per mm². In contrast, the Radeon 760M uses the Phoenix chip with RDNA 3.0 architecture, also fabricated by TSMC but on a current-generation 4 nm node. This newer process accommodates 25,390 million transistors in a 178 mm² die, achieving a density of 142.6M per mm²—over 11 times higher than the older chip.

Core configuration shows surprising parity in raw counts. Both GPUs feature 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. However, the 760M adds 8 ray tracing cores, a feature entirely absent from the FirePro W600. The RDNA 3.0 architecture also delivers 1:1 FP16/FP32 throughput at 5.323 TFLOPS each, while the FirePro W600 only lists FP32 at 768.0 GFLOPS with no FP16 capability specified.

Memory subsystems differ fundamentally. The FirePro W600 uses 2 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing 64.00 GB/s bandwidth. The Radeon 760M relies on System Shared memory, with its bandwidth labeled as System Dependent. Clock speeds tell a similar story: the FirePro lists only memory clock at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective), while the 760M specifies a base clock of 800 MHz and a boost clock of 2599 MHz. The pixel rate of the 760M is 41.58 GPixel/s versus 12.00 GPixel/s for the W600, and texture rate is 83.17 GTexel/s versus 24.00 GTexel/s—all consistent with the 760M’s overwhelming compute advantage.

API support also diverges sharply. The 760M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while the FirePro W600 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The 760M’s PCIe 4.0 x8 interface doubles the bandwidth of the W600’s PCIe 3.0 x16, though the latter’s dedicated memory may compensate in certain scenarios.

Where Each One Wins

The Radeon 760M wins every measurable compute benchmark outright. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 20,255 is the standout, but additional tests reinforce its versatility. In Passmark G3D, the 760M scores 5,310; in Geekbench Vulkan, it reaches 30,336; and in Passmark GPU Compute, it posts 2,840. These results span API-agnostic compute, graphics rendering, and general-purpose workloads, showing the 760M is not a one-trick pony.

The FirePro W600 has no wins in the head-to-head data (0 wins versus 1 for the 760M). However, its strengths lie outside pure benchmark scores. The W600 features 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, enabling multi-monitor professional configurations that the 760M cannot match—its display outputs are Motherboard Dependent, meaning the integrated GPU relies entirely on the host system’s ports. The W600 also has a 75 W TDP with no power connectors, while the 760M sips just 15 W as an IGP (integrated graphics processor). For systems where dedicated display outputs are critical, the W600 remains functional where the 760M cannot physically connect six displays.

The FirePro’s workstation lineage is evident in its production status (End-of-life) and its predecessor/successor chain (FirePro Terascale to Radeon Pro Polaris). The 760M is Active production, succeeding Navi II IGP, with no successor listed. The W600’s launch MSRP of 599 USD reflects its professional market positioning, though the 760M had no launch MSRP listed, being an integrated part of a larger processor package.

The Verdict

Choose the AMD Radeon 760M for any workload where compute performance is paramount. The data is unambiguous: a 69.3% lead in Geekbench OpenCL, 5.323 TFLOPS FP32 versus 768.0 GFLOPS, and ray tracing support that the FirePro W600 entirely lacks. The 760M’s 15 W TDP makes it dramatically more power-efficient, and its Active production status ensures ongoing support. This is the GPU for modern gaming, content creation, and general-purpose compute tasks.

Choose the AMD FirePro W600 only if your requirements are specifically tied to its unique output configuration. The 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 array is a capability no integrated GPU can replicate, making it suitable for multi-display professional setups where raw compute is secondary. Its 2 GB dedicated GDDR5 memory may also be preferable in scenarios where system RAM is scarce or shared memory bandwidth is a bottleneck. However, its End-of-life status and 36th percentile ranking mean it is a legacy choice, not a forward-looking one.

The verdict is not close. Benchmark results indicate the Radeon 760M is the superior product in virtually every measurable way, with the FirePro W600’s only advantages being its dedicated display outputs and the stability of a discrete memory pool. For 99% of use cases, the 760M is the correct selection.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the AMD Radeon 760M than the AMD FirePro W600 in OpenCL?

A: The 760M scores 20,255 in Geekbench OpenCL versus the W600’s 6,223, giving the 760M a 69.3% advantage.

Q: Do both GPUs have the same number of shading units?

A: Yes, both the FirePro W600 and the Radeon 760M feature 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs.

Q: Which GPU supports ray tracing?

A: Only the AMD Radeon 760M, which includes 8 ray tracing cores. The FirePro W600 has no ray tracing hardware.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The FirePro W600 has 2 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth. The Radeon 760M uses System Shared memory with System Dependent bandwidth.

Q: What are the TDP ratings for these GPUs?

A: The FirePro W600 has a 75 W TDP, while the Radeon 760M is rated at just 15 W.

Q: Which GPU has a higher transistor density?

A: The Radeon 760M achieves 142.6M transistors per mm² on its 4 nm process, versus 12.2M per mm² for the FirePro W600 on 28 nm.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD FirePro W600 | AMD Radeon 760M |

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

| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | RDNA 3.0 |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 4 nm |

| Transistors | 1,500 million | 25,390 million |

| Die Size | 123 mm² | 178 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.2M / mm² | 142.6M / mm² |

| Base Clock | Not listed | 800 MHz |

| Boost Clock | Not listed | 2599 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) | System Shared |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | System Shared |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | System Shared |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | System Shared |

| Memory Bandwidth | 64.00 GB/s | System Dependent |

| Ray Tracing Cores | Not listed | 8 |

| Pixel Rate | 12.00 GPixel/s | 41.58 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 24.00 GTexel/s | 83.17 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 768.0 GFLOPS | 5.323 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | Not listed | 5.323 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 75 W | 15 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | IGP |

| Power Connectors | None | None |

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | Not listed |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |

| Display Outputs | 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 | Motherboard Dependent |

| DirectX Support | 12 (11_1) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |

| OpenGL Support | 4.6 | 4.6 |

| Vulkan Support | 1.2.170 | 1.4 |

| Production Status | End-of-life | Active |

| Release Date | 2012-06-12 | 2024-01-30 |