AMD FirePro W600 vs AMD Radeon R7 M365X Comparison

The AMD FirePro W600 and AMD Radeon R7 M365X are both end-of-life 28 nm GCN 1.0 parts from the same manufacturer, but they were built for very different jobs: one is a multi-display workstation card, the other a mobile-class graphics solution. The database contains one direct head-to-head benchmark between them, and it favors the FirePro W600 by a modest margin. This page walks through the recorded data, the architectural and specification differences, and what the numbers mean in context.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data includes a single direct comparison: Geekbench OpenCL. There, the FirePro W600 scores 6223 against 5939 for the Radeon R7 M365X, a 4.8 percent advantage for the W600. In practical terms this is a small gap, not a generational one. The two cards sit in the same performance neighborhood for general compute workloads, with the W600 holding the edge on raw shading throughput.

Context from the wider database reinforces the picture. The W600's average benchmark score of 6223 places it in the 36th percentile of all GPUs, while the M365X's average of 5416 puts it in the 32nd percentile. Both are below the midpoint of the database, which is expected for cards of this class and age.

The W600's nearest rivals show how tightly clustered its performance is. The AMD Radeon HD 6950 averages 6210, just 0.2 percent behind the W600, while the NVIDIA Quadro K620 averages 6282, 0.9 percent ahead. The database also lists the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti SUPER at 6270 each, 0.7 percent ahead. The W600 effectively trades blows with this entire group.

The M365X's neighborhood is similarly tight. The AMD Radeon 610M averages 5444, 0.5 percent behind; Intel UHD Graphics P630 averages 5370, 0.9 percent behind; the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 averages 5467, 0.9 percent ahead; and the AMD Radeon R7 M445 averages 5358, 1.1 percent behind. The M365X is competitive with integrated and entry-level mobile graphics in these measurements.

One additional data point exists for the M365X alone: a Geekbench Vulkan score of 4893. There is no corresponding W600 Vulkan result in the database, so no direct comparison can be drawn on that API.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear but narrow call. In the only direct benchmark recorded, the FirePro W600 wins, and its 4.8 percent lead is consistent with its hardware advantages: 512 shading units versus 384, 32 TMUs versus 24, 16 ROPs versus 8, and higher theoretical rates across the board. If GPU compute throughput is the deciding factor, the W600 is the stronger card.

However, the margin is small enough that neither card should be considered a class apart. Both share the same 64.00 GB/s memory bandwidth on a 128-bit GDDR5 bus running at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective), so memory subsystem performance is identical. The W600's advantage comes entirely from its larger GPU core, not from memory.

The intended use cases differ sharply, and the specification data reflects that. The W600 offers six mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, a single-slot form factor, and no external power connectors, marking it as a display-and-workstation part. The M365X, with its PCIe 3.0 x8 interface and absent physical specifications in the database, belongs to the mobile segment. Buyers choosing between recorded performance and multi-monitor capability should lean W600; those needing a mobile-class part have only the M365X of the two as an option.

Architecture Differences

Despite arriving years apart, both cards share the AMD GCN 1.0 architecture and the same TSMC 28 nm process node. The architectural story is therefore one of scale, not generation.

The W600 is built on the Cape Verde chip with 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, giving a density of 12.2M per mm². The M365X uses the Litho chip with 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, at 12.3M per mm². Density is effectively identical, confirming that the M365X is simply a smaller cut of the same architectural cloth rather than a newer design.

Their generational lineage differs. The W600 belongs to the FirePro GCN (Wx000) generation, succeeding the FirePro Terascale line and eventually giving way to the Radeon Pro Polaris family. The M365X belongs to the Gem System (R7 M300) generation, preceded by the Solar System line and succeeded by Polaris Mobile.

Feature support is identical on paper: both report DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. Neither card has RT cores or tensor cores.

Specification Differences

The fields where the two cards diverge are as follows:

• Chip: Cape Verde (W600) versus Litho (M365X)
• Shading units: 512 versus 384
• TMUs: 32 versus 24
• ROPs: 16 versus 8
• Pixel rate: 12.00 GPixel/s versus 6.600 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 24.00 GTexel/s versus 19.80 GTexel/s
• FP32 compute: 768.0 GFLOPS versus 633.6 GFLOPS
• Memory size: 2 GB versus 1024 MB
• Bus interface: PCIe 3.0 x16 versus PCIe 3.0 x8
• Display outputs: 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 versus none recorded
• Slot width: Single-slot versus not recorded
• Power connectors: None versus not recorded
• TDP: 75 W versus not recorded
• Suggested PSU: 250 W versus not recorded
• Dimensions: 168 mm length, 111 mm height, 20 mm width versus not recorded
• Release date: 2012-06-12 versus 2015-05-04
• Launch MSRP: 599 USD for the W600; none recorded for the M365X

The shared specifications are worth noting: 28 nm TSMC process, GCN 1.0 architecture, GDDR5 memory, 128-bit bus, 64.00 GB/s bandwidth, memory clocked at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective), and identical API support.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in the recorded benchmarks?

A: The FirePro W600. It wins the Geekbench OpenCL comparison 6223 to 5939, a 4.8 percent lead, and holds a higher average benchmark score (6223 versus 5416) and percentile (36th versus 32nd).

Q: How much faster is the W600 in theoretical compute?

A: The W600 delivers 768.0 GFLOPS FP32 against 633.6 GFLOPS for the M365X. It also leads in pixel rate (12.00 versus 6.600 GPixel/s) and texture rate (24.00 versus 19.80 GTexel/s).

Q: Do the cards differ in memory performance?

A: No. Both use GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The W600 does carry twice the capacity: 2 GB versus 1024 MB.

Q: How do they compare against their nearest rivals?

A: The W600 sits 0.2 percent ahead of the Radeon HD 6950 and between 0.7 and 0.9 percent behind the Quadro K620, RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102, and RTX 5070 Ti SUPER in average score. The M365X is within roughly 1 percent of the Radeon 610M, Intel UHD Graphics P630, Quadro M4000, and Radeon R7 M445.

Q: Are both cards still in production?

A: No. Both are listed as end-of-life. The W600 launched on 2012-06-12; the M365X on 2015-05-04.

Q: Which card supports more displays?

A: The W600, with six mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs. No display outputs are recorded for the M365X.

Where Each One Wins

The FirePro W600 wins on raw throughput. It takes the only direct benchmark, leads in every theoretical metric the database records (shading units, TMUs, ROPs, pixel rate, texture rate, FP32 compute), doubles the memory capacity, and connects over a full PCIe 3.0 x16 interface rather than x8. Its six DisplayPort outputs and single-slot, power-connector-free design make it the pick for multi-monitor workstation setups where the recorded data matters.

The Radeon R7 M365X wins on nothing in the recorded benchmark data, but its profile is different rather than simply weaker. It fits the mobile segment, as evidenced by its PCIe 3.0 x8 interface, absent desktop dimensions, and Polaris Mobile successor line. For that class, its scores sit within about 1 percent of several comparable mobile and integrated solutions, including the Radeon 610M and the Radeon R7 M445. It also has a recorded Vulkan result (4893) that the W600 lacks in the database.

The summary: same architecture, same node, same foundry, same memory bandwidth. The W600 is the larger, faster, more connectivity-rich desktop part with a 4.8 percent measured lead; the M365X is the smaller mobile-oriented chip whose deficits are real but consistent with its class.