AMD FirePro W600 vs AMD Radeon R7 M370 Comparison

The AMD Radeon R7 M370 and AMD FirePro W600 are both end-of-life mobile and workstation graphics solutions built on AMD’s GCN 1.0 architecture, yet they target very different use cases. The data shows a single head-to-head benchmark result, where the R7 M370 takes a decisive victory, but the underlying specifications reveal a more nuanced story about compute throughput, memory bandwidth, and professional workstation features.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the results are clear: the AMD Radeon R7 M370 scores 7063 points against the AMD FirePro W600’s 6223 points. That is a 13.5% lead for the R7 M370, a significant margin in synthetic compute workloads. This advantage is notable because it comes despite the FirePro W600 having a higher raw FP32 throughput on paper — the W600 is rated at 768.0 GFLOPS versus the R7 M370’s 737.3 GFLOPS. The benchmark results indicate that the R7 M370’s execution efficiency or driver optimizations compensate for its slightly lower theoretical peak.

Looking at the broader context, the R7 M370’s average benchmark score of 6764 places it in the 38th percentile of all GPUs, while the FirePro W600’s average score of 6223 sits in the 36th percentile. The delta between their average scores is roughly 8.7% in favor of the R7 M370, which aligns with the head-to-head result. The R7 M370 also has a Vulkan score of 6465, a test the FirePro W600 does not appear in, suggesting the R7 M370 has broader API coverage in the benchmark suite.

The nearest rivals for the R7 M370 include the AMD FirePro M5100 (avg score 6830, just 1% behind), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M (avg score 6946, 2.6% ahead), and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 1010 (avg score 6698, 1% behind). For the FirePro W600, the competitive field is tighter: the AMD Radeon HD 6950 is essentially tied at 6210 (0.2% behind), while the NVIDIA Quadro K620 is 0.9% ahead at 6282. This suggests the FirePro W600 is positioned near the bottom of its performance tier, whereas the R7 M370 holds a stronger mid-pack position.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs share the same GCN 1.0 architecture, the same 28 nm process node, and the same foundry (TSMC), but the physical implementations diverge significantly. The R7 M370 uses a chip codenamed "Litho" with 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.3M per mm². The FirePro W600 uses the "Cape Verde" chip, which packs 1,500 million transistors onto a 123 mm² die, resulting in a density of 12.2M per mm² — nearly identical density, but the W600’s die is 60% larger.

The core configurations reflect this difference. The FirePro W600 has 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 16 raster output units (ROPs). The R7 M370 is leaner, with 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and only 8 ROPs. This means the W600 has a 33% advantage in shading units and a 100% advantage in ROPs, which typically translates to better fill-rate performance. The pixel rate tells the story: the W600 achieves 12.00 GPixel/s versus the R7 M370’s 7.680 GPixel/s. Texture rate is closer, with the W600 at 24.00 GTexel/s versus 23.04 GTexel/s for the R7 M370.

Memory subsystems differ in clock speed but not in capacity or bus width. Both cards have 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus. However, the FirePro W600 runs its memory at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective), delivering 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth, while the R7 M370’s memory runs at 900 MHz (3.6 Gbps effective), yielding 57.60 GB/s. That is an 11% bandwidth advantage for the W600, which is meaningful for texture-heavy workloads.

The FirePro W600 is a professional workstation card with a 75 W TDP, single-slot design, and no power connectors, requiring only a 250 W suggested PSU. It also offers six mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, a hallmark of multi-display professional setups. The R7 M370 lacks published TDP, slot width, and display output data in the fact pack, making its physical requirements unspecified. The W600 uses a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, while the R7 M370 is limited to PCIe 3.0 x8, halving the potential host bandwidth for data transfers.

Where Each One Wins

The R7 M370 wins the compute race, as evidenced by its 13.5% lead in OpenCL and its additional Vulkan benchmark presence. This makes it the better choice for general-purpose GPU compute tasks that rely on OpenCL or Vulkan, such as rendering, physics simulations, or machine learning inference. Its higher average benchmark score (6764 vs 6223) and better percentile ranking (38th vs 36th) reinforce this.

The FirePro W600, despite losing the compute benchmark, holds advantages in several hardware specs that point to different strengths. Its 100% more ROPs (16 vs 8) and 33% more shading units (512 vs 384) give it superior pixel throughput, which is critical for rasterization-heavy workloads like CAD viewport rendering or multi-display desktop composition. The higher memory bandwidth (64.00 GB/s vs 57.60 GB/s) also helps with large textures or framebuffer operations. Its six mini-DisplayPort outputs are a clear win for multi-monitor professional setups, a scenario where the R7 M370’s display capabilities are unknown.

The FirePro W600’s professional lineage is also indicated by its launch MSRP of 599 USD, positioning it as a workstation product, whereas the R7 M370 has no listed launch MSRP. The W600’s PCIe 3.0 x16 interface is another advantage for data-heavy workflows, as it doubles the bandwidth available to the GPU versus the R7 M370’s x8 link.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M370 scores 7063 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 13.5% higher than the AMD FirePro W600’s 6223.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same modern APIs?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170, though the R7 M370 has a Vulkan benchmark score of 6465 while no Vulkan score is listed for the FirePro W600.

Q: How do their memory bandwidths compare?

A: The FirePro W600 offers 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth from its 1000 MHz GDDR5 memory, while the R7 M370 provides 57.60 GB/s from 900 MHz memory. Both use 2 GB GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The FirePro W600 has 512 shading units, which is 33% more than the R7 M370’s 384 shading units.

Q: What is the transistor count difference?

A: The FirePro W600 uses 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, while the R7 M370 uses 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die.

Q: Are both cards end-of-life products?

A: Yes, both the AMD Radeon R7 M370 and the AMD FirePro W600 have a production status of "End-of-life."

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon R7 M370 | AMD FirePro W600 |

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

| Chip | Litho | Cape Verde |

| Transistors | 950 million | 1,500 million |

| Die Size | 77 mm² | 123 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.3M / mm² | 12.2M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 875 MHz | Not specified |

| Boost Clock | 960 MHz | Not specified |

| Memory Clock | 900 MHz (3.6 Gbps effective) | 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Bandwidth | 57.60 GB/s | 64.00 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 384 | 512 |

| TMUs | 24 | 32 |

| ROPs | 8 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 7.680 GPixel/s | 12.00 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 23.04 GTexel/s | 24.00 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 737.3 GFLOPS | 768.0 GFLOPS |

| TDP | Not specified | 75 W |

| Slot Width | Not specified | Single-slot |

| Power Connectors | Not specified | None |

| Suggested PSU | Not specified | 250 W |

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

| Display Outputs | Not specified | 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 |

| Dimensions | Not specified | 168 mm x 111 mm x 20 mm |

| Release Date | 2015-05-04 | 2012-06-12 |

| Predecessor | Solar System | FirePro Terascale |

| Successor | Polaris Mobile | Radeon Pro Polaris |

| Launch MSRP | Not specified | 599 USD |

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split: the AMD Radeon R7 M370 is the stronger compute performer, winning the only head-to-head benchmark by 13.5% and offering a Vulkan score of 6465 that the FirePro W600 cannot match. Its higher average benchmark score (6764 vs 6223) and better percentile ranking (38th vs 36th) make it the default choice for anyone prioritizing OpenCL or Vulkan workloads. However, the FirePro W600’s hardware specs tell a different story for professional use. Its 512 shading units, 16 ROPs, and 64.00 GB/s bandwidth give it superior pixel and texture throughput in rasterization tasks. The six mini-DisplayPort outputs and single-slot, 75 W design with no power connectors are unambiguously workstation-oriented features.

Who should pick which? Choose the AMD Radeon R7 M370 for general-purpose compute, especially if you need Vulkan support or want the higher OpenCL score. Choose the AMD FirePro W600 if you need multi-display professional output, value the higher pixel rate (12.00 GPixel/s vs 7.680 GPixel/s), or require a low-power, single-slot card with PCIe 3.0 x16 host connectivity. The FirePro W600’s launch MSRP of 599 USD also reflects its professional positioning. The R7 M370 is the better all-around compute chip, but the W600 is purpose-built for specific workstation scenarios where its raw throughput advantages matter more than synthetic benchmark scores.