AMD FirePro W600 vs NVIDIA GeForce 840M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head comparison yields a single decisive benchmark result. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the AMD FirePro W600 scores 6,223 points, while the NVIDIA GeForce 840M trails with 5,764 points. That is an 8% advantage for the FirePro W600, making it the winner of the only matched test in the database. The delta is modest, but it is a clear, consistent margin across the entire workload.

The FirePro W600’s average benchmark score of 6,223 places it at the 36th percentile of all GPUs tracked. Its nearest rivals in the database show how tight this tier is: the AMD Radeon HD 6950 sits at 6,210 points, only 0.2% behind, and the NVIDIA Quadro K620 edges ahead at 6,282 points, a 0.9% lead. Notably, two high-end NVIDIA parts, the GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 and the GeForce RTX 5070 Ti SUPER, both score 6,270, landing just 0.7% above the FirePro W600. This suggests the FirePro W600 is punching well above its professional workstation positioning when measured purely by OpenCL compute.

The GeForce 840M, by contrast, has a lower average benchmark score of 5,322, reflecting its weaker showing in the Vulkan test (4,880) despite a respectable OpenCL score of 5,764. Its percentile rank is 31st, five points below the FirePro W600. In its own rival cluster, the GeForce 840M is nearly indistinguishable from its peers: the NVIDIA GeForce 930A scores 5,317 (0.1% behind), the GeForce GTX 980M scores 5,308 (0.3% behind), and the GeForce 940M scores 5,284 (0.7% behind). Only the AMD Radeon R7 M445 leads it, at 5,358 points, a 0.7% margin.

The database records one win for the AMD FirePro W600 and zero for the GeForce 840M in direct head-to-head tests. That outcome aligns with the broader score distribution: the FirePro W600 consistently outperforms the 840M by a small but measurable amount. The 8% delta in OpenCL is the only direct comparison available, but the average benchmark scores reinforce the same order, with the FirePro ahead by roughly 14% when including the 840M’s Vulkan result.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations, and the data shows several fundamental contrasts. The FirePro W600 is built on GCN 1.0 using the Cape Verde chip, while the GeForce 840M uses Maxwell with the GM108S die. Both are fabricated on TSMC’s 28 nm process, so the manufacturing node is identical. The transistor counts differ substantially: the FirePro packs 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, giving a density of 12.2 million transistors per mm². The GeForce 840M has 1,020 million transistors on a smaller 77 mm² die, yielding a higher density of 13.2 million per mm². This means the NVIDIA chip is more tightly packed, but the AMD chip has more absolute resources.

Core configuration reinforces the gap. The FirePro W600 has 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 render output units. The GeForce 840M has 384 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. In every category, the FirePro offers double the texture and pixel processing hardware relative to the 840M’s counts, and 33% more shading units. The throughput figures reflect this: the FirePro reaches 12.00 GPixel/s and 24.00 GTexel/s, while the 840M manages 8.992 GPixel/s and 17.98 GTexel/s. For floating-point compute, the FirePro delivers 768.0 GFLOPS of FP32, slightly below the 840M’s 863.2 GFLOPS. This is a notable exception: despite fewer cores, the Maxwell architecture’s higher clock speeds allow it to edge ahead in raw FP32.

Clock behavior differs completely. The FirePro W600 lists no base or boost clock for the GPU core; only its memory clock is recorded at 1000 MHz, translating to 4 Gbps effective. The GeForce 840M has explicit base and boost clocks of 1029 MHz and 1124 MHz, with memory at 1001 MHz (2 Gbps effective). The 840M’s higher core clocks explain its FP32 advantage, but its memory subsystem is far narrower.

Memory configuration is a major divergence. The FirePro W600 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The GeForce 840M has 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, producing just 16.02 GB/s. That is a 4x bandwidth advantage for the FirePro, a decisive factor for memory-bound workloads. The bus interface also differs: the FirePro uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the 840M uses PCIe 3.0 x8, halving the available host interface bandwidth.

Power and physical design are opposites. The FirePro W600 has a 75 W TDP, uses a single-slot cooler, requires no power connectors, and needs a 250 W suggested PSU. Its dimensions are 168 mm in length, 111 mm in height, and 20 mm in width. The GeForce 840M is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with a 33 W TDP, no slot width, no power connectors, and no suggested PSU, since it is designed for portable devices. It has no recorded dimensions and its display outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent," indicating it relies on laptop or notebook implementations.

API support shows generational differences. The FirePro W600 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The GeForce 840M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA part has a newer Vulkan version, while the AMD part has a slightly higher DirectX feature level. Both lack dedicated ray tracing or tensor cores, as those fields are null for both.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD FirePro W600 has an average benchmark score of 6,223, while the NVIDIA GeForce 840M averages 5,322. The FirePro sits at the 36th percentile of all GPUs, compared to the 840M’s 31st percentile.

Q: What is the biggest performance gap between the two in a direct test?

A: In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the FirePro W600 scores 6,223 versus the 840M’s 5,764, an 8% delta. This is the only head-to-head benchmark recorded, and it favors the AMD card.

Q: How do their memory bandwidths compare?

A: The FirePro W600 provides 64.00 GB/s using 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus. The GeForce 840M provides 16.02 GB/s using 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus. The FirePro’s bandwidth is four times higher.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The FirePro W600 has 512 shading units, while the GeForce 840M has 384. The FirePro also has double the TMUs (32 vs 16) and double the ROPs (16 vs 8).

Q: Does the GeForce 840M have a higher FP32 compute rating?

A: Yes. The GeForce 840M achieves 863.2 GFLOPS of FP32, while the FirePro W600 achieves 768.0 GFLOPS. This is despite the 840M having fewer shading units, due to its higher core clocks of 1029 MHz base and 1124 MHz boost.

Q: What are the TDP differences?

A: The FirePro W600 has a 75 W TDP and is a single-slot card requiring a 250 W suggested PSU. The GeForce 840M has a 33 W TDP and is an integrated GPU (IGP), meaning it has no slot width or power connector requirements.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear, if narrow, performance hierarchy. In the only direct benchmark, the AMD FirePro W600 beats the NVIDIA GeForce 840M by 8% in OpenCL. The FirePro also holds a higher average benchmark score (6,223 vs 5,322), a better percentile rank (36th vs 31st), and substantially superior memory bandwidth (64.00 GB/s vs 16.02 GB/s). For any workload sensitive to memory throughput, the FirePro is the stronger choice.

However, the GeForce 840M is not without merits. It delivers higher FP32 compute (863.2 GFLOPS vs 768.0 GFLOPS) and consumes less than half the power (33 W vs 75 W). It also supports a newer Vulkan version (1.4 vs 1.2.170) and is designed for portable devices, as indicated by its IGP form factor and "Portable Device Dependent" display outputs. For a laptop or ultrabook scenario, the 840M’s low power draw and integrated nature are practical advantages that the FirePro cannot match.

The FirePro W600, by contrast, is a discrete, single-slot professional card with six mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, and a 75 W TDP. It was released on 2012-06-12 with a launch MSRP of 599 USD. The GeForce 840M came later, on 2014-03-11, with no recorded MSRP. The FirePro occupies a workstation niche, while the 840M targets mobility.

Who should pick which? From the recorded data, users needing maximum OpenCL performance, higher bandwidth, and a fixed desktop installation should choose the AMD FirePro W600. Users constrained by power budgets or requiring a mobile solution should choose the NVIDIA GeForce 840M, accepting lower raw performance in exchange for efficiency and portability. The benchmark results indicate that the FirePro is the faster GPU overall, but the 840M is the only one of the two that can exist inside a laptop.

Specification Differences

| Field | AMD FirePro W600 | NVIDIA GeForce 840M |

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

| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Maxwell |

| Chip | Cape Verde | GM108S |

| Transistors | 1,500 million | 1,020 million |

| Die Size | 123 mm² | 77 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.2M / mm² | 13.2M / mm² |

| Base Clock | None listed | 1029 MHz |

| Boost Clock | None listed | 1124 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) | 1001 MHz (2 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | DDR3 |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 64.00 GB/s | 16.02 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 512 | 384 |

| TMUs | 32 | 16 |

| ROPs | 16 | 8 |

| Pixel Rate | 12.00 GPixel/s | 8.992 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 24.00 GTexel/s | 17.98 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 768.0 GFLOPS | 863.2 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 75 W | 33 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | IGP |

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | None |

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

| Display Outputs | 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 | Portable Device Dependent |

| DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 12 (11_0) |

| Vulkan | 1.2.170 | 1.4 |

| Dimensions | 168 mm x 111 mm x 20 mm | None recorded |

| Release Date | 2012-06-12 | 2014-03-11 |

| Predecessor | FirePro Terascale | GeForce 700M |

| Successor | Radeon Pro Polaris | GeForce 900M |

| Launch MSRP | 599 USD | None |

| Geekbench OpenCL Score | 6,223 | 5,764 |

| Geekbench Vulkan Score | Not recorded | 4,880 |

| Average Benchmark Score | 6,223 | 5,322 |

| Percentile vs All GPUs | 36 | 31 |