AMD FirePro W600 vs NVIDIA GeForce 930A Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records a single OpenCL benchmark comparison between these two parts, and the result is decisive. The AMD FirePro W600 scores 6,223 points in Geekbench OpenCL, while the NVIDIA GeForce 930A trails at 5,317 points. That puts the FirePro W600 17% ahead of the GeForce 930A in raw compute throughput, a margin that aligns with the architectural divide between a professional workstation card and a mobile-class integrated processor.

Looking at the wider field, the FirePro W600's score places it in the 36th percentile of all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals in the recorded data include the AMD Radeon HD 6950 with an average score of 6,210, a 0.2% difference, and the NVIDIA Quadro K620 at 6,282, which sits 0.9% higher. The FirePro W600 also edges out the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 and the RTX 5070 Ti SUPER, both scoring 6,270, by 0.7%. These tight margins show that the FirePro W600, despite its age, holds its own against much newer hardware in compute workloads.

The GeForce 930A, by contrast, sits in the 31st percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest recorded rivals show a cluster of mobile and entry-level parts: the NVIDIA GeForce 840M scores 5,322 (0.1% higher), the GeForce GTX 980M scores 5,308 (0.2% lower), the GeForce 940M scores 5,284 (0.6% lower), and the AMD Radeon R7 M445 scores 5,358 (0.8% higher). The 930A is effectively mid-pack among low-power mobile GPUs, with performance that lands within 1% of several comparable parts.

The head-to-head data shows a single benchmark win for the AMD FirePro W600, with zero wins for the NVIDIA GeForce 930A. The 17% delta is substantial for two GPUs that share the same 28 nm process node and both come from the same foundry, TSMC. The performance gap is not a matter of clock speed alone; it reflects deeper differences in memory architecture, shader count, and bus interface that are detailed below.

Architecture Differences

The FirePro W600 is built on AMD's GCN 1.0 architecture, using the Cape Verde chip. The GeForce 930A uses NVIDIA's Maxwell architecture, built on the GM108 chip. Both are fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC, but the similarities end there.

The AMD chip packs 1,500 million transistors into a 123 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 12.2 million per mm². The NVIDIA chip is smaller and leaner: 1,020 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, with a density of 13.2 million per mm². The higher density of the Maxwell chip reflects a more compact design, but the FirePro W600 compensates with a larger die and more execution resources.

Shading units favor the AMD part substantially. The FirePro W600 has 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The GeForce 930A has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and only 8 ROPs. The ROP disparity is particularly notable: the FirePro W600 can output 12.00 GPixel/s, while the GeForce 930A manages just 7.528 GPixel/s. Texture throughput is closer, with the AMD part at 24.00 GTexel/s versus 22.58 GTexel/s for the NVIDIA part. In raw FP32 compute, the FirePro W600 delivers 768.0 GFLOPS against 722.7 GFLOPS for the GeForce 930A.

Memory architecture creates the largest practical divide. The FirePro W600 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The GeForce 930A uses 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, delivering just 16.02 GB/s. That is a fourfold bandwidth advantage for the AMD card, a critical factor in memory-intensive OpenCL workloads. The memory clocks differ as well: the FirePro W600 runs at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective), while the GeForce 930A runs at 1001 MHz (2 Gbps effective).

The bus interface also favors the AMD part: PCIe 3.0 x16 versus PCIe 3.0 x8. The GeForce 930A is classified as an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no slot width, while the FirePro W600 is a single-slot card. The FirePro W600 draws 75 W and has no power connectors, with a suggested PSU of 250 W. The GeForce 930A draws just 33 W, also with no power connectors. The AMD card offers 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, while the GeForce 930A's display outputs are described as "Portable Device Dependent," reflecting its mobile-oriented design.

API support shows a generational split. The FirePro W600 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The GeForce 930A supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA part has a newer Vulkan version, but the AMD part has a slightly higher DirectX feature level.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the AMD FirePro W600 wins the only recorded test, and it wins by a meaningful margin. For workloads that stress compute throughput and memory bandwidth, the FirePro W600 is the clear choice. Its 64.00 GB/s bandwidth versus 16.02 GB/s gives it a massive advantage in any task that moves large data sets, such as image processing, physics simulation, or OpenCL compute kernels. The 512 shading units provide more parallel execution lanes than the 384 in the GeForce 930A, which helps in shader-heavy workloads.

The GeForce 930A's strengths are not visible in the compute benchmark, but the recorded data does show its advantages in power efficiency and form factor. At 33 W TDP versus 75 W, the NVIDIA part draws less than half the power. It is also an IGP, meaning it can be integrated directly into a portable device without requiring a separate card slot. Its PCIe 3.0 x8 interface, while narrower than the FirePro's x16, is sufficient for a mobile part. The GeForce 930A also carries a newer Vulkan version (1.4 versus 1.2.170), which could matter for modern Vulkan-based applications.

For a workstation environment with a full-size PCIe slot and a 250 W PSU, the FirePro W600 is the superior compute engine. Its 17% lead in OpenCL, combined with the massive bandwidth advantage and 6x mini-DisplayPort outputs for multi-monitor setups, makes it suitable for professional visualization and compute tasks. The GeForce 930A, with its low power draw and integrated form factor, is better suited to lightweight mobile workloads where battery life and thermal constraints outweigh raw performance.

The production status of both parts is end-of-life. The FirePro W600 launched on June 12, 2012, while the GeForce 930A launched on March 12, 2015. The FirePro W600's predecessor is the FirePro Terascale, and its successor is the Radeon Pro Polaris. The GeForce 930A's predecessor is the GeForce 800A, with no successor recorded in the database.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU performs better in OpenCL compute workloads?

A: The AMD FirePro W600 scores 6,223 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 17% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce 930A's score of 5,317.

Q: How does the memory bandwidth compare between the two cards?

A: The FirePro W600 delivers 64.00 GB/s over a 128-bit GDDR5 bus, while the GeForce 930A delivers 16.02 GB/s over a 64-bit DDR3 bus. This is a fourfold advantage for the AMD part.

Q: Which GPU is more power-efficient?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 930A has a TDP of 33 W, while the AMD FirePro W600 has a TDP of 75 W. The NVIDIA part draws less than half the power.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same API levels?

A: Both support OpenGL 4.6. The FirePro W600 supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170, while the GeForce 930A supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: What is the form factor difference?

A: The FirePro W600 is a single-slot card with 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, while the GeForce 930A is classified as an IGP with display outputs described as "Portable Device Dependent."

Q: How do these GPUs compare to their nearest rivals in the database?

A: The FirePro W600 is within 1% of the AMD Radeon HD 6950, NVIDIA Quadro K620, and NVIDIA RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102. The GeForce 930A is within 1% of the NVIDIA GeForce 840M, GTX 980M, 940M, and AMD Radeon R7 M445.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD FirePro W600 | NVIDIA GeForce 930A |

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

| Chip | Cape Verde | GM108 |

| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Maxwell |

| Generation | FirePro GCN (Wx000) | GeForce 900A |

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

| Die Size | 123 mm² | 77 mm² |

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

| Base Clock | Not recorded | 928 MHz |

| Boost Clock | Not recorded | 941 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 | 24 |

| ROPs | 16 | 8 |

| Pixel Rate | 12.00 GPixel/s | 7.528 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 24.00 GTexel/s | 22.58 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 768.0 GFLOPS | 722.7 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 75 W | 33 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | IGP |

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | Not recorded |

| 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 |

| Release Date | 2012-06-12 | 2015-03-12 |

| Launch MSRP | 599 USD | Not recorded |

| Predecessor | FirePro Terascale | GeForce 800A |

| Successor | Radeon Pro Polaris | Not recorded |