AMD FirePro W600 vs NVIDIA GeForce 940M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only common benchmark between the AMD FirePro W600 and the NVIDIA GeForce 940M is Geekbench OpenCL. In this test, the AMD FirePro W600 records a score of 6223, while the NVIDIA GeForce 940M achieves 6018. The result is a 3.4% margin in favor of the AMD card, a modest but measurable lead in raw compute throughput.

The GeForce 940M has an additional Vulkan benchmark result of 4549, which the FirePro W600 does not have a corresponding score for. This means the two cards cannot be directly compared on that API from the recorded data. The OpenCL result is the only head-to-head metric available, and it shows the FirePro W600 taking the single win. The head-to-head tally stands at 1 win for the AMD card and 0 for the NVIDIA card.

Looking at the broader database context, the FirePro W600 holds a 36th percentile ranking among all GPUs, while the GeForce 940M sits at the 31st percentile. That percentile gap aligns with the OpenCL delta, indicating the AMD part is positioned slightly higher in the overall performance distribution. The FirePro’s average benchmark score is 6223, which matches its sole OpenCL result, while the GeForce 940M’s average score of 5284 is dragged down by the inclusion of the lower Vulkan score in its average.

The nearest rivals for the FirePro W600 reinforce this picture. The AMD Radeon HD 6950 scores 6210, a 0.2% delta from the FirePro, making the W600 essentially tied with that older card. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 and RTX 5070 Ti SUPER both score 6270, putting them 0.7% ahead of the FirePro W600. The NVIDIA Quadro K620 scores 6282, which is 0.9% ahead. These are extremely tight margins, all within a single percentage point, meaning the FirePro W600 is clustered with a group of cards that perform nearly identically in the database.

The GeForce 940M’s nearest rivals show a similar clustering but with a different character. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M scores 5308, a 0.4% delta above the 940M, while the GeForce 930A scores 5317 (0.6% above) and the GeForce 840M scores 5322 (0.7% above). The GeForce GTX 760M scores 5236, which is 0.9% below the 940M. All of these deltas are under one percentage point, so the 940M is also part of a tightly packed performance tier, though that tier sits roughly 15% lower than the FirePro W600’s peer group.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD FirePro W600 wins the only common benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, by 3.4%. That advantage is small but consistent with its higher percentile ranking. The FirePro W600 also has a higher average benchmark score of 6223 versus 5284 for the GeForce 940M, a difference of 939 points. In terms of use cases, the FirePro W600 is the stronger choice for OpenCL compute workloads based on the recorded data. It is also a desktop workstation card with six mini-DisplayPort outputs, making it suited for multi-display professional setups. The GeForce 940M, by contrast, is a mobile MXM module with display outputs described as portable device dependent, so it is designed for laptop integration rather than standalone desktop use.

The GeForce 940M does not win any head-to-head benchmark against the FirePro W600, but it does offer the additional Vulkan score of 4549. That metric is notable because the FirePro W600 has no recorded Vulkan result, so the NVIDIA card can claim API coverage that the AMD card cannot match in this dataset. The 940M also has a higher pixel rate of 17.57 GPixel/s and a higher texture rate of 35.14 GTexel/s compared to the FirePro W600’s 12.00 GPixel/s and 24.00 GTexel/s. Those rates suggest the NVIDIA card has an edge in fill-rate-bound workloads, even though its OpenCL score is lower. The GeForce 940M also has higher FP32 throughput at 1,124.4 GFLOPS versus 768.0 GFLOPS for the FirePro W600, which is a significant raw compute advantage on paper, yet the OpenCL result does not reflect that advantage.

For users choosing between these two, the decision hinges on the workload. The FirePro W600 is better suited for OpenCL compute tasks and professional multi-display output. The GeForce 940M is better suited for mobile integration and scenarios where Vulkan support matters, since it has a recorded Vulkan score while the FirePro does not. The GeForce also has higher clock rates, with a base of 1020 MHz and boost of 1098 MHz, while the FirePro W600 has no recorded base or boost clock in the database.

Architecture Differences

The AMD FirePro W600 uses the Cape Verde chip based on GCN 1.0 architecture, while the NVIDIA GeForce 940M uses the GM107 chip based on Maxwell architecture. Both are manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC, but the transistor counts differ. The FirePro W600 has 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 12.2M per mm². The GeForce 940M has 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die, yielding a density of 12.6M per mm². The NVIDIA chip is larger in both transistor count and die area.

The two cards have identical core counts in several areas. Both feature 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The memory configuration, however, diverges sharply. The FirePro W600 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus with a bandwidth of 64.00 GB/s and a memory clock of 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective). The GeForce 940M uses 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus with a bandwidth of only 14.40 GB/s and a memory clock of 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective). This is a major difference: the FirePro W600 has more than four times the memory bandwidth of the GeForce 940M, which explains why its OpenCL score is higher despite the NVIDIA card’s higher FP32 peak.

The GeForce 940M compensates with higher clocks and higher fill rates. Its base clock is 1020 MHz and boost clock is 1098 MHz, while the FirePro W600 has no recorded base or boost clock. The 940M achieves a pixel rate of 17.57 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 35.14 GTexel/s, both well above the FirePro W600’s 12.00 GPixel/s and 24.00 GTexel/s. The FP32 output tells a similar story: the GeForce 940M delivers 1,124.4 GFLOPS, about 46% higher than the FirePro W600’s 768.0 GFLOPS. Neither card has RT cores, tensor cores, or FP16 support recorded.

The API support also differs. The FirePro W600 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The GeForce 940M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA card has a newer Vulkan version, which is consistent with its later release date of March 2015 versus June 2012 for the AMD card. The FirePro W600 belongs to the FirePro GCN (Wx000) generation, while the GeForce 940M belongs to the GeForce 900M generation. The FirePro’s predecessor is FirePro Terascale and its successor is Radeon Pro Polaris. The GeForce 940M’s predecessor is GeForce 800M and its successor is GeForce 10 Mobile.

The physical and power characteristics are also different. The FirePro W600 is a single-slot card with dimensions of 168 mm length, 111 mm height, and 20 mm width. The GeForce 940M is an MXM module with no recorded dimensions. Both have a TDP of 75 W and neither uses power connectors. The FirePro W600 lists a suggested PSU of 250 W, while the GeForce 940M has no suggested PSU recorded. The FirePro uses a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, while the GeForce uses MXM-B (3.0). Display outputs are another differentiator: the FirePro W600 has six mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, while the GeForce 940M’s outputs are portable device dependent.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL?

A: The AMD FirePro W600 scores 6223 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 3.4% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce 940M’s 6018. The FirePro W600 wins the only head-to-head benchmark between the two cards.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth of each card?

A: The AMD FirePro W600 has 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth from 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus. The NVIDIA GeForce 940M has 14.40 GB/s of bandwidth from 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus. The FirePro W600 has more than four times the bandwidth.

Q: Does the GeForce 940M have any benchmark advantage?

A: The GeForce 940M has a Vulkan score of 4549, which is not matched by any Vulkan result for the FirePro W600. The NVIDIA card also records higher pixel rate, texture rate, and FP32 GFLOPS, though these do not translate into an OpenCL win.

Q: What are the core counts for both GPUs?

A: Both have 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Neither card has RT cores or tensor cores, and neither has FP16 performance recorded.

Q: What process node and foundry do both cards use?

A: Both the AMD FirePro W600 and the NVIDIA GeForce 940M are built on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The FirePro uses a 123 mm² die with 1,500 million transistors, while the GeForce uses a 148 mm² die with 1,870 million transistors.

Q: What is the TDP of each card?

A: Both the AMD FirePro W600 and the NVIDIA GeForce 940M have a TDP of 75 W. Neither card requires power connectors, and the FirePro W600 lists a suggested PSU of 250 W while the GeForce 940M has no suggested PSU recorded.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in the following recorded fields:

• Chip: AMD FirePro W600 uses Cape Verde; NVIDIA GeForce 940M uses GM107.
• Architecture: GCN 1.0 versus Maxwell.
• Generation: FirePro GCN (Wx000) versus GeForce 900M.
• Transistors: 1,500 million versus 1,870 million.
• Die size: 123 mm² versus 148 mm².
• Transistor density: 12.2M / mm² versus 12.6M / mm².
• Base clock: Not recorded for the FirePro W600; 1020 MHz for the GeForce 940M.
• Boost clock: Not recorded for the FirePro W600; 1098 MHz for the GeForce 940M.
• Memory clock: 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) versus 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective).
• Memory type: GDDR5 versus DDR3.
• Memory bus width: 128 bit versus 64 bit.
• Memory bandwidth: 64.00 GB/s versus 14.40 GB/s.
• Pixel rate: 12.00 GPixel/s versus 17.57 GPixel/s.
• Texture rate: 24.00 GTexel/s versus 35.14 GTexel/s.
• FP32: 768.0 GFLOPS versus 1,124.4 GFLOPS.
• Slot width: Single-slot versus MXM Module.
• Suggested PSU: 250 W versus not recorded.
• Bus interface: PCIe 3.0 x16 versus MXM-B (3.0).
• Display outputs: 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 versus portable device dependent.
• DirectX support: 12 (11_1) versus 12 (11_0).
• Vulkan support: 1.2.170 versus 1.4.
• Dimensions: 168 mm x 111 mm x 20 mm for the FirePro W600; not recorded for the GeForce 940M.
• Release date: June 2012 for the FirePro W600; March 2015 for the GeForce 940M.
• Predecessor: FirePro Terascale versus GeForce 800M.
• Successor: Radeon Pro Polaris versus GeForce 10 Mobile.
• Launch MSRP: 599 USD for the FirePro W600; not recorded for the GeForce 940M.
• Average benchmark score: 6223 versus 5284.
• Percentile vs all GPUs: 36th versus 31st.