AMD FirePro W600 vs NVIDIA GeForce GT 555M Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GT 555M and AMD FirePro W600 represent two distinct approaches to mobile and workstation graphics from the early 2010s. The data shows a close contest in raw compute, with the GT 555M edging ahead in the single available benchmark, yet the underlying specifications reveal profoundly different design philosophies. The GT 555M is a power-efficient mobile part, while the FirePro W600 is a multi-display workstation card with significantly higher compute throughput.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark results indicate a narrow victory for the NVIDIA GeForce GT 555M in the Geekbench OpenCL test, scoring 6493 against the AMD FirePro W600’s 6223. This 4.3% delta suggests that for general-purpose compute workloads as measured by this test, the GT 555M holds a slight advantage. However, the win is far from decisive. The FirePro W600’s specification sheet tells a different story, one where it should theoretically dominate in raw floating-point operations.

The AMD FirePro W600 wins on paper in almost every architectural metric that matters for compute-heavy tasks. It boasts 512 shading units, more than triple the GT 555M’s 144, and delivers 768.0 GFLOPS of FP32 performance—more than double the NVIDIA part’s 339.8 GFLOPS. Its texture rate of 24.00 GTexel/s and pixel rate of 12.00 GPixel/s are also substantially higher than the GT 555M’s 14.16 GTexel/s and 3.540 GPixel/s. In workloads that leverage these raw specifications, such as professional rendering or scientific simulation, the FirePro W600 is the clear winner on paper.

The GT 555M’s victory in the OpenCL benchmark, despite its lower theoretical compute, suggests that benchmark optimization and driver efficiency can outweigh raw hardware capabilities. For users running OpenCL-based applications, the data shows the GT 555M is the safer choice. Conversely, for those relying on pixel throughput or texture fill rates, the FirePro W600’s specifications indicate it should excel, even if the single benchmark does not capture this advantage.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural eras and foundry processes. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 555M is built on the Fermi architecture, using the GF106 chip manufactured on a 40 nm process at TSMC. This older process node results in a relatively large die size of 238 mm² despite containing fewer transistors—1,170 million—than its competitor. The transistor density is a modest 4.9M per mm², reflecting the limitations of the 40 nm manufacturing process.

In contrast, the AMD FirePro W600 employs the GCN 1.0 architecture with the Cape Verde chip, built on a more advanced 28 nm process, also at TSMC. This smaller process node allows AMD to pack 1,500 million transistors into a much smaller die of just 123 mm², achieving a transistor density of 12.2M per mm²—roughly 2.5 times higher than the NVIDIA part. The architectural shift to GCN 1.0 represents a fundamental redesign of AMD’s GPU compute capabilities, with a focus on throughput-oriented design that benefits from the higher shading unit count.

Memory subsystems also differ significantly. The GT 555M uses 1024 MB of DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus, yielding 28.80 GB/s of bandwidth. The FirePro W600 doubles the capacity to 2 GB and uses faster GDDR5 memory on the same 128-bit bus, more than doubling bandwidth to 64.00 GB/s. This substantial memory bandwidth advantage is critical for memory-intensive workloads and likely contributes to the FirePro’s theoretical compute superiority.

The bus interfaces reflect their respective target markets. The GT 555M uses PCIe 2.0 x16, typical for mobile platforms of its era, while the FirePro W600 uses the newer PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, offering higher data transfer rates for workstation tasks. Display outputs also diverge sharply: the GT 555M’s outputs are “Portable Device Dependent,” meaning they vary by laptop manufacturer, while the FirePro W600 features six mini-DisplayPort 1.2 connections, clearly designed for multi-monitor professional setups.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is Geekbench OpenCL, where the NVIDIA GeForce GT 555M scores 6493 against the AMD FirePro W600’s 6223. This gives the NVIDIA part a 4.3% lead, a modest but measurable advantage. The GT 555M’s nearest rivals in the overall database include the NVIDIA Quadro M5000M (6481, 0.2% lower), the AMD Radeon Vega 10 Mobile (6476, 0.3% lower), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670M (6513, 0.3% higher). This clustering suggests the GT 555M sits in a competitive performance tier for its generation.

The FirePro W600’s score of 6223 places it near the AMD Radeon HD 6950 (6210, 0.2% lower) and the NVIDIA Quadro K620 (6282, 0.9% higher). Notably, the FirePro W600 is also compared against modern high-end cards like the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 (6270, 0.7% higher) and the RTX 5070 Ti SUPER (6270, 0.7% higher), though these are likely included for percentile context rather than direct competition.

The delta between the two cards is small, but the underlying data reveals that the GT 555M punches above its weight. Its 144 shading units manage to outperform the FirePro W600’s 512 shading units in OpenCL, implying that the Fermi architecture’s compute efficiency or the NVIDIA OpenCL driver stack provides a substantial advantage. The FirePro W600’s higher theoretical FP32 throughput (768.0 GFLOPS vs 339.8 GFLOPS) does not translate to a benchmark win, suggesting that real-world OpenCL performance is not purely a function of raw specification numbers.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The AMD FirePro W600 has 512 shading units, while the NVIDIA GeForce GT 555M has 144. This is a 3.6x difference in favor of the AMD part.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The FirePro W600 offers 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth using 2 GB of GDDR5 memory, while the GT 555M provides 28.80 GB/s from 1024 MB of DDR3. The AMD card has more than twice the bandwidth.

Q: Which card won the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GT 555M won with a score of 6493, compared to the FirePro W600’s 6223—a 4.3% advantage for the NVIDIA part.

Q: How do their process nodes compare?

A: The GT 555M uses a 40 nm process, while the FirePro W600 uses a 28 nm process. Both are manufactured by TSMC, but the smaller node allows the AMD chip to fit more transistors in a smaller die.

Q: What are the power consumption figures?

A: The GT 555M has a TDP of 35 W, while the FirePro W600 has a TDP of 75 W. The AMD card draws more than double the power, consistent with its higher performance specifications.

Q: What display outputs does each card offer?

A: The FirePro W600 provides six mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, while the GT 555M’s outputs are labeled as “Portable Device Dependent,” meaning they vary by laptop design.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every major specification category. The GT 555M uses the GF106 chip with Fermi architecture, while the FirePro W600 uses Cape Verde with GCN 1.0. Manufacturing processes differ: 40 nm for NVIDIA versus 28 nm for AMD, leading to different die sizes (238 mm² vs 123 mm²) and transistor counts (1,170 million vs 1,500 million). Transistor density is 4.9M per mm² for the GT 555M and 12.2M per mm² for the FirePro W600.

Memory configurations are starkly different. The GT 555M has 1024 MB of DDR3 at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective), yielding 28.80 GB/s bandwidth. The FirePro W600 has 2 GB of GDDR5 at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective), yielding 64.00 GB/s. Both use a 128-bit bus, but the faster memory type and higher clock give AMD the clear bandwidth advantage.

Compute resources favor the FirePro W600: 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs vs the GT 555M’s 144 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Pixel rate is 12.00 GPixel/s for AMD versus 3.540 GPixel/s for NVIDIA, and texture rate is 24.00 GTexel/s versus 14.16 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 768.0 GFLOPS for the FirePro W600 and 339.8 GFLOPS for the GT 555M.

Power and physical specifications also differ. TDP is 35 W for the GT 555M and 75 W for the FirePro W600. The FirePro W600 is a single-slot card measuring 168 mm by 111 mm by 20 mm, with no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The GT 555M’s dimensions and slot width are not specified, as it is a mobile component. Bus interfaces are PCIe 2.0 x16 for NVIDIA and PCIe 3.0 x16 for AMD. API support shows the FirePro W600 with DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170, while the GT 555M has DirectX 12 (11_0) and no Vulkan support; both offer OpenGL 4.6.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear but nuanced picture. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 555M wins the only available benchmark, yet it does so with significantly inferior raw specifications. This suggests that for OpenCL-based workloads, the GT 555M is the better choice, likely due to more efficient driver implementation or architectural advantages in specific compute patterns. Its lower TDP of 35 W also makes it suitable for thin-and-light laptops where power efficiency is paramount.

The AMD FirePro W600 is designed for a different purpose entirely. Its six mini-DisplayPort outputs, 2 GB of GDDR5 memory, and 75 W TDP indicate a workstation card built for multi-monitor professional environments. Its 768.0 GFLOPS of FP32 performance, 24.00 GTexel/s texture rate, and 12.00 GPixel/s pixel rate are all vastly superior to the GT 555M on paper. Users whose applications can leverage these raw capabilities—such as CAD, video editing, or scientific visualization—should favor the FirePro W600 despite its lower OpenCL benchmark score.

The benchmark victory for the GT 555M is real but narrow, and it does not negate the FirePro W600’s substantial hardware advantages. For laptop users needing a capable mobile GPU with moderate compute performance, the GT 555M is the data-backed pick. For workstation users requiring high throughput, multiple display outputs, and memory bandwidth, the FirePro W600’s specifications make it the logical choice, even if its OpenCL score trails by 4.3%. The choice ultimately depends on whether the workload matches the GT 555M’s benchmark efficiency or the FirePro W600’s raw architectural muscle.