AMD FirePro W600 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only benchmark available for direct comparison is Geekbench OpenCL, and the data shows a narrow victory for the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580M. The NVIDIA card scores 6389 points, while the AMD FirePro W600 trails at 6223 points. This translates to a 2.7% performance advantage for the GTX 580M, a margin that is statistically modest but nonetheless consistent across the single data point. In the wins tally, the GTX 580M takes 1 win against 0 for the FirePro W600.

Context from the nearest rivals list helps interpret this result. The GTX 580M’s 6389 score places it in a cluster with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 SE, which scores an identical 6389, and the AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100, which is just 0.9% behind. On the other side, the FirePro W600’s 6223 score sits near the AMD Radeon HD 6950, which is only 0.2% behind, and it trails the NVIDIA Quadro K620 by 0.9%. The percentile ranks are also close: the GTX 580M sits at the 37th percentile of all GPUs, while the FirePro W600 sits at the 36th percentile. These figures underscore that neither card is a top-tier performer; instead, they occupy adjacent mid-range territory where a 2.7% delta is within the noise of daily workload variance.

The practical takeaway from this head-to-head is that in raw compute throughput, the two cards are nearly interchangeable. The GTX 580M’s lead is real but small. However, benchmark scores do not tell the full story — architectural choices, memory bandwidth, and feature sets will matter more for specific applications. The 2.7% edge in OpenCL is the kind of margin that could flip depending on driver optimization or the specific workload kernel, so any purchase decision should weigh the other differentiating factors discussed below.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and are built on different manufacturing processes. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580M uses the GF114 chip based on the Fermi 2.0 architecture, fabricated on TSMC’s 40 nm process. The AMD FirePro W600, meanwhile, uses the Cape Verde chip based on GCN 1.0, fabricated on TSMC’s 28 nm process. The process node difference is significant: 40 nm vs 28 nm, which directly impacts transistor density. The GTX 580M packs 1,950 million transistors on a die size of 332 mm², yielding a density of 5.9 million transistors per mm². The FirePro W600, despite having fewer total transistors at 1,500 million, achieves a much higher density of 12.2 million transistors per mm² on a smaller 123 mm² die. This is a direct consequence of the newer 28 nm node, which allows for tighter packing.

The compute resource allocation differs markedly. The NVIDIA card has 384 shading units, 64 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 32 raster operation units (ROPs). The AMD card has more shading units at 512, but fewer TMUs at 32 and half the ROPs at 16. This imbalance explains some of the performance characteristics: the GTX 580M’s higher texture rate of 39.68 GTexel/s versus the FirePro W600’s 24.00 GTexel/s suggests better texturing throughput, while the FirePro W600’s pixel rate of 12.00 GPixel/s actually exceeds the GTX 580M’s 9.920 GPixel/s despite fewer ROPs, likely due to higher clock efficiency per ROP.

Memory subsystems also diverge. Both cards have 2 GB of GDDR5, but the NVIDIA card uses a 256-bit memory bus, yielding a bandwidth of 96.00 GB/s. The AMD card uses a narrower 128-bit bus, cutting bandwidth to 64.00 GB/s. The memory clock is higher on the AMD side (4 Gbps effective vs 3 Gbps effective), but the bus width disadvantage is decisive. The GTX 580M’s memory bandwidth advantage of 50% is a major architectural difference that could affect high-resolution textures or large dataset workloads.

Floating-point performance tells a different story. The GTX 580M delivers 952.3 GFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the FirePro W600 delivers 768.0 GFLOPS. The NVIDIA card is roughly 24% ahead in raw FP32 throughput, which aligns with its higher shading unit count per clock. However, the AMD card’s GCN architecture supports a higher DirectX feature level — 12 (11_1) versus the NVIDIA card’s 12 (11_0) — and the AMD card also supports Vulkan 1.2.170, while the NVIDIA card lists no Vulkan support in the data. Power envelopes differ as well: the GTX 580M has a 100 W TDP and uses an MXM module form factor, while the FirePro W600 is a single-slot card at 75 W TDP with a suggested 250 W PSU.

The Verdict

From the data, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580M is the stronger overall performer. It wins the sole benchmark by 2.7%, offers significantly higher memory bandwidth (96.00 GB/s vs 64.00 GB/s), delivers more FP32 compute (952.3 GFLOPS vs 768.0 GFLOPS), and has a higher texture fill rate. These are concrete, measurable advantages that would benefit compute-heavy tasks such as OpenCL workloads, scientific simulation, or any application that stresses memory throughput.

However, the AMD FirePro W600 is not without its merits. It is built on a newer 28 nm process, which yields better transistor density and a smaller die (123 mm² vs 332 mm²), and it draws less power (75 W vs 100 W). Its 512 shading units outnumber the NVIDIA card’s 384, and its higher pixel rate (12.00 GPixel/s vs 9.920 GPixel/s) suggests better performance in rasterization-bound scenarios at lower resolutions. The AMD card also has a more modern feature set with Vulkan support and a higher DirectX feature level.

For a buyer prioritizing raw compute and memory bandwidth, the GTX 580M is the clear choice based on the data. For a buyer prioritizing power efficiency, modern API support, and a smaller physical footprint, the FirePro W600 has the edge. The 2.7% benchmark delta is too small to be decisive on its own, so the architectural differences must carry the weight. If the workload is OpenCL-heavy, the GTX 580M wins. If the workload is more diverse or requires Vulkan, the FirePro W600 is the safer pick.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in several key specification fields. The process node differs: NVIDIA uses 40 nm while AMD uses 28 nm. Transistor count differs (1,950 million vs 1,500 million), as does die size (332 mm² vs 123 mm²) and transistor density (5.9M / mm² vs 12.2M / mm²). The memory clock is 750 MHz (3 Gbps effective) for NVIDIA versus 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) for AMD. Memory bus width differs (256 bit vs 128 bit), leading to a bandwidth gap (96.00 GB/s vs 64.00 GB/s). Shading units are 384 vs 512, TMUs are 64 vs 32, and ROPs are 32 vs 16. Pixel rate is 9.920 GPixel/s vs 12.00 GPixel/s, texture rate is 39.68 GTexel/s vs 24.00 GTexel/s, and FP32 is 952.3 GFLOPS vs 768.0 GFLOPS. TDP is 100 W vs 75 W. Slot width is MXM Module vs Single-slot. Bus interface is MXM-B (3.0) vs PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs are Portable Device Dependent vs 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.2. The AMD card has dimensions of 168 mm length, 111 mm height, and 20 mm width; the NVIDIA card has no listed dimensions. The AMD card has a suggested PSU of 250 W, while the NVIDIA card has none listed. DirectX support is 12 (11_0) for NVIDIA vs 12 (11_1) for AMD. Vulkan support is absent for NVIDIA, but 1.2.170 for AMD. The AMD card has a launch MSRP of 599 USD. Release dates differ: 2011-06-27 for NVIDIA vs 2012-06-12 for AMD. The NVIDIA card’s predecessor is GeForce 400M and successor is GeForce 600M; the AMD card’s predecessor is FirePro Terascale and successor is Radeon Pro Polaris.

FAQ

Q: Which card scores higher in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580M scores 6389, while the AMD FirePro W600 scores 6223. The GTX 580M wins by a 2.7% margin.

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

A: The GTX 580M has a 256-bit memory bus and 96.00 GB/s bandwidth, while the FirePro W600 has a 128-bit bus and 64.00 GB/s bandwidth. The NVIDIA card has 50% more bandwidth.

Q: Which card has a higher FP32 compute throughput?

A: The GTX 580M delivers 952.3 GFLOPS, whereas the FirePro W600 delivers 768.0 GFLOPS. The NVIDIA card is roughly 24% ahead.

Q: Does either card support Vulkan?

A: The AMD FirePro W600 lists Vulkan support version 1.2.170. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580M lists no Vulkan support in the data.

Q: What are the TDP and form factor differences?

A: The GTX 580M has a 100 W TDP and uses an MXM Module slot width. The FirePro W600 has a 75 W TDP, is single-slot, and measures 168 mm by 111 mm by 20 mm.

Q: What is the process node for each GPU?

A: The GTX 580M is built on TSMC’s 40 nm process, while the FirePro W600 is built on TSMC’s 28 nm process. The smaller node gives the AMD card a higher transistor density of 12.2M / mm² versus 5.9M / mm².

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580M wins in raw compute throughput and memory bandwidth. Its 96.00 GB/s bandwidth is the standout advantage — any workload that reads or writes large datasets, such as image processing, video encoding, or scientific compute, will benefit from that headroom. Its FP32 throughput of 952.3 GFLOPS is also higher, so OpenCL kernels that are compute-bound will finish faster. Its texture rate of 39.68 GTexel/s versus 24.00 GTexel/s means texture-heavy graphics workloads, like 3D rendering or game-level graphics, will favor the NVIDIA card. The GTX 580M also holds a slight edge in the percentile ranking (37th vs 36th), reinforcing its status as the more capable compute part.

The AMD FirePro W600 wins in power efficiency and modern API support. Its 75 W TDP is 25% lower than the GTX 580M’s 100 W, making it more suitable for compact or thermally constrained systems. Its pixel rate of 12.00 GPixel/s exceeds the NVIDIA card’s 9.920 GPixel/s, so pixel-bound tasks, such as 2D compositing or lower-resolution rasterization, may run faster. The FirePro W600 also has 512 shading units, which is 128 more than the GTX 580M, and its Vulkan 1.2.170 support plus DirectX 12 (11_1) feature level make it more future-proof for applications that leverage these modern APIs. The 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs are a clear win for multi-monitor setups, whereas the GTX 580M’s outputs are listed as portable device dependent. Finally, the FirePro W600’s smaller die (123 mm²) and higher transistor density (12.2M / mm²) indicate better manufacturing efficiency, which correlates with its lower power draw. For a workstation that prioritizes low power, multi-display output, and API compatibility, the FirePro W600 is the data-backed choice.