AMD FirePro W600 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database places the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M and AMD FirePro W600 in adjacent performance territory, but the recorded measurements show a clear single-test winner. In the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark, the GTX 675M scores 6946 points against the FirePro W600’s 6223 points. That is an 11.6% advantage for the NVIDIA part, a meaningful margin in GPU workloads.

The GTX 675M’s score places it in the 39th percentile of all GPUs, while the FirePro W600 sits at the 36th percentile. That three-point percentile gap is modest, but it reflects the actual numerical lead. The nearest rivals for each card put the margin into context. The GTX 675M sits just 0.4% behind the AMD Radeon R5 M240, 1.1% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M, and 1.3% behind the NVIDIA T600. It leads the AMD FirePro M5100 by 1.7%. For the FirePro W600, the situation is more tightly grouped: it leads the AMD Radeon HD 6950 by 0.2%, and trails the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 and RTX 5070 Ti SUPER by 0.7% each, and the NVIDIA Quadro K620 by 0.9%.

The 11.6% delta in the head-to-head test is the single benchmark result available. No other workloads are recorded in the database, so the analysis relies on that one OpenCL score. The GTX 675M’s 952.3 GFLOPS of FP32 compute throughput is higher than the FirePro W600’s 768.0 GFLOPS, which aligns with the benchmark outcome. The texture rate also favors NVIDIA, 39.68 GTexel/s versus 24.00 GTexel/s for the AMD card. Pixel rate, however, goes the other way: the FirePro W600 posts 12.00 GPixel/s against the GTX 675M’s 9.920 GPixel/s, an advantage of roughly 21% in fill-rate terms.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 675M wins the only recorded benchmark, so it holds the overall advantage in the database. The FirePro W600 has no benchmark victories in the recorded data. However, the FirePro W600 does win on several architecture-level specifications that matter for specific workloads.

For compute-heavy tasks that stress raw FP32 throughput, the GTX 675M leads with 952.3 GFLOPS. That is 24% higher than the FirePro W600’s 768.0 GFLOPS. In texture-heavy workloads, the NVIDIA card also takes the lead with 39.68 GTexel/s versus 24.00 GTexel/s. The 64 TMUs on the GTX 675M double the 32 TMUs on the FirePro W600, which explains that advantage.

The FirePro W600 wins in pixel throughput. Its 12.00 GPixel/s exceeds the GTX 675M’s 9.920 GPixel/s by roughly 21%. This comes despite the FirePro W600 having only 16 ROPs, half the 32 ROPs of the GTX 675M. The higher pixel rate likely comes from a more efficient ROP design or clock behavior, but the database records only the final rates. For workloads that are fill-rate limited, such as certain rendering passes or high-resolution compositing, the FirePro W600 has the edge.

Memory bandwidth is another split. The GTX 675M offers 96.00 GB/s over a 256-bit bus, while the FirePro W600 provides 64.00 GB/s over a 128-bit bus. The NVIDIA card leads by 50% in bandwidth. But the FirePro W600 has a higher effective memory clock, 4 Gbps versus 3 Gbps, which partially compensates for its narrower interface.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different GPU generations and design philosophies. The GTX 675M uses the GF114 chip based on Fermi 2.0 architecture, built on a 40 nm TSMC process. The FirePro W600 uses the Cape Verde chip based on GCN 1.0 architecture, built on a 28 nm TSMC process.

The transistor counts are interesting. The GTX 675M packs 1,950 million transistors into a 332 mm² die, for a density of 5.9 million transistors per square millimeter. The FirePro W600 has 1,500 million transistors on a far smaller 123 mm² die, giving it a density of 12.2 million per square millimeter. The smaller, denser 28nm process is evident.

Core counts differ. The GTX 675M has 384 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The FirePro W600 has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. So the AMD card has 33% more shader cores, but half the TMUs and ROPs. That distribution explains the benchmark strength of the NVIDIA card: its higher TMU/ROP count and memory bandwidth support the OpenCL score better than raw shader count alone.

The memory systems also diverge. The GTX 675M uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth. The FirePro W600 uses the same 2 GB GDDR5 but on a 128-bit bus with 64.00 GB/s. Memory clock differs as well, 750 MHz (3 Gbps effective) on NVIDIA versus 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) on AMD.

API support shows a split. The GTX 675M lists DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but no Vulkan entry. The FirePro W600 lists DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The AMD card holds a newer DirectX feature level and explicit Vulkan support.

The physical form factors are different. The GTX 675M is an MXM tablet, using the MXM-B (3.0) interface, with no power connectors and a TDP of 100 W. The FirePro W600 is a single-slot PCIe 3.0 x16 card, 168 mm long, 111 mm tall, 20 mm wide, with no power connectors, a TDP of 75 W, and a suggested PSU of 250 W. Display outputs also differ: the GTX 675M is portable-device dependent, while the FirePro W600 offers 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs.

FAQ

Q: Which card wins in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M wins with 6946 points against the AMD FirePro W600’s 6223 points, a delta of 11.6%.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth of each card?

A: The GTX 675M has 96.00 GB/s bandwidth over a 256-bit bus with 2 GB GDDR5. The FirePro W600 has 64.00 GB/s bandwidth over a 128-bit bus with 2 GB GDDR5.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The AMD FirePro W600 has 512 shading units, while the NVIDIA GTX 675M has 384 shading units.

Q: Is the FirePro W600 better for pixel-heavy workloads?

A: The recorded data suggests yes: the FirePro W600 posts 12.00 GPixel/s versus 9.920 GPixel/s for the GTX 675M, a lead in pixel rate.

Q: What architectural generation does each card belong to?

A: The GTX 675M is based on Fermi 2.0 (GF114 chip, 40 nm), while the FirePro W600 is based on GCN 1.0 (Cape Verde chip, 28 nm).

Q: Which card supports Vulkan?

A: Only the AMD FirePro W600 lists Vulkan support (version 1.2.170). The GTX 675M shows no Vulkan entry.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M | AMD FirePro W600 |

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

| Architecture | Fermi 2.0 | GCN 1.0 |

| Process node | 40 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 1,950 million | 1,500 million |

| Die size | 332 mm² | 123 mm² |

| Transistor density | 5.9M / mm² | 12.2M / mm² |

| Shading units | 384 | 512 |

| TMUs | 64 | 32 |

| ROPs | 32 | 16 |

| Memory clock | 750 MHz (3 Gbps) | 1000 MHz (4 Gbps) |

| Bus width | 256 bit | 128 bit |

| Bandwidth | 96.00 GB/s | 64.00 GB/s |

| Pixel rate | 9.920 GPixel/s | 12.00 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 39.68 GTexel/s | 24.00 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 952.3 GFLOPS | 768.0 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 100 W | 75 W |

| Slot width | MXM Module | Single-slot |

| Bus interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| Display outputs | Portable Device | 6x mini-DisplayPort |

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

| Vulkan | Not listed | 1.2.170 |

| Release date | 2012-03-21 | 2012-06-12 |

The GTX 675M offers a larger die, more TMUs and ROPs, wider memory bus, and higher compute throughput. The FirePro W600 counters with a smaller die, higher transistor density, more shading units, higher pixel rate, lower TDP, desktop form factor, and Vulkan support.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unequivocal: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M outperforms the AMD FirePro W600 in the only recorded test. An 11.6% OpenCL lead is meaningful, and it is supported by the GTX 675M’s higher FP32 throughput (952.3 GFLOPS versus 768.0 GFLOPS), higher texture rate (39.68 versus 24.00 GTexel/s), and nearly 50% more memory bandwidth (96.8 GB/s versus 64.0 GB/s). For any workload that relies on general compute, texture processing, or memory bandwidth, the GTX 675M is the stronger choice.

The FirePro W600 does have specific strengths. Its pixel rate is 21% higher, which helps in fill-rate bound scenarios, and it has more shading units (512 versus 384) for workloads that scale with shader count. It also draws less power (75 W versus 100 W) and comes in a standard PCIe card form factor with six mini-DisplayPort outputs, making it more flexible for multi-display professional setups. Its Vulkan support is a modern advantage the GTX 675M lacks.

However, the recorded benchmark score favors the GTX 675M. The FirePro W600’s nearest rivals include cards like the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102, which it trails slightly, while the GTX 675M’s nearest rivals include the GTX 680M, which it trails by only 1.1%. The GTX 675M is also closer to the performance of a T600, a professional card, than the FirePro W600 is to its rivals.

For most users, the GTX 675M is the pick. It wins the performance benchmark, offers superior compute and memory metrics, and its MXM form factor is appropriate for laptop systems. The FirePro W600 is the pick only if the workload is pixel-rate limited, the system requires a desktop PCIe slot, or Vulkan support is mandatory. Otherwise, the database clearly points to the NVIDIA card as the higher-performing GPU. The FirePro W600 has its niche, but the GTX 675M takes the overall verdict.