AMD FirePro W600 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains exactly one direct head-to-head comparison for the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M and AMD FirePro W600: the Geekbench OpenCL test. The results are decisive. The GTX 680M scores 9230, while the FirePro W600 scores 6223. That is a 48.3% advantage for the NVIDIA part, a massive margin in a compute-oriented workload. The GTX 680M takes the single recorded win, leaving the FirePro W600 without a victory in any shared benchmark.

Context from the broader database reinforces this gap. The GTX 680M has an average benchmark score of 7023 across all recorded tests, placing it in the 39th percentile of all GPUs. The FirePro W600 averages 6223, which lands it in the 36th percentile. The difference in percentile ranking is modest, but the raw score gap in the OpenCL test is not. The GTX 680M's OpenCL result of 9230 is substantially higher than its own average score of 7023, suggesting the card scales well in compute-heavy tasks. The FirePro W600's only recorded score, 6223, is exactly its average, since it has no other benchmark entries in the database.

Looking at the nearest rivals for each card provides additional perspective. The GTX 680M sits in a tight cluster. The NVIDIA T600 averages 7035, which is only 0.2% above the GTX 680M's average. The AMD Radeon R5 M240 averages 6975, 0.7% behind. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M averages 6946, 1.1% behind. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 averages 7157, which puts it 1.9% ahead. This cluster shows the GTX 680M performing within a narrow band of roughly 2% of several comparable cards. Its percentile of 39 is consistent with this grouping.

The FirePro W600's nearest rivals tell a different story. The AMD Radeon HD 6950 averages 6210, just 0.2% behind. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 averages 6270, 0.7% ahead. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti SUPER also averages 6270, again 0.7% ahead. The NVIDIA Quadro K620 averages 6282, 0.9% ahead. The FirePro W600 is thus bracketed by a mix of older and far newer parts, but all within a 0.9% window. Its 36th percentile placement reflects this tight grouping.

The head-to-head OpenCL result is the only place the two cards meet directly, and it is not close. The GTX 680M leads by nearly half again the FirePro W600's score. No other direct benchmark data exists in the database, so the overall comparison rests heavily on this single test, supplemented by the average scores and nearest-rival deltas.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 680M wins the only head-to-head test, so in terms of recorded performance, it wins outright. Its OpenCL score of 9230 is not only 48.3% ahead of the FirePro W600, it is also far above the GTX 680M's own average of 7023. This suggests the card has particular strength in OpenCL compute workloads. The FirePro W600, by contrast, posts 6223 in OpenCL, which is its only benchmark and thus its average as well.

For general compute performance, the GTX 680M is the clear pick based on the data. It also has a higher average score overall, 7023 versus 6223, a 12.9% difference. The percentile gap is smaller, 39 versus 36, but the GTX 680M still ranks ahead.

The FirePro W600 does not win any recorded benchmark. However, its profile differs in ways that may matter for specific use cases. It has a single-slot form factor, six mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, and a lower 75 W TDP. The GTX 680M is an MXM module with a 100 W TDP and display outputs described as portable device dependent. The FirePro W600 is designed as a fixed workstation card with a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface and a 250 W suggested PSU. The GTX 680M uses an MXM-B (3.0) interface and has no power connectors listed. These are not performance wins, but they are architectural and physical differences that define where each card fits.

In terms of raw compute, the GTX 680M wins the recorded match. The FirePro W600's strengths, to the extent they exist in the data, are in form factor, output configuration, and power draw, not in benchmark scores.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different manufacturers and different architectural lineages. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M uses the GK104 chip on the Kepler architecture, part of the GeForce 600M generation. The AMD FirePro W600 uses the Cape Verde chip on GCN 1.0, part of the FirePro GCN (Wx000) generation. Both are built on a 28 nm process at TSMC, so the manufacturing node is identical. Transistor density is also nearly the same: the GTX 680M has 12.0M transistors per square millimeter, while the FirePro W600 has 12.2M.

The chip sizes differ substantially. The GK104 die measures 294 mm² and contains 3,540 million transistors. The Cape Verde die is 123 mm² with 1,500 million transistors. The GTX 680M packs more than twice the transistors onto a die more than twice the size, which explains its larger compute resources.

Compute unit counts reflect the transistor budget. The GTX 680M has 1,344 shading units, 112 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The FirePro W600 has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The NVIDIA part has more than 2.6 times the shading units and 3.5 times the TMUs. Pixel rate for the GTX 680M is 21.22 GPixel/s, versus 12.00 GPixel/s for the FirePro W600. Texture rate is 84.90 GTexel/s versus 24.00 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 2.038 TFLOPS for the GTX 680M and 768.0 GFLOPS for the FirePro W600.

Clock behavior differs in the recorded data. The GTX 680M has a base clock of 719 MHz and a boost clock of 758 MHz. The FirePro W600 has no base or boost clock listed. Memory clocks are similar in effective rate: the GTX 680M runs at 900 MHz with 3.6 Gbps effective, while the FirePro W600 runs at 1000 MHz with 4 Gbps effective. Memory configuration favors the GTX 680M, which has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus for 115.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The FirePro W600 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus for 64.00 GB/s, exactly half the bandwidth.

API support is close but not identical. Both support DirectX 12, with the GTX 680M at 12 (11_0) and the FirePro W600 at 12 (11_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6. Vulkan support is nearly the same: the GTX 680M runs 1.2.175, the FirePro W600 runs 1.2.170. Neither card has ray tracing cores or tensor cores listed.

Physical design diverges significantly. The GTX 680M is an MXM module with an MXM-B (3.0) bus interface, no power connectors, and a 100 W TDP. The FirePro W600 is a single-slot card measuring 168 mm by 111 mm by 20 mm, with a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, no power connectors, a 75 W TDP, and a 250 W suggested PSU. The FirePro W600 has six mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs; the GTX 680M's display outputs are listed as portable device dependent. The FirePro W600 is also a shorter card in terms of physical length, which may matter for chassis compatibility.

Both cards are end-of-life. The GTX 680M was released on June 3, 2012, and the FirePro W600 on June 12, 2012, nine days later. The GTX 680M's predecessor is the GeForce 500M and its successor is the GeForce 700M. The FirePro W600's predecessor is FirePro Terascale and its successor is Radeon Pro Polaris. The FirePro W600 has a recorded launch MSRP of 599 USD; the GTX 680M has no launch MSRP listed in the database.

The Verdict

The data points to the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M as the stronger performer in compute benchmarks. Its OpenCL score of 9230 beats the FirePro W600's 6223 by 48.3%, and its average score of 7023 is well above the FirePro W600's 6223. The GTX 680M also carries far more compute hardware: 1,344 shading units versus 512, 112 TMUs versus 32, 2.038 TFLOPS versus 768.0 GFLOPS, and 115.2 GB/s of memory bandwidth versus 64.00 GB/s. For any workload that relies on raw GPGPU throughput, the GTX 680M is the clear choice.

The FirePro W600 is not without its own rationale. It draws 75 W versus 100 W, fits in a single slot, and offers six mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs. Its PCIe 3.0 x16 interface and compact 168 mm length make it a conventional workstation card, whereas the GTX 680M is an MXM module intended for portable or modular systems. The FirePro W600 also has a recorded launch MSRP of 599 USD, which can be stated as a point of reference, though the GTX 680M has no such figure.

For users who need maximum compute performance in a laptop or MXM-based system, the GTX 680M wins on every recorded benchmark metric. For users who need a fixed, single-slot workstation card with multiple DisplayPort outputs and lower power draw, the FirePro W600 is the appropriate choice despite its lower scores. The GTX 680M is ahead by a wide margin in the only direct comparison, but the FirePro W600 occupies a different physical and power envelope. Neither card is current, and both are end-of-life, but within the recorded data the GTX 680M is the faster GPU.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M than the AMD FirePro W600 in OpenCL?

A: The GTX 680M scores 9230 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the FirePro W600 scores 6223. That is a 48.3% advantage for the GTX 680M.

Q: What are the average benchmark scores for each card?

A: The GTX 680M has an average benchmark score of 7023, placing it in the 39th percentile of all GPUs. The FirePro W600 averages 6223, placing it in the 36th percentile.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The GTX 680M has 1,344 shading units, while the FirePro W600 has 512.

Q: What is the memory configuration of each card?

A: The GTX 680M has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 115.2 GB/s bandwidth. The FirePro W600 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What are the TDP and form factor differences?

A: The GTX 680M is an MXM module with a 100 W TDP and no power connectors. The FirePro W600 is a single-slot card with a 75 W TDP, no power connectors, and a 250 W suggested PSU.

Q: Which card has more display outputs?

A: The FirePro W600 has six mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs. The GTX 680M's display outputs are listed as portable device dependent.