AMD FirePro W600 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single recorded head-to-head benchmark in the database is Geekbench OpenCL, and it delivers a clear win for the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M. The GTX 765M scores 7176 points, while the AMD FirePro W600 scores 6223 points. That is a delta of 13.3% in favor of the NVIDIA part, a margin that is substantial for GPUs in this performance class. The FirePro W600 is effectively 11.7% slower in this workload, meaning the GTX 765M holds a comfortable lead in raw compute throughput as measured by OpenCL.

Context from the rivals list reinforces the meaning of these scores. The FirePro W600 lands at 6223 points, which places it within 0.2% of the AMD Radeon HD 6950 (6210 points). It is also 0.7% behind the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti SUPER, both of which score 6270 points. That grouping is notable: the FirePro W600 sits in a tight cluster where a few points separate it from much newer and higher-end parts. The GTX 765M, by contrast, scores 7176 points in OpenCL, which is 13.3% above the FirePro W600. Its nearest rivals in the database include the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 at 5508 points (0.1% below the GTX 765M) and the AMD FirePro M4000 at 5537 points (0.7% below). The GTX 765M beats both of those by a wide margin, and it also sits 0.6% above the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 (5467 points) and 0.3% above the AMD Radeon R7 M440 (5483 points). In short, the GTX 765M is one of the stronger performers in its immediate rival group, while the FirePro W600 is mid-pack.

The FirePro W600 also trails the GTX 765M in the broader aggregate average benchmark score, though the gap is smaller. The FirePro W600 has an average benchmark score of 6223 points, identical to its single OpenCL result. The GTX 765M has an average benchmark score of 5501 points, pulled down by additional test results: it also records a Geekbench Metal score of 2612 and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 6714. The OpenCL and Vulkan scores are strong, but the Metal result is far lower, which drags the average down. Even so, the GTX 765M's average of 5501 points still sits above the FirePro W600's 6223 points? No, it does not. The average for the GTX 765M is 5501, which is below the FirePro W600's 6223. That is an important distinction: on the single shared benchmark, the GTX 765M wins decisively, but the FirePro W600 has the higher average score because it has only one benchmark result, and that result is solid. The GTX 765M's average is reduced by its weak Metal showing. The database records 0 benchmark wins for the FirePro W600 and 1 win for the GTX 765M in head-to-head tests, reflecting the OpenCL result only.

The Verdict

The data points to the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M as the stronger compute performer in the one workload both cards share. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 7176 beats the FirePro W600's 6223 by 13.3%. Anyone choosing strictly on that metric should pick the GTX 765M. It also offers a Vulkan score of 6714, which is absent from the FirePro W600's record entirely, and a Metal score of 2612, which is also absent from the FirePro W600. The GTX 765M therefore demonstrates broader API support in measurable benchmark terms.

However, the FirePro W600 has the higher average benchmark score: 6223 versus 5501. That average is a function of test count. The FirePro W600 has a single recorded result, and it is a good one. The GTX 765M has three results, and one of them, Metal at 2612, is far below its OpenCL and Vulkan scores. A buyer focused on consistent compute across multiple APIs might note that the GTX 765M is uneven: excellent in OpenCL and Vulkan, weak in Metal. The FirePro W600 cannot be evaluated on those other APIs because no data exists for it.

The percentile ranks are close. The FirePro W600 sits at the 36th percentile against all GPUs in the database, while the GTX 765M sits at the 32nd percentile. That is a modest gap, and it aligns with the average score difference. The FirePro W600 is a slightly better overall performer in the database's full ranking, despite losing the head-to-head OpenCL test. The verdict depends on which metric matters more. For a single OpenCL workload, the GTX 765M is the clear choice. For a higher average score and a better percentile position, the FirePro W600 is the safer pick.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different manufacturers and different architectural families. The AMD FirePro W600 uses the Cape Verde chip built on GCN 1.0 architecture, part of the FirePro GCN (Wx000) generation. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M uses the GK106 chip built on Kepler architecture, part of the GeForce 700M generation. Both are fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process, so the manufacturing node is identical.

The transistor counts differ significantly. The FirePro W600 has 1,500 million transistors on a die size of 123 mm², giving a transistor density of 12.2 million per mm². The GTX 765M has 2,540 million transistors on a die size of 221 mm², giving a density of 11.5 million per mm². The GTX 765M packs 69% more transistors onto a 80% larger die, but its density is slightly lower. That suggests the Kepler design uses more area per transistor, while GCN 1.0 is denser.

The compute units are configured differently. The FirePro W600 has 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 raster operating units. The GTX 765M has 768 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 16 raster operating units. The GTX 765M has 50% more shading units and double the texture units, but the same number of ROPs. The clock behavior also differs. The FirePro W600 has no recorded base or boost clock in the database, only a memory clock of 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective). The GTX 765M has a base clock of 797 MHz and a boost clock of 863 MHz, with a memory clock of 1002 MHz (4 Gbps effective). The GTX 765M's boost clock is its key advantage: it can run above its base frequency, while the FirePro W600's core clocks are not recorded.

Memory configurations are nearly identical. Both use 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus. The FirePro W600 has a bandwidth of 64.00 GB/s, and the GTX 765M has 64.13 GB/s, a negligible difference of 0.2%. The pixel rates differ: the FirePro W600 outputs 12.00 GPixel/s, while the GTX 765M outputs 13.81 GPixel/s. The texture rates differ more sharply: the FirePro W600 delivers 24.00 GTexel/s, while the GTX 765M delivers 55.23 GTexel/s, more than double. The FP32 compute also favors the GTX 765M: 1,325.6 GFLOPS versus 768.0 GFLOPS, a 73% advantage.

The form factors and interfaces are entirely different. The FirePro W600 is a single-slot card, 168 mm long, 111 mm high, and 20 mm wide, using a PCIe 3.0 x16 bus interface. It has six mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs and requires no power connectors, with a suggested PSU of 250 W. The GTX 765M is an MXM module, using an MXM-B (3.0) interface, with display outputs described as portable device dependent. It also requires no power connectors. Both have a TDP of 75 W. The API support differs slightly: the FirePro W600 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The GTX 765M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The Vulkan version is marginally newer on the NVIDIA part.

FAQ

Q: Which card wins in OpenCL performance?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M scores 7176 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 13.3% higher than the AMD FirePro W600's 6223.

Q: Does the FirePro W600 have a higher average benchmark score?

A: Yes. The FirePro W600 has an average score of 6223, while the GTX 765M averages 5501. The GTX 765M's average is lowered by its Geekbench Metal score of 2612, which is far below its OpenCL and Vulkan scores.

Q: What is the transistor count difference?

A: The GTX 765M has 2,540 million transistors on a 221 mm² die, while the FirePro W600 has 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die. The GTX 765M has more transistors but a lower density of 11.5M per mm² versus 12.2M per mm².

Q: Do both cards use the same process node?

A: Yes, both are fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The GTX 765M has 768 shading units, compared to 512 on the FirePro W600. The GTX 765M also has 64 texture units versus 32, and 16 ROPs versus 16.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth of each card?

A: The FirePro W600 has 64.00 GB/s, and the GTX 765M has 64.13 GB/s. Both use 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M wins in raw compute metrics. Its FP32 output of 1,325.6 GFLOPS is 73% higher than the FirePro W600's 768.0 GFLOPS. Its texture rate of 55.23 GTexel/s is more than double the FirePro's 24.00 GTexel/s. Its pixel rate of 13.81 GPixel/s beats the FirePro's 12.00 GPixel/s. It also has a boost clock of 863 MHz, a feature the FirePro W600 lacks in the database. In OpenCL, it leads by 13.3%. It also records Vulkan and Metal scores, while the FirePro W600 has no entries for those APIs. The GTX 765M is the better choice for compute-heavy workloads that use OpenCL or Vulkan, and for any task that benefits from higher texture throughput.

The AMD FirePro W600 wins in a few specific areas. It has a higher average benchmark score, 6223 versus 5501, and a higher percentile rank, 36th versus 32nd. Its transistor density is higher, 12.2M per mm² versus 11.5M per mm², which reflects a more compact design. It has a larger number of display outputs: six mini-DisplayPort 1.2 connectors, compared to the GTX 765M's portable-device-dependent outputs. It is a single-slot PCIe card, which makes it suitable for workstation installations, whereas the GTX 765M is an MXM module designed for laptops. The FirePro W600 also has a slightly newer DirectX feature level, 12 (11_1) versus 12 (11_0). For a desktop workstation with multiple monitors, the FirePro W600 is the more practical option.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every architectural specification except process node, memory size, memory type, memory bus width, TDP, and power connector requirement. Both use 28 nm TSMC fabrication, 2 GB of GDDR5, a 128-bit bus, a 75 W TDP, and no power connectors.

The chip and architecture differ: Cape Verde on GCN 1.0 for AMD versus GK106 on Kepler for NVIDIA. The FirePro W600 has 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die with 12.2M per mm² density. The GTX 765M has 2,540 million transistors on a 221 mm² die with 11.5M per mm² density. The FirePro W600 has no recorded core clocks, while the GTX 765M has a base clock of 797 MHz and a boost of 863 MHz. Memory clocks are nearly identical: 1000 MHz for the FirePro, 1002 MHz for the GTX 765M, both 4 Gbps effective.

Shading units: 512 for the FirePro W600, 768 for the GTX 765M. Texture units: 32 versus 64. ROPs: 16 for both. Pixel rate: 12.00 GPixel/s versus 13.81 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 24.00 GTexel/s versus 55.23 GTexel/s. FP32: 768.0 GFLOPS versus 1,325.6 GFLOPS. Bandwidth: 64.00 GB/s versus 64.13 GB/s.

The form factor is a major difference: single-slot PCIe 3.0 x16 card with six mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs for the FirePro W600, versus an MXM-B (3.0) module with portable-device-dependent outputs for the GTX 765M. The FirePro W600 has a suggested PSU of 250 W, while the GTX 765M has no recorded suggested PSU. The FirePro W600 has a known length of 168 mm, height of 111 mm, and width of 20 mm; the GTX 765M has no recorded dimensions. The release dates differ: the FirePro W600 launched on 2012-06-12, and the GTX 765M launched on 2013-05-29. The FirePro W600 has a launch MSRP of 599 USD, while the GTX 765M has no recorded launch MSRP. Both are end-of-life products. The FirePro W600's predecessor is FirePro Terascale and its successor is Radeon Pro Polaris. The GTX 765M's predecessor is GeForce 600M and its successor is GeForce 800M. API support differs in DirectX and Vulkan versions: DirectX 12 (11_1) versus 12 (11_0), and Vulkan 1.2.170 versus 1.2.175.