AMD FirePro W600 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M Comparison

The AMD FirePro W600 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M occupy very different corners of the GPU landscape, one a professional workstation card aimed at multi-display output, the other a high-end mobile gaming part. The recorded data shows they share a manufacturing process and little else. This analysis compares their benchmark results, architectural choices, and the implications for real-world use.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains a single direct comparison between the two cards: the Geekbench OpenCL test. The results are decisive. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M scores 23,832, while the AMD FirePro W600 scores 6,223. This represents a 73.9% advantage for the NVIDIA part, a massive gap in raw compute throughput. In OpenCL workloads, the GTX 980M is not just faster, it is in a different performance class entirely.

Looking at the broader benchmark picture, the GTX 980M shows versatility that the FirePro W600 simply cannot match. The NVIDIA card records a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 649, a Passmark G3D score of 7,338, and a Passmark GPU Compute score of 2,816. It also manages 17,703 in the Geekbench Vulkan test. The FirePro W600, by contrast, only appears in the database with its single OpenCL result of 6,223. There are no recorded DX12, Vulkan, or Passmark entries for the AMD card, which immediately signals a narrower testing profile and likely a narrower range of intended applications.

The average benchmark scores reinforce this disparity. The GTX 980M holds an average score of 5,308 across all its recorded tests, while the FirePro W600 sits at 6,223. This is a curious inversion: the FirePro actually posts a higher average because its only recorded benchmark is the OpenCL test, where it performs relatively well for its class, while the GTX 980M's average is dragged down by its weaker DirectX 9 and DirectX 10 Passmark scores of 125 and 35 respectively. The GTX 980M's strength is clearly in modern, compute-heavy workloads rather than legacy rasterization tests.

The percentile rankings place both cards in the lower half of the database, but with different profiles. The FirePro W600 sits at the 36th percentile, while the GTX 980M sits at the 31st percentile. Despite the GTX 980M's overwhelming win in the direct OpenCL comparison, its broader benchmark suite shows more variability. Its nearest rivals in the database include the NVIDIA GeForce 930A with a 0.2% lower score, the GeForce 840M with a 0.3% lower score, and the GeForce 940M with a 0.5% higher score. These are all low-end mobile parts, indicating that the GTX 980M's average performance places it in modest company, even though its peak compute scores are far higher.

The FirePro W600's nearest rivals tell a different story. It sits within 0.2% of the AMD Radeon HD 6950, a desktop card from the same era, and within 0.7% of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 and the RTX 5070 Ti SUPER. This suggests that in the specific OpenCL workload measured, the FirePro W600 holds its own against much newer hardware, a signal of the efficiency of its compute architecture for that particular test.

Architecture Differences

The two cards are built on fundamentally different architectures. The AMD FirePro W600 uses the Cape Verde chip based on GCN 1.0, an early iteration of AMD's Graphics Core Next design. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M uses the GM204 chip based on Maxwell 2.0, NVIDIA's second-generation Maxwell architecture. Both are fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC, which is where the similarities end.

The transistor counts reveal the scale of the difference. The GTX 980M packs 5,200 million transistors onto a 398 mm² die, while the FirePro W600 contains just 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die. The transistor density is similar, 13.1 million per square millimeter for the NVIDIA chip versus 12.2 million per square millimeter for the AMD chip, but the sheer size difference is enormous. The GTX 980M has more than three times the transistor budget to work with.

This translates directly into compute resources. The GTX 980M features 1,536 shading units, 96 texture mapping units, and 64 render output units. The FirePro W600 has only 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The NVIDIA card triples the AMD card in every category. The pixel rate tells the story clearly: the GTX 980M achieves 72.13 GPixel/s versus the FirePro's 12.00 GPixel/s. Texture rate follows the same pattern, 108.2 GTexel/s versus 24.00 GTexel/s. Floating point performance shows the GTX 980M at 3.462 TFLOPS, more than four times the FirePro's 768.0 GFLOPS.

Memory configurations differ just as dramatically. The GTX 980M carries 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 160.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The FirePro W600 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 64.00 GB/s. The memory clock rates reflect this, with the GTX 980M running at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) and the FirePro at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective). For memory-intensive workloads, the GTX 980M has both more capacity and more bandwidth.

Clock speeds only appear in the database for the GTX 980M, which records a base clock of 1038 MHz and a boost clock of 1127 MHz. The FirePro W600 has no base or boost clock listed, so a direct clock-to-clock comparison is not possible from the recorded data. The architectural generation gap is clear though: GCN 1.0 dates to 2012, while Maxwell 2.0 arrived in 2014, and the newer architecture benefits from two years of design improvements.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data points to a clear split in use cases. The GTX 980M wins outright in raw compute, as shown by its 73.9% lead in OpenCL. For any workload that relies on parallel floating point operations, rendering, or modern graphics APIs, the NVIDIA card is the obvious choice. Its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 649 and its Passmark G3D score of 7,338 indicate solid DirectX 12 performance. The Vulkan score of 17,703 further confirms its strength in modern graphics APIs.

The FirePro W600, despite its compute disadvantage, has its own strengths. Its form factor is a single-slot design with no power connectors, drawing just 75 W. It outputs to six mini-DisplayPort 1.2 connections, a feature set clearly designed for multi-monitor professional setups. The GTX 980M, by contrast, is an MXM module with display outputs described as "portable device dependent", meaning it relies on the laptop manufacturer to provide the actual ports. For a workstation that needs to drive multiple displays from a compact desktop card, the FirePro W600 is built for exactly that purpose.

The API support differences matter for specific applications. The GTX 980M supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the FirePro W600 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), a lower feature level. Both support OpenGL 4.6. Vulkan support differs, with the GTX 980M at version 1.4 and the FirePro at version 1.2.170. For software that relies on newer DirectX 12 features or the latest Vulkan extensions, the NVIDIA card has the advantage.

Power consumption is a differentiator, though the data is incomplete. The FirePro W600 lists a TDP of 75 W with a suggested power supply of 250 W. The GTX 980M has no TDP listed and no suggested PSU, which is typical for mobile parts where system power is managed by the laptop. The FirePro's low power draw makes it suitable for systems with modest power supplies, while the GTX 980M's power requirements are not quantified in the database.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in OpenCL compute workloads?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M is significantly faster, scoring 23,832 compared to the AMD FirePro W600's 6,223, a 73.9% lead.

Q: Do both cards support DirectX 12?

A: Yes, but at different feature levels. The GTX 980M supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the FirePro W600 supports DirectX 12 (11_1).

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The GTX 980M has 8 GB of GDDR5 memory, while the FirePro W600 has 2 GB. The GTX 980M also has a wider 256-bit bus versus the FirePro's 128-bit bus.

Q: Which card is designed for multi-display output?

A: The FirePro W600 has six mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, while the GTX 980M's display outputs are dependent on the portable device it is installed in.

Q: What are the transistor counts of each chip?

A: The GTX 980M's GM204 chip contains 5,200 million transistors, while the FirePro W600's Cape Verde chip contains 1,500 million.

Q: Which card has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The GTX 980M achieves 72.13 GPixel/s, compared to the FirePro W600's 12.00 GPixel/s.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every measurable specification. The FirePro W600 uses the Cape Verde chip on GCN 1.0 architecture, while the GTX 980M uses the GM204 chip on Maxwell 2.0. Both use a 28 nm process, but the transistor counts diverge sharply: 1,500 million for AMD versus 5,200 million for NVIDIA. Die size follows, 123 mm² versus 398 mm².

Memory specifications show the GTX 980M with 8 GB versus 2 GB, a 256-bit bus versus 128-bit, and bandwidth of 160.4 GB/s versus 64.00 GB/s. The GTX 980M has a base clock of 1038 MHz and boost of 1127 MHz; the FirePro W600 has no recorded base or boost clock. Compute resources favor NVIDIA: 1,536 shading units, 96 TMUs, and 64 ROPs versus 512, 32, and 16. Pixel rate is 72.13 GPixel/s versus 12.00 GPixel/s, texture rate is 108.2 GTexel/s versus 24.00 GTexel/s, and FP32 performance is 3.462 TFLOPS versus 768.0 GFLOPS.

The physical form factors are entirely different. The FirePro W600 is a single-slot card measuring 168 mm by 111 mm by 20 mm, with no power connectors and a 75 W TDP. The GTX 980M is an MXM module with no recorded dimensions, no power connectors listed, and no TDP. The bus interfaces differ: PCIe 3.0 x16 for the FirePro, MXM-B (3.0) for the GTX 980M. Release dates are separated by over two years, June 2012 for the FirePro and October 2014 for the GTX 980M. The FirePro carries a launch MSRP of 599 USD, while the GTX 980M has no recorded MSRP. The FirePro's production status is end-of-life, as is the GTX 980M's. The FirePro's predecessor is FirePro Terascale with a successor of Radeon Pro Polaris; the GTX 980M's predecessor is GeForce 800M with a successor of GeForce 10 Mobile.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear choice based on workload. For anyone needing maximum compute performance, modern graphics API support, or large memory capacity, the GTX 980M is the superior card. Its 73.9% lead in OpenCL, its 8 GB memory pool, and its DirectX 12 (12_1) support make it the obvious pick for gaming, rendering, or general compute tasks.

The FirePro W600, however, serves a specific niche that the GTX 980M cannot fill. Its six mini-DisplayPort outputs, single-slot design, and 75 W power draw make it a purpose-built multi-display workstation card. For a professional setting that requires driving multiple monitors from a compact, low-power card, the FirePro W600 is the right choice despite its compute limitations.

The GTX 980M is the better all-round performer by a wide margin, but the FirePro W600 wins where output flexibility and power efficiency matter more than raw speed. The choice between them depends entirely on whether the priority is compute power or display connectivity.