AMD FirePro W600 vs NVIDIA GeForce MX130 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data splits these two GPUs into distinct usage categories. The AMD FirePro W600 wins the only shared benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, with a score of 6223 against the NVIDIA GeForce MX130's 6102, a 2% advantage. That makes the FirePro W600 the stronger compute-oriented part in raw throughput terms, and its professional FirePro lineage reinforces that positioning. The MX130, meanwhile, counters with a second benchmark result that the FirePro W600 simply does not have: a Geekbench Vulkan score of 4914. That gives the MX130 a functional edge in modern API workloads, even if its average benchmark score across all recorded tests (5508) trails the FirePro W600's single-score average (6223).

The use-case split is straightforward. The FirePro W600 is the pick for OpenCL compute tasks, multi-display professional setups, and any workload that leans on raw shader throughput and memory bandwidth. Its 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs make it a natural fit for multi-monitor environments, a feature the MX130 cannot match since its display outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent." The MX130, by contrast, is designed for mobility and lighter-duty graphics, with a 30 W TDP versus the FirePro W600's 75 W, and it supports Vulkan 1.4, a newer API revision than the FirePro W600's Vulkan 1.2.170. For users who need Vulkan compute or who are constrained by power and physical space, the MX130 wins by default; for everyone else, the FirePro W600's OpenCL lead and professional feature set dominate.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and target different market segments. The AMD FirePro W600 uses the Cape Verde chip built on GCN 1.0, fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process. It packs 1,500 million transistors into a 123 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.2M per mm². The NVIDIA GeForce MX130 uses the GM108S chip based on Maxwell, also on TSMC's 28 nm node, but with fewer resources: 1,020 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, which works out to a slightly higher density of 13.2M per mm². The FirePro W600's larger die and higher transistor count give it more raw hardware, but the MX130's denser packing suggests a more efficient layout per square millimeter.

Core counts differ substantially. The FirePro W600 has 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 raster output units. The MX130 has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and only 8 ROPs. That translates directly into pixel and texture rates: the FirePro W600 posts 12.00 GPixel/s and 24.00 GTexel/s, while the MX130 manages 9.512 GPixel/s and 28.54 GTexel/s. The MX130 actually wins texture throughput despite fewer TMUs, because its clock speeds are higher. The FirePro W600 has no listed base or boost clock, but its memory runs at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective), while the MX130 has a base clock of 1109 MHz, a boost of 1189 MHz, and memory at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective). The MX130's higher clocks help it close the gap in some metrics, but the FirePro W600's wider memory bus (128 bit vs. 64 bit) gives it a bandwidth advantage: 64.00 GB/s versus 40.10 GB/s.

Other differences include the FirePro W600's PCIe 3.0 x16 interface versus the MX130's PCIe 3.0 x4, and the FirePro W600's single-slot form factor with no power connectors versus the MX130's integrated (IGP) design, also with no power connectors. The FirePro W600 requires a suggested 250 W power supply, while the MX130 has no such requirement. API support also diverges: the FirePro W600 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170; the MX130 supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MX130's Vulkan version is newer, which matters for compatibility with recent software.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison in the database is Geekbench OpenCL. The AMD FirePro W600 scores 6223, and the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 scores 6102. That is a 2% delta in favor of the FirePro W600. In absolute terms, the difference is 121 points, which is modest but consistent with the FirePro W600's higher shading unit count and memory bandwidth. The MX130's higher clock speeds and texture rate do not overcome those deficits in OpenCL compute.

Context from the nearest rivals clarifies what these scores mean. The FirePro W600's 6223 places it 0.2% ahead of the AMD Radeon HD 6950 (6210), 0.7% behind the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 (6270), 0.7% behind the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti SUPER (6270), and 0.9% behind the NVIDIA Quadro K620 (6282). So the FirePro W600 sits in a tight cluster around 6200-6300, roughly comparable to a mid-range desktop card from an older generation. Its percentile ranking against all GPUs is 36, meaning it outperforms 36% of the database.

The MX130's OpenCL score of 6102 is its stronger result; its Vulkan score of 4914 drags its average down to 5508. That average places it 0.1% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M (5501), 0.5% ahead of the AMD Radeon R7 M440 (5483), 0.5% behind the AMD FirePro M4000 (5537), and 0.7% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 (5467). Its percentile is 32, four points lower than the FirePro W600. The MX130's Vulkan score, while not directly comparable to the FirePro W600 (which has no Vulkan result), indicates it handles modern graphics APIs reasonably well, but its OpenCL performance is clearly below the FirePro W600's.

Between the two GPUs, the FirePro W600 wins the only head-to-head test, giving it 1 win in the database against the MX130's 0. The margin is small, but the direction is unambiguous.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The AMD FirePro W600 scores 6223 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 2% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce MX130's 6102.

Q: Does the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 have any benchmark advantage?

A: Yes, the MX130 has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 4914. The FirePro W600 has no recorded Vulkan benchmark, so the MX130 is the only one of the two with a result for that API.

Q: How do their memory subsystems compare?

A: The FirePro W600 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 64.00 GB/s bandwidth. The MX130 also has 2 GB of GDDR5 but on a 64-bit bus, yielding 40.10 GB/s. The FirePro W600's bandwidth is about 60% higher.

Q: What are the power requirements for each?

A: The FirePro W600 has a TDP of 75 W and a suggested power supply of 250 W. The MX130 has a TDP of 30 W and no suggested power supply listed, reflecting its integrated design for laptops.

Q: Which GPU supports a newer Vulkan version?

A: The MX130 supports Vulkan 1.4, while the FirePro W600 supports Vulkan 1.2.170. The MX130's Vulkan revision is newer.

Q: How do their transistor counts and die sizes differ?

A: The FirePro W600 has 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die. The MX130 has 1,020 million transistors on a 77 mm² die. The FirePro W600 is larger in both absolute terms, but the MX130 has a higher transistor density (13.2M per mm² vs. 12.2M per mm²).

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split decision. For OpenCL compute and professional multi-display workloads, the AMD FirePro W600 is the stronger choice. It wins the only shared benchmark with a 2% margin, offers 512 shading units versus 384, has double the ROPs (16 vs. 8), and provides 64.00 GB/s of memory bandwidth versus 40.10 GB/s. Its 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs make it purpose-built for multi-monitor arrays, and its PCIe 3.0 x16 interface is twice the width of the MX130's x4 link. The FirePro W600's 36th percentile ranking also sits above the MX130's 32nd.

For users who need Vulkan support, low power consumption, or a compact integrated form factor, the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 is the only option between the two. It is the sole GPU here with a Vulkan benchmark score (4914), it draws 30 W versus 75 W, and it is designed as an IGP, meaning it fits into portable devices without occupying a slot. Its texture rate (28.54 GTexel/s) also beats the FirePro W600's (24.00 GTexel/s), and its higher clocks (1109 MHz base, 1189 MHz boost) show it can be competitive in some throughput metrics despite fewer cores.

The FirePro W600 wins on compute and professional features; the MX130 wins on API modernity and efficiency. If the workload is OpenCL-heavy or requires many display outputs, the FirePro W600 is the verdict. If the workload is Vulkan-based or constrained by power and space, the MX130 is the only fit. Neither GPU is a general-purpose champion: the FirePro W600's 36th percentile and the MX130's 32nd percentile both indicate mid-to-low standing in the full database.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the AMD FirePro W600 and the NVIDIA GeForce MX130:

• Chip: Cape Verde (AMD) vs. GM108S (NVIDIA)
• Architecture: GCN 1.0 vs. Maxwell
• Generation: FirePro GCN (Wx000) vs. GeForce MX (1xx)
• Transistors: 1,500 million vs. 1,020 million
• Die Size: 123 mm² vs. 77 mm²
• Transistor Density: 12.2M / mm² vs. 13.2M / mm²
• Base Clock: Not listed vs. 1109 MHz
• Boost Clock: Not listed vs. 1189 MHz
• Memory Clock: 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) vs. 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective)
• Memory Bus Width: 128 bit vs. 64 bit
• Memory Bandwidth: 64.00 GB/s vs. 40.10 GB/s
• Shading Units: 512 vs. 384
• Texture Mapping Units: 32 vs. 24
• Raster Output Units: 16 vs. 8
• Pixel Rate: 12.00 GPixel/s vs. 9.512 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 24.00 GTexel/s vs. 28.54 GTexel/s
• FP32 Performance: 768.0 GFLOPS vs. 913.2 GFLOPS
• TDP: 75 W vs. 30 W
• Slot Width: Single-slot vs. IGP
• Suggested PSU: 250 W vs. Not listed
• Bus Interface: PCIe 3.0 x16 vs. PCIe 3.0 x4
• Display Outputs: 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 vs. Portable Device Dependent
• DirectX Support: 12 (11_1) vs. 12 (11_0)
• Vulkan Support: 1.2.170 vs. 1.4
• Dimensions: 168 mm length, 111 mm height, 20 mm width vs. Not listed
• Release Date: 2012-06-12 vs. 2017-11-16
• Launch MSRP: 599 USD vs. Not listed
• Predecessor: FirePro Terascale vs. Not listed
• Successor: Radeon Pro Polaris vs. Not listed
• Benchmark Scores: OpenCL 6223 vs. OpenCL 6102, Vulkan 4914
• Average Benchmark Score: 6223 vs. 5508
• Percentile vs. All GPUs: 36 vs. 32