AMD FirePro W600 vs NVIDIA GeForce MX230 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is Geekbench OpenCL, and it paints a surprisingly close picture despite the generational gap between these two cards. The AMD FirePro W600 scores 6223, while the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 trails at 5739, giving AMD a 8.4% lead in this single compute-oriented test. That margin is notable but hardly decisive; it places the FirePro within striking distance of much newer hardware.

Context from the nearest rivals list reinforces just how tight this contest is. The FirePro W600's 6223 average score sits a mere 0.2% above the AMD Radeon HD 6950 (6210), yet it also lands only 0.7% below the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 and the RTX 5070 Ti SUPER, both of which average 6270. This suggests the OpenCL benchmark is not particularly sensitive to the architectural differences between a 2012 workstation GPU and modern gaming silicon, or that the workload is heavily memory-bound rather than compute-bound. On the NVIDIA side, the MX230's 5739 OpenCL score places it 0.5% ahead of the Quadro P2000 (6049) and 1% behind the Radeon 760M (6019), showing that it is firmly in the mid-range of the pack rather than at either extreme.

The wins tally shows AMD taking the sole head-to-head victory with 1 win to NVIDIA's 0. However, this is a limited dataset — only one workload — and the deltaPct values in the rivals lists hint that the MX230 might close the gap in other API tests. Notably, the MX230 has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 6414, which is 11.8% higher than its own OpenCL result, suggesting that the Pascal architecture responds well to modern low-level APIs. The FirePro W600, by contrast, has no Vulkan benchmark listed, only OpenCL.

One striking observation is the percentile ranking: the FirePro W600 sits at the 36th percentile of all GPUs, while the MX230 sits at the 35th. Despite the 8.4% OpenCL deficit, the MX230 is essentially at the same percentile, which indicates that the overall GPU landscape is crowded around this performance tier. The average benchmark scores tell a similar story — 6223 for AMD versus 6077 for NVIDIA — a difference of just 2.4%, even though the FirePro's single benchmark is its only data point while the MX230 averages across two tests.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the only direct benchmark comparison?

A: The AMD FirePro W600 wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 6223 against the NVIDIA GeForce MX230's 5739, a margin of 8.4%.

Q: How close are these two cards in overall performance percentiles?

A: The FirePro W600 ranks at the 36th percentile of all GPUs, while the MX230 ranks at the 35th percentile — effectively a tie despite the OpenCL score gap, since the MX230's average benchmark score of 6077 is only 2.4% behind the FirePro's 6223.

Q: Does the MX230 have any benchmark where it performs better than its OpenCL score?

A: Yes. The MX230 records a Geekbench Vulkan score of 6414, which is 11.8% higher than its OpenCL score of 5739, indicating strong performance under the Vulkan API.

Q: What does the FirePro W600's nearest rival data reveal about its performance tier?

A: The FirePro's 6223 average score is nearly identical to the Radeon HD 6950 (6210, 0.2% difference) and within 0.7% of both the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 and RTX 5070 Ti SUPER (both 6270), showing that the OpenCL workload does not separate generations meaningfully.

Q: Is the MX230 competitive with professional workstation cards?

A: In OpenCL, the MX230's 5739 score places it 0.5% ahead of the Quadro P2000 (6049), indicating it can hold its own against entry-level pro GPUs in compute tasks, despite being a consumer mobile part.

Q: Which card has a higher raw FP32 throughput?

A: The MX230 has a slight edge at 783.9 GFLOPS versus the FirePro W600's 768.0 GFLOPS, a difference of roughly 2%, which is consistent with the average benchmark score gap.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split here is stark, reflecting two very different design philosophies and market intents. The AMD FirePro W600 uses the Cape Verde chip built on GCN 1.0 architecture, manufactured by TSMC on a 28 nm process. It packs 1,500 million transistors into a 123 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.2 million per mm². The NVIDIA GeForce MX230, in contrast, uses the GP108 chip on the Pascal architecture, fabricated by Samsung on a 14 nm process. It contains 1,800 million transistors in a much smaller 74 mm² die, achieving a higher density of 24.3 million per mm² — nearly double the FirePro's density, which reflects the newer process node.

The compute resources differ substantially. The FirePro W600 deploys 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 render output units. The MX230 has exactly half the shaders (256), half the TMUs (16), but the same 16 ROPs. This explains the pixel rate difference: the MX230 achieves 24.50 GPixel/s versus the FirePro's 12.00 GPixel/s, a 104% advantage in pure rasterization throughput. However, texture rates are nearly identical — 24.50 GTexel/s for NVIDIA versus 24.00 GTexel/s for AMD — because the FirePro's extra TMUs compensate for its lower clock speeds.

Clock behavior is another differentiator. The MX230 has explicit base and boost clocks of 1519 MHz and 1531 MHz respectively, while the FirePro W600 lists no base or boost clock at all, only a memory clock of 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective). The MX230's memory runs at 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective), giving it a higher data rate, yet the FirePro's wider 128-bit memory bus versus the MX230's 64-bit bus results in higher overall bandwidth for AMD: 64.00 GB/s versus 48.06 GB/s, a 33% advantage.

Feature support also diverges. The FirePro W600 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170, while the MX230 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The newer Vulkan revision on the NVIDIA card is notable, as is the MX230's FP16 capability at 12.25 GFLOPS (1:64 ratio), which the FirePro lacks entirely. The MX230 also has a lower TDP of 10 W versus the FirePro's 75 W, and it is designated as an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no slot width, while the FirePro is a single-slot card measuring 168 mm by 111 mm by 20 mm.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear, though nuanced, recommendation. The AMD FirePro W600 wins the only direct benchmark, but its 8.4% OpenCL lead does not translate into a categorical victory when considering the broader picture. The MX230's Vulkan score of 6414 exceeds the FirePro's entire benchmark portfolio, suggesting that in modern API workloads, the NVIDIA card would likely pull ahead — though no direct Vulkan comparison exists in the data.

For users prioritizing raw OpenCL compute in a desktop workstation context, the FirePro W600 is the safer choice. Its 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs and 64.00 GB/s bandwidth suit multi-display professional setups, and its 75 W TDP with no power connectors makes installation straightforward. The MX230, however, is a mobile-oriented part with portable-device-dependent outputs, making it unsuitable for fixed workstation use.

The MX230's 10 W TDP versus the FirePro's 75 W is a massive efficiency gap, and its higher pixel rate (24.50 GPixel/s versus 12.00 GPixel/s) indicates better rasterization throughput despite fewer shaders. For users running graphics-heavy workloads that favor fill rate, the MX230 has the edge. For compute-heavy OpenCL tasks, the FirePro's wider memory bus and higher bandwidth give it a measurable advantage.

Neither card is a performance king — both sit near the 35th percentile of all GPUs — but they serve different masters. The FirePro W600 is a legacy workstation part with a 599 USD launch MSRP, built for multi-display professional use. The MX230 is a low-power mobile chip for thin-and-light laptops. The data suggests that in a head-to-head compute contest, the FirePro wins narrowly, but the MX230's modern architecture and Vulkan support make it the more future-proof choice for software that leverages newer APIs.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every major specification. Process node: 28 nm (TSMC) for the FirePro W600 versus 14 nm (Samsung) for the MX230. Transistors: 1,500 million versus 1,800 million. Die size: 123 mm² versus 74 mm². Transistor density: 12.2M/mm² versus 24.3M/mm².

Clocks: the FirePro lists no base or boost, only a 1000 MHz memory clock (4 Gbps effective), while the MX230 has a 1519 MHz base, 1531 MHz boost, and 1502 MHz memory (6 Gbps effective). Memory: both have 2 GB GDDR5, but bus widths differ at 128-bit versus 64-bit, yielding bandwidth of 64.00 GB/s versus 48.06 GB/s.

Compute units: 512 shaders, 32 TMUs, 16 ROPs for AMD; 256 shaders, 16 TMUs, 16 ROPs for NVIDIA. Pixel rate: 12.00 GPixel/s versus 24.50 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 24.00 GTexel/s versus 24.50 GTexel/s. FP32: 768.0 GFLOPS versus 783.9 GFLOPS. FP16: not available on AMD, 12.25 GFLOPS on NVIDIA.

Power and physical: 75 W TDP versus 10 W; single-slot versus IGP; no power connectors on either; suggested PSU of 250 W for AMD, none listed for NVIDIA. Bus interface: PCIe 3.0 x16 versus PCIe 3.0 x4. Display outputs: 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 versus portable-device-dependent. APIs: DirectX 12 (11_1) versus 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6 on both, Vulkan 1.2.170 versus 1.4. Dimensions: 168 mm × 111 mm × 20 mm for AMD; none listed for NVIDIA. Release dates: 2012-06-12 versus 2019-02-20.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD FirePro W600 wins in memory bandwidth (64.00 GB/s versus 48.06 GB/s), shading units (512 versus 256), TMUs (32 versus 16), and the OpenCL benchmark (6223 versus 5739). It also offers more display outputs (6x mini-DisplayPort 1.2) and a wider bus interface (PCIe 3.0 x16 versus x4). Its 2 GB GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus is better suited to workloads that move large data sets, such as multi-display rendering or computational tasks that are bandwidth-limited.

The NVIDIA GeForce MX230 wins in pixel rate (24.50 GPixel/s versus 12.00 GPixel/s), texture rate (24.50 GTexel/s versus 24.00 GTexel/s), FP32 (783.9 GFLOPS versus 768.0 GFLOPS), and FP16 support (12.25 GFLOPS). It also has higher memory clock speed (1502 MHz versus 1000 MHz), a smaller process node (14 nm versus 28 nm), higher transistor density (24.3M/mm² versus 12.2M/mm²), and dramatically lower power consumption (10 W versus 75 W). Its Vulkan 1.4 support and DirectX 12 (12_1) give it a more modern API foundation.

For rasterization-heavy tasks, the MX230's 104% higher pixel rate makes it the clear winner — think basic 3D rendering or GPU-accelerated UI workloads where fill rate matters more than shader count. For OpenCL compute tasks, the FirePro W600's 8.4% benchmark lead and 33% bandwidth advantage make it the stronger candidate. The MX230's Vulkan score of 6414 suggests it would win in Vulkan-based workloads, but no direct comparison exists in the data.

Use-case split: choose the FirePro W600 for fixed workstation deployments needing multiple display outputs and OpenCL compute, or when memory bandwidth is the bottleneck. Choose the MX230 for mobile or low-power environments where efficiency (10 W versus 75 W) and modern API support are priorities, or when rasterization throughput is the primary requirement. The data does not support a single universal winner — it supports two different tools for two different jobs.