GPU Comparison

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680 and AMD FirePro M6100 are two end-of-life GPUs from different eras and market segments. The GTX 680 is a desktop flagship from 2012, while the FirePro M6100 is a mobile workstation part from 2014. Direct comparison is possible through the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark, where the GTX 680 scores 16906 against the FirePro M6100's 13354, a 26.6% margin. The data shows a clear performance hierarchy, but the different physical formats and feature sets make each card suitable for different use cases.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680 wins the only head-to-head benchmark available, but the story extends beyond that single result. In Geekbench OpenCL, the GTX 680 delivers 16906 points, which is 26.6% higher than the FirePro M6100's 13354 points. This gap is substantial for compute workloads. The GTX 680 also holds a higher average benchmark score of 14150 across all its tested workloads, compared to 13354 for the FirePro M6100. In terms of GPU percentile rankings, the GTX 680 sits at the 55th percentile, slightly above the FirePro M6100's 54th percentile. The GTX 680's other benchmark results, 7897 in Geekbench Metal and 17646 in Geekbench Vulkan, show it can handle multiple API environments, while the FirePro M6100 only has a single OpenCL score recorded.

The AMD FirePro M6100 wins in portability and integration. It is an MXM Module with no power connectors and no suggested PSU, designed to be slotted into a laptop or mobile workstation. Its display outputs are "Portable Device Dependent," meaning it relies on the host system. The GTX 680, by contrast, is a dual-slot desktop card that requires a 450 W power supply and two 6-pin power connectors. For a builder assembling a compact or mobile system, the FirePro M6100 is the only viable option. It also has a higher transistor density at 13.0M / mm² compared to 12.0M / mm² for the GTX 680, indicating a more modern manufacturing efficiency despite both using a 28 nm process.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split is fundamental. The GTX 680 uses NVIDIA's Kepler architecture on the GK104 chip, while the FirePro M6100 uses AMD's GCN 2.0 architecture on the Emerald chip. Both are built on a 28 nm process at TSMC, but the similarities end there. The GTX 680 packs 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 12.0M / mm². The FirePro M6100 is smaller, with 2,080 million transistors on a 160 mm² die, giving it a higher density of 13.0M / mm².

The compute resources differ significantly. The GTX 680 has 1536 shading units, 128 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 32 raster operations pipelines (ROPs). The FirePro M6100 has 896 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This means the GTX 680 has roughly 71% more shading units and over twice the TMUs and ROPs. The pixel rate confirms this: the GTX 680 achieves 33.86 GPixel/s versus 17.60 GPixel/s for the FirePro M6100. Similarly, texture rate is 135.4 GTexel/s versus 61.60 GTexel/s. In floating-point performance, the GTX 680 delivers 3.250 TFLOPS compared to 1.971 TFLOPS for the FirePro M6100.

API support also diverges. The GTX 680 supports DirectX 12 (11_0), while the FirePro M6100 supports DirectX 12 (12_0). The FirePro M6100's higher DirectX feature level is notable for newer games. Both support OpenGL 4.6, but Vulkan versions differ slightly: the GTX 680 has Vulkan 1.2.175, and the FirePro M6100 has Vulkan 1.2.170. Memory configurations are also distinct, with the GTX 680 using a 256-bit bus and the FirePro M6100 using a 128-bit bus, which impacts bandwidth significantly.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance in OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680 scores 16906 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 26.6% higher than the AMD FirePro M6100's 13354 score. This makes the GTX 680 the clear winner in this compute workload.

Q: Can the AMD FirePro M6100 be used in a desktop PC?

A: No, the FirePro M6100 is an MXM Module with an MXM-B (3.0) bus interface and no power connectors. It is designed for portable devices, and its display outputs are "Portable Device Dependent," meaning it cannot be easily adapted to a standard desktop setup.

Q: Does the newer AMD card support a higher DirectX version than the NVIDIA card?

A: Yes, the AMD FirePro M6100 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680 supports DirectX 12 (11_0). This means the FirePro M6100 has a more modern DirectX feature level despite being slower in raw compute.

Q: How do the memory bandwidths compare between the two cards?

A: The GTX 680 has a memory bandwidth of 192.3 GB/s, which is exactly double the FirePro M6100's 96.00 GB/s. This is due to the GTX 680's wider 256-bit bus versus the FirePro M6100's 128-bit bus, despite both using GDDR5 memory with similar effective speeds.

Q: What is the transistor density difference between the two chips?

A: The AMD FirePro M6100 has a higher transistor density at 13.0M / mm², compared to 12.0M / mm² for the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680. However, the GTX 680 has a larger total transistor count of 3,540 million versus 2,080 million.

Q: Which GPU has a higher overall benchmark percentile?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680 is at the 55th percentile of all GPUs, while the AMD FirePro M6100 is at the 54th percentile. The difference is minimal, but the GTX 680 edges out the FirePro M6100 in this ranking.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every measurable specification, reflecting their different design goals.

• Chip: GK104 (NVIDIA) vs Emerald (AMD)
• Architecture: Kepler vs GCN 2.0
• Generation: GeForce 600 vs FirePro Mobile (Mx100)
• Transistors: 3,540 million vs 2,080 million
• Die Size: 294 mm² vs 160 mm²
• Transistor Density: 12.0M / mm² vs 13.0M / mm²
• Base Clock: 1006 MHz vs null
• Boost Clock: 1058 MHz vs null
• Memory Clock: 1502 MHz / 6 Gbps effective vs 1500 MHz / 6 Gbps effective
• Memory Bus Width: 256 bit vs 128 bit
• Memory Bandwidth: 192.3 GB/s vs 96.00 GB/s
• Shading Units: 1536 vs 896
• TMUs: 128 vs 56
• ROPs: 32 vs 16
• Pixel Rate: 33.86 GPixel/s vs 17.60 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 135.4 GTexel/s vs 61.60 GTexel/s
• FP32 Performance: 3.250 TFLOPS vs 1.971 TFLOPS
• TDP: 195 W vs null (not specified)
• Slot Width: Dual-slot vs MXM Module
• Power Connectors: 2x 6-pin vs None
• Suggested PSU: 450 W vs null
• Bus Interface: PCIe 3.0 x16 vs MXM-B (3.0)
• Display Outputs: 2x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 1x DisplayPort 1.2 vs Portable Device Dependent
• DirectX Support: 12 (11_0) vs 12 (12_0)
• Vulkan Version: 1.2.175 vs 1.2.170
• Dimensions: 256 mm x 111 mm x 38 mm vs null (no dimensions listed)
• Release Date: 2012-03-21 vs 2014-05-26
• Predecessor: GeForce 500 vs FirePro Mobility
• Successor: GeForce 700 vs Radeon Pro Mobile
• Launch MSRP: 499 USD vs null

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, which is decisive. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680 scores 16906, while the AMD FirePro M6100 scores 13354. The delta is 26.6% in favor of the GTX 680. This is not a close contest; the desktop part outperforms the mobile part by over a quarter in this compute-bound workload.

Looking at the broader benchmark context, the GTX 680's average score across all its benchmarks is 14150, which is 6% higher than the FirePro M6100's single OpenCL score of 13354. The GTX 680 also has additional benchmark data points: 7897 in Geekbench Metal and 17646 in Geekbench Vulkan. The Vulkan score is particularly strong, even surpassing its OpenCL result. The FirePro M6100 has no Vulkan or Metal scores listed, limiting its comparability in those APIs.

The nearest rivals provide additional context. The GTX 680's average score of 14150 places it close to the NVIDIA Tesla K10 (14029, 0.9% higher), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 Ti (14277, 0.9% lower), the Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics (14315, 1.2% lower), and the AMD Radeon Vega 11 (14352, 1.4% lower). This shows the GTX 680 sits in a tight cluster of GPUs with similar average performance. The FirePro M6100's average score of 13354 places it alongside the AMD Radeon RX 5500M (13356, 0% difference), the AMD Radeon HD 8950M (13376, 0.2% lower), the AMD Radeon Pro 555X (13321, 0.3% higher), and the AMD Radeon Pro 555 (13407, 0.4% lower). The FirePro M6100 is essentially tied with these mobile and low-power desktop parts, while the GTX 680 competes with a higher tier of GPUs.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous on performance: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680 is the faster GPU. It wins the sole head-to-head benchmark by 26.6% in OpenCL, and its average benchmark score of 14150 is higher than the FirePro M6100's 13354. With more shading units, TMUs, ROPs, and double the memory bandwidth, the GTX 680 is the clear choice for anyone needing raw compute or gaming performance in a desktop system. Its 3.250 TFLOPS FP32 performance is a 65% advantage over the FirePro M6100's 1.971 TFLOPS.

However, the AMD FirePro M6100 has its own niche. It is a mobile workstation GPU built on an MXM module, requiring no external power connectors and offering no display outputs of its own. It trades raw performance for portability and integration into laptops. Its higher transistor density (13.0M / mm²) and superior DirectX 12 (12_0) support show a more modern design despite lower absolute performance. The GTX 680's DirectX 12 (11_0) support is a limitation for newer gaming workloads.

For a desktop builder, the GTX 680 is the obvious pick. It is a dual-slot card with PCIe 3.0 x16 support, and it was launched at 499 USD MSRP. For a mobile workstation builder, the FirePro M6100 is the only option of the two, given its MXM form factor. The GTX 680 cannot be installed in a laptop, and the FirePro M6100 cannot be installed in a desktop. The choice is not about which is better in absolute terms, but which fits the physical and power constraints of the target system. If you have the space and power budget, the GTX 680 wins on every performance metric. If you need a GPU for a portable device, the FirePro M6100 is the only one that fits.