AMD FirePro M6100 vs NVIDIA Tesla M2090 Comparison

The AMD FirePro M6100 and NVIDIA Tesla M2090 are both end-of-life workstation-oriented parts, but they target entirely different segments. The data shows a narrow victory for the AMD FirePro M6100 in the single available benchmark, yet the architectural and specification gaps reveal two profoundly different design philosophies. The FirePro M6100 is a modern, mobile-focused chip with a higher compute density, while the Tesla M2090 is an older, larger, and power-hungry server accelerator with a massive memory interface.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test. In this workload, the AMD FirePro M6100 scores 13,354 points, while the NVIDIA Tesla M2090 scores 13,075 points. This gives the AMD part a 2.1% lead, marking the sole win for the FirePro M6100 in the head-to-head data.

This margin is slim but consistent with the broader competitive landscape. The FirePro M6100’s score places it directly alongside modern mainstream parts: it is effectively tied with the AMD Radeon RX 5500M (13,356, deltaPct 0%), and it edges out the AMD Radeon Pro 555X (13,321, deltaPct 0.3% ahead). It trails the AMD Radeon HD 8950M (13,376) by a negligible -0.2%.

The Tesla M2090, despite being from an older generation, holds its own in raw compute. Its score of 13,075 is just 0.7% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER (12,986), and it actually beats the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950 (13,189) by -0.9% (meaning it is 0.9% higher). It also outperforms the AMD Radeon RX 580 (12,928) by 1.1%. This indicates that the Tesla’s raw throughput remains competitive with much newer consumer hardware, even if its feature set is dated.

The single benchmark result suggests that for pure OpenCL compute, the two cards are nearly interchangeable in performance, with the FirePro holding a marginal edge. However, the context of their respective rival pools is telling: the FirePro competes with mobile and Pro 5000-series parts, while the Tesla sits alongside desktop GTX and RX cards. This reflects their intended usage environments—one for laptops, the other for workstations.

Architecture Differences

The fundamental divide lies in their architectures and process nodes. The AMD FirePro M6100 is built on GCN 2.0 using a 28 nm process at TSMC, while the NVIDIA Tesla M2090 uses the older Fermi 2.0 architecture on a 40 nm node, also from TSMC. This generational gap is stark: the FirePro packs 2,080 million transistors onto a 160 mm² die, yielding a density of 13.0M / mm². The Tesla M2090 has more transistors (3,000 million) but on a much larger 520 mm² die, resulting in a far lower density of 5.8M / mm². The FirePro is clearly the more efficient design per square millimeter.

Core configurations differ significantly. The FirePro M6100 features 896 shading units, 56 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 16 raster operation units (ROPs). The Tesla M2090 has fewer shading units (512) but more TMUs (64) and substantially more ROPs (48). This explains the texture and pixel rate differences: the FirePro achieves a texture rate of 61.60 GTexel/s versus the Tesla’s 41.66 GTexel/s, but the Tesla wins in pixel throughput with 20.83 GPixel/s compared to the FirePro’s 17.60 GPixel/s.

Floating-point performance is another differentiator. The FirePro M6100 delivers 1.971 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the Tesla M2090 provides 1,332.2 GFLOPS (approximately 1.33 TFLOPS). The FirePro is therefore roughly 48% ahead in raw FP32 throughput, a significant margin that aligns with its newer architecture and higher shading unit count.

Memory subsystems are where the Tesla M2090 asserts its dominance. The FirePro uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 96.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The Tesla M2090 offers 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, delivering 177.4 GB/s—nearly double the bandwidth. Memory clocks also differ: the FirePro runs at 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective), while the Tesla runs at 924 MHz (3.7 Gbps effective), but the wider bus compensates for the lower clock.

The form factors are polar opposites. The FirePro M6100 is an MXM Module with a bus interface of MXM-B (3.0) and no power connectors, drawing power from the host laptop. The Tesla M2090 is a Dual-slot card with a PCIe 2.0 x16 interface, requiring 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin power connectors and a 600 W suggested PSU. The Tesla’s TDP is listed at 250 W, while the FirePro’s TDP is not specified, but its connectorless design implies a much lower draw. The Tesla also measures 248 mm in length, whereas the FirePro has no listed physical dimensions.

API support also diverges. The FirePro M6100 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The Tesla M2090 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but has no Vulkan support listed. This makes the FirePro more future-proof for modern compute and graphics APIs.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD FirePro M6100 wins in compute throughput and architectural efficiency. Its 1.971 TFLOPS FP32 output and 61.60 GTexel/s texture rate make it better suited for workloads that are shader-heavy or require high arithmetic intensity. The 2.1% OpenCL benchmark victory reinforces this, as does its placement among rivals like the Radeon RX 5500M and Pro 555X, which are contemporary parts. The FirePro also wins on process technology, being built on 28 nm versus the Tesla’s 40 nm, and it is the only one with Vulkan support.

The NVIDIA Tesla M2090 wins decisively in memory capacity and bandwidth. Its 6 GB frame buffer is three times larger than the FirePro’s 2 GB, and its 177.4 GB/s bandwidth is nearly double. This makes it the better choice for large datasets that exceed the FirePro’s memory capacity or for bandwidth-bound tasks like certain scientific simulations or data processing. The Tesla also has a higher pixel rate (20.83 GPixel/s vs 17.60 GPixel/s) and more ROPs (48 vs 16), which could benefit rasterization-heavy operations despite its lower overall compute.

The Tesla’s rival pool is telling: it competes with the GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER and Radeon RX 580, both of which are desktop parts with substantial memory interfaces. This suggests the Tesla’s strength lies in sustained, memory-intensive workloads rather than bursty, compute-light tasks. The FirePro, by contrast, sits with mobile GPUs, indicating its design for thermal-constrained environments.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear split. For users who prioritize raw FP32 compute, modern API support, and efficiency, the AMD FirePro M6100 is the superior choice. It is 2.1% faster in the only benchmark, has a 48% advantage in TFLOPS, and offers Vulkan compatibility. Its position in the 54th percentile of all GPUs (vs the Tesla’s 53rd) further confirms its slight overall edge. The FirePro is the right pick for compute-heavy tasks on a laptop platform.

The NVIDIA Tesla M2090 is the pick for memory-bound workloads where capacity and bandwidth trump arithmetic speed. Its 6 GB VRAM and 177.4 GB/s bandwidth are unmatched by the FirePro, and its performance rivals modern desktop cards like the GTX 1660 SUPER. However, its lack of Vulkan, higher power draw (250 W), and dependence on a 600 W PSU make it a less flexible option.

Strictly from the data, the FirePro M6100 wins on compute and modern features, while the Tesla M2090 wins on memory and raw bandwidth. The choice hinges entirely on which bottleneck—compute or memory—the user expects to hit first.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The AMD FirePro M6100 wins with a score of 13,354 versus the NVIDIA Tesla M2090’s 13,075, a 2.1% lead.

Q: How much memory does each card have?

A: The AMD FirePro M6100 has 2 GB of GDDR5, while the NVIDIA Tesla M2090 has 6 GB of GDDR5.

Q: What are the FP32 compute figures?

A: The FirePro M6100 delivers 1.971 TFLOPS, while the Tesla M2090 provides 1,332.2 GFLOPS.

Q: Does the Tesla M2090 support Vulkan?

A: No, the Tesla M2090 has no Vulkan support listed, whereas the FirePro M6100 supports Vulkan 1.2.170.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The Tesla M2090 has a bandwidth of 177.4 GB/s, which is nearly double the FirePro M6100’s 96.00 GB/s.

Q: What is the process node for each GPU?

A: The FirePro M6100 uses a 28 nm process, while the Tesla M2090 uses a 40 nm process, both from TSMC.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD FirePro M6100 | NVIDIA Tesla M2090 |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | GCN 2.0 | Fermi 2.0 |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 40 nm |

| Transistors | 2,080 million | 3,000 million |

| Die Size | 160 mm² | 520 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 13.0M / mm² | 5.8M / mm² |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | 6 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 384 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 96.00 GB/s | 177.4 GB/s |

| Memory Clock | 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective) | 924 MHz (3.7 Gbps effective) |

| Shading Units | 896 | 512 |

| TMUs | 56 | 64 |

| ROPs | 16 | 48 |

| Pixel Rate | 17.60 GPixel/s | 20.83 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 61.60 GTexel/s | 41.66 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 1.971 TFLOPS | 1,332.2 GFLOPS |

| TDP | Not specified | 250 W |

| Slot Width | MXM Module | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin |

| Suggested PSU | Not specified | 600 W |

| Bus Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 2.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | No outputs |

| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 (11_0) |

| Vulkan | 1.2.170 | Not specified |

| Length | Not specified | 248 mm (9.8 inches) |