FirePro M6100 vs Radeon R7 265

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R7 265 with FirePro M6100, including specs and performance data.

R7 265
2014, $149
4 GB GDDR5, 150 Watt
9.75
+61.2%

R7 265 outperforms M6100 by an impressive 61% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking501651
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation4.79no data
Power efficiency5.02no data
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2012−2020)GCN 2.0 (2013−2017)
GPU code namePitcairnEmerald
Market segmentDesktopMobile workstation
Designreferenceno data
Release date13 February 2014 (12 years ago)27 May 2014 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$149 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

no data

Performance to price scatter graph

Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores1024896
Core clock speedno data1100 MHz
Boost clock speed925 MHzno data
Number of transistors2,800 million2,080 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)150 Wattno data
Texture fill rate59.2061.60
Floating-point processing power1.894 TFLOPS1.971 TFLOPS
ROPs3216
TMUs6456
L1 Cache256 KB224 KB
L2 Cache512 KB256 KB

Form factor & compatibility

Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).

Laptop sizeno datalarge
Bus supportPCIe 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16MXM-B (3.0)
Length210 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1 x 6-pinNone

VRAM capacity and type

Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.

Memory typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount4 GB2 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1400 MHz1500 MHz
Memory bandwidth179.2 GB/s96 GB/s
Shared memory--

Connectivity and outputs

This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.

Display Connectors2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPortPortable Device Dependent
Eyefinity+-
HDMI+-

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

CrossFire+-
FreeSync+-
DDMA audio+no data

API and SDK support

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectXDirectX® 1212 (12_0)
Shader Model5.16.5 (6.0)
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.22.1
Vulkan-1.2.170

Synthetic benchmarks

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark score.

R7 265 9.75
+61.2%
FirePro M6100 6.05

3DMark Fire Strike Graphics

Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

R7 265 5220
+36%
FirePro M6100 3837

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Average FPS across all PC games

Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:

Full HD80−85
+53.8%
52
−53.8%

Cost per frame, $

1080p1.86no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Palworld 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Resident Evil 4 Remake 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Far Cry 5 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Fortnite 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Palworld 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Valorant 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Dota 2 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Far Cry 5 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Fortnite 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Metro Exodus 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Palworld 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Valorant 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Dota 2 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Far Cry 5 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Valorant 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Palworld 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Metro Exodus 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Valorant 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Palworld 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Metro Exodus 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Palworld 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Valorant 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Dota 2 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Palworld 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

This is how R7 265 and FirePro M6100 compete in popular games:

  • R7 265 is 54% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 63 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 9.75 6.05
Recency 13 February 2014 27 May 2014
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 2 GB

R7 265 has a 61% higher aggregate performance score, and a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.

FirePro M6100, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 3 months.

The Radeon R7 265 is our recommended choice as it beats the FirePro M6100 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R7 265 is a desktop graphics card while FirePro M6100 is a mobile workstation one.

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.2 387 votes

Rate Radeon R7 265 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6 154 votes

Rate FirePro M6100 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon R7 265 or FirePro M6100, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.