FirePro M2000 vs W2100
Aggregated performance score
W2100 outperforms M2000 by 114% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
General info
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 809 | 1044 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Value for money | 0.39 | 0.02 |
| Architecture | GCN (2011−2017) | Terascale 2 (2009−2015) |
| GPU code name | Mars | Turks GLM |
| Market segment | Workstation | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 2 October 2015 (8 years old) | 1 July 2012 (11 years old) |
| Current price | $123 | $387 |
Value for money
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
FirePro W2100 has 1850% better value for money than FirePro M2000.
Technical specs
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 320 | 480 |
| Core clock speed | 680 MHz | 500 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 950 million | 716 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 26 Watt | 33 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 13.60 | 12.00 |
| Floating-point performance | 435.2 gflops | 480.0 gflops |
Size and compatibility
Information on FirePro W2100 and FirePro M2000 compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.
| Laptop size | no data | medium sized |
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | n/a |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Width | 1-slot | no data |
| Form factor | low profile / half length | chip-down |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | no data |
Memory
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 type | DDR3 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1800 MHz | 3200 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 28.8 GB/s | 25.6 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Video outputs and ports
Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.
| Display Connectors | 2x DisplayPort | No outputs |
| StereoOutput3D | no data | 1 |
| DisplayPort count | 2 | no data |
| Dual-link DVI support | 1 | no data |
Technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| AppAcceleration | + | no data |
API support
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 11.2 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.4 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | N/A |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
W2100 outperforms M2000 by 114% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.
Benchmark coverage: 25%
W2100 outperforms M2000 by 113% in Passmark.
GeekBench 5 OpenCL
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.
Benchmark coverage: 9%
W2100 outperforms M2000 by 217% in GeekBench 5 OpenCL.
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:
| 900p | 18−20
+100%
| 9
−100%
|
| Full HD | 12
−33.3%
| 16
+33.3%
|
| 4K | 2 | 0−1 |
Performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 10−12
+22.2%
|
9−10
−22.2%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry New Dawn | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| Hitman 3 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 0−1 | 0−1 |
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 10−12
+22.2%
|
9−10
−22.2%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry New Dawn | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| Hitman 3 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 0−1 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry New Dawn | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 0−1 | 0−1 |
1440p
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Hitman 3 | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 9−10
+12.5%
|
8−9
−12.5%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Hitman 3 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
This is how FirePro W2100 and FirePro M2000 compete in popular games:
900p resolution:
- FirePro W2100 is 100% faster than FirePro M2000
1080p resolution:
- FirePro M2000 is 33.3% faster than FirePro W2100
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Hitman 3, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the FirePro W2100 is 300% faster than the FirePro M2000.
All in all, in popular games:
- FirePro W2100 is ahead in 25 tests (86%)
- there's a draw in 4 tests (14%)
Advantages and disadvantages
| Performance score | 2.33 | 1.09 |
| Recency | 2 October 2015 | 1 July 2012 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 26 Watt | 33 Watt |
The FirePro W2100 is our recommended choice as it beats the FirePro M2000 in performance tests.
Be aware that FirePro W2100 is a workstation card while FirePro M2000 is a mobile workstation one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar GPU comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
