Radeon R9 M485X vs FirePro M6000
Aggregate performance score
We've compared FirePro M6000 with Radeon R9 M485X, including specs and performance data.
R9 M485X outperforms M6000 by a whopping 109% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 708 | 519 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 7.77 | 2.79 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) | GCN 3.0 (2014−2019) |
| GPU code name | Heathrow | Amethyst |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 1 July 2012 (13 years ago) | 15 May 2016 (9 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 640 | 2048 |
| Core clock speed | 800 MHz | 723 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,500 million | 5,000 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 43 Watt | 250 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 32.00 | 92.54 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.024 TFLOPS | 2.961 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 32 |
| TMUs | 40 | 128 |
| L1 Cache | 160 KB | 512 KB |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 512 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 size | medium sized | large |
| Bus support | n/a | no data |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | MXM-B (3.0) |
| Form factor | MXM-B | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | None |
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 type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1000 MHz | 1250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 72 GB/s | 160.0 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 Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
| StereoOutput3D | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 12 (12_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.3 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.2.131 |
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.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. 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.
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 | 58
−107%
| 120−130
+107%
|
| Full HD | 42
−102%
| 85−90
+102%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
−158%
|
45−50
+158%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
−111%
|
18−20
+111%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
−128%
|
40−45
+128%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
−158%
|
45−50
+158%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
−111%
|
18−20
+111%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 16−18
−118%
|
35−40
+118%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
−131%
|
30−33
+131%
|
| Fortnite | 24−27
−115%
|
55−60
+115%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
−90.5%
|
40−45
+90.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 12−14
−133%
|
27−30
+133%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
−83.3%
|
30−35
+83.3%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
−57.9%
|
90−95
+57.9%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
−128%
|
40−45
+128%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
−158%
|
45−50
+158%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 75−80
−83.1%
|
140−150
+83.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
−111%
|
18−20
+111%
|
| Dota 2 | 35−40
−71.8%
|
65−70
+71.8%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 16−18
−118%
|
35−40
+118%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
−131%
|
30−33
+131%
|
| Fortnite | 24−27
−115%
|
55−60
+115%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
−90.5%
|
40−45
+90.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 12−14
−133%
|
27−30
+133%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−143%
|
30−35
+143%
|
| Metro Exodus | 8−9
−125%
|
18−20
+125%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
−83.3%
|
30−35
+83.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
−84.6%
|
24−27
+84.6%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
−57.9%
|
90−95
+57.9%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
−128%
|
40−45
+128%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
−111%
|
18−20
+111%
|
| Dota 2 | 35−40
−71.8%
|
65−70
+71.8%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 16−18
−118%
|
35−40
+118%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
−131%
|
30−33
+131%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
−90.5%
|
40−45
+90.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
−83.3%
|
30−35
+83.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
−84.6%
|
24−27
+84.6%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
−57.9%
|
90−95
+57.9%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 24−27
−115%
|
55−60
+115%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−88.9%
|
16−18
+88.9%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 30−35
−106%
|
70−75
+106%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 3−4
−300%
|
12−14
+300%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
−233%
|
10−11
+233%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
−41.2%
|
45−50
+41.2%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
−117%
|
100−110
+117%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
−1000%
|
21−24
+1000%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−133%
|
7−8
+133%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 8−9
−125%
|
18−20
+125%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
−138%
|
18−20
+138%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
−120%
|
21−24
+120%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−117%
|
12−14
+117%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 9−10
−111%
|
18−20
+111%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
−25%
|
20−22
+25%
|
| Valorant | 21−24
−118%
|
45−50
+118%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−1000%
|
10−12
+1000%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−200%
|
3−4
+200%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−127%
|
30−35
+127%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 3−4
−167%
|
8−9
+167%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
−200%
|
9−10
+200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−150%
|
14−16
+150%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 5−6
−80%
|
9−10
+80%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 5−6
−80%
|
9−10
+80%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
This is how FirePro M6000 and R9 M485X compete in popular games:
- R9 M485X is 107% faster in 900p
- R9 M485X is 102% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Battlefield 5, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the R9 M485X is 1000% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- R9 M485X performs better in 60 tests (94%)
- there's a draw in 4 tests (6%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 4.35 | 9.09 |
| Recency | 1 July 2012 | 15 May 2016 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 8 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 43 Watt | 250 Watt |
FirePro M6000 has 481.4% lower power consumption.
R9 M485X, on the other hand, has a 109% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, and a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount.
The Radeon R9 M485X is our recommended choice as it beats the FirePro M6000 in performance tests.
Be aware that FirePro M6000 is a mobile workstation graphics card while Radeon R9 M485X 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.
