Radeon HD 6990M vs FirePro M6100
Aggregate performance score
We've compared FirePro M6100 with Radeon HD 6990M, including specs and performance data.
M6100 outperforms HD 6990M by a substantial 30% 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 | 645 | 698 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 3.52 |
| Architecture | GCN 2.0 (2013−2017) | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) |
| GPU code name | Emerald | Blackcomb |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 27 May 2014 (12 years ago) | 12 July 2011 (14 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. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 896 | 1120 |
| Core clock speed | 1100 MHz | 715 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 2,080 million | 1,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 100 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 61.60 | 40.04 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.971 TFLOPS | 1.602 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 32 |
| TMUs | 56 | 56 |
| L1 Cache | 224 KB | 224 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 | large | large |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | MXM-B (3.0) |
| 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 | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1500 MHz | 900 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 96 GB/s | 115.2 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 | Portable Device Dependent | No outputs |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 11.2 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.5 (6.0) | 5.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.4 |
| OpenCL | 2.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.170 | N/A |
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.
3DMark 11 Performance GPU
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
3DMark Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
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 | 70−75
+29.6%
| 54
−29.6%
|
| Full HD | 52
−15.4%
| 60
+15.4%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
+45%
|
20−22
−45%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+33.3%
|
9−10
−33.3%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 10−11
+42.9%
|
7−8
−42.9%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
+36.8%
|
18−20
−36.8%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
+45%
|
20−22
−45%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+33.3%
|
9−10
−33.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18−20
+35.7%
|
14−16
−35.7%
|
| Fortnite | 35−40
+37%
|
27−30
−37%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
+27.3%
|
21−24
−27.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 18−20
+38.5%
|
12−14
−38.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
+27.8%
|
18−20
−27.8%
|
| Valorant | 65−70
+16.9%
|
55−60
−16.9%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
+36.8%
|
18−20
−36.8%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
+45%
|
20−22
−45%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 100−110
+26.3%
|
80−85
−26.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+33.3%
|
9−10
−33.3%
|
| Dota 2 | 45−50
+22.5%
|
40−45
−22.5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18−20
+35.7%
|
14−16
−35.7%
|
| Fortnite | 35−40
+37%
|
27−30
−37%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
+27.3%
|
21−24
−27.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 18−20
+38.5%
|
12−14
−38.5%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 21−24
+40%
|
14−16
−40%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12−14
+33.3%
|
9−10
−33.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
+27.8%
|
18−20
−27.8%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
+23.1%
|
12−14
−23.1%
|
| Valorant | 65−70
+16.9%
|
55−60
−16.9%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
+36.8%
|
18−20
−36.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+33.3%
|
9−10
−33.3%
|
| Dota 2 | 45−50
+22.5%
|
40−45
−22.5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18−20
+35.7%
|
14−16
−35.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
+27.3%
|
21−24
−27.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
+27.8%
|
18−20
−27.8%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
+23.1%
|
12−14
−23.1%
|
| Valorant | 65−70
+16.9%
|
55−60
−16.9%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 35−40
+37%
|
27−30
−37%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+33.3%
|
9−10
−33.3%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 45−50
+34.3%
|
35−40
−34.3%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
+11.4%
|
35−40
−11.4%
|
| Valorant | 65−70
+36%
|
50−55
−36%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11
+233%
|
3−4
−233%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+33.3%
|
9−10
−33.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+27.3%
|
10−12
−27.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
+28.6%
|
7−8
−28.6%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 12−14
+33.3%
|
9−10
−33.3%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+6.3%
|
16−18
−6.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 30−35
+34.8%
|
21−24
−34.8%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 21−24
+37.5%
|
16−18
−37.5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
+50%
|
6−7
−50%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
This is how FirePro M6100 and HD 6990M compete in popular games:
- FirePro M6100 is 30% faster in 900p
- HD 6990M is 15% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Battlefield 5, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the FirePro M6100 is 300% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- FirePro M6100 performs better in 55 tests (98%)
- there's a draw in 1 test (2%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 6.09 | 4.69 |
| Recency | 27 May 2014 | 12 July 2011 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
FirePro M6100 has a 30% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, and a 43% more advanced lithography process.
The FirePro M6100 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 6990M in performance tests.
Be aware that FirePro M6100 is a mobile workstation graphics card while Radeon HD 6990M 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.
