
GeForce GTX 670M vs FirePro W600

GeForce GTX 670M
Popular choices:

FirePro W600
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - GPU
About G3D Mark
G3D Mark is a standard benchmark that measures graphics performance in real-world gaming scenarios. It simplifies comparing cards from different brands, where higher scores directly correlate with better fps and smoother gaming experiences.
Value Upgrade Path
This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (G3D Mark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money. The GeForce GTX 670M is positioned at rank 149 and the FirePro W600 is on rank 253, so the GeForce GTX 670M offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar GeForce GTX 670M
Performance Per Dollar FirePro W600
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GeForce GTX 670M is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 1.1% higher G3D Mark score and 50% more VRAM (3 GB vs 2 GB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the FirePro W600.
| Insight | GeForce GTX 670M | FirePro W600 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+1.1%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-1.1%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2012 / Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2012 / GCN 1.0 (2012−2020)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ✅ More VRAM (+50%) | ❌ Less VRAM capacity |
| Efficiency | Normal Efficiency | Normal Efficiency |
| Case Fit | — | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly |
💎 Value Proposition
While current pricing data is unavailable, the GeForce GTX 670M remains the clear technical winner. Check real-time availability to determine if the performance gap justifies the market price.
Performance Check
Real-world benchmarks and performance projections based on comprehensive hardware analysis and comparative metrics. Values represent expected performance on High/Ultra settings at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. Modeled using a Ryzen 7 7800X3D reference profile to minimize specific CPU bottlenecks.
Note: Performance behavior can vary per game. Specific architectures may perform better or worse depending on game engine optimizations and API implementation.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 670M and FirePro W600

GeForce GTX 670M
The GeForce GTX 670M is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in March 22 2012. It features the Fermi 2.0 architecture. The core clock speed is 598 MHz. It has 336 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 75W. Manufactured using 40 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 1,714 points.

FirePro W600
The FirePro W600 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in June 13 2012. It features the GCN 1.0 architecture. The core clock speed is 750 MHz. It has 512 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 75W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 1,695 points. Launch price was $599.
Graphics Performance
The GeForce GTX 670M scores 1,714 and the FirePro W600 reaches 1,695 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 1.1% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The GeForce GTX 670M is built on Fermi 2.0 while the FirePro W600 uses GCN 1.0, both on 40 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 336 (GeForce GTX 670M) vs 512 (FirePro W600). Raw compute: 0.8037 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 670M) vs 0.768 TFLOPS (FirePro W600).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 670M | FirePro W600 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 1,714+1% | 1,695 |
| Architecture | Fermi 2.0 | GCN 1.0 |
| Process Node | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 336 | 512+52% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 0.8037 TFLOPS+5% | 0.768 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 24+50% | 16 |
| TMUs | 56+75% | 32 |
| L1 Cache | 448 KB+250% | 128 KB |
| L2 Cache | 384 KB+50% | 256 KB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GeForce GTX 670M | FirePro W600 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 2.1 (Compatible) | FSR 1.0 (Software) |
| Frame Generation | FSR 3 (Compatible) | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The GeForce GTX 670M comes with 3 GB of VRAM, while the FirePro W600 has 2 GB. The GeForce GTX 670M offers 50% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 128-bit vs 64-bit. L2 Cache: 384 KB (GeForce GTX 670M) vs 256 KB (FirePro W600) — the GeForce GTX 670M has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 670M | FirePro W600 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 3 GB+50% | 2 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 128-bit+100% | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 384 KB+50% | 256 KB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (11_0) (GeForce GTX 670M) vs 12 (FirePro W600). OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 6.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 670M | FirePro W600 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Max Displays | 3 | 6+100% |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: No NVENC (Fermi) (GeForce GTX 670M) vs VCE 1.0 (FirePro W600). Decoder: PureVideo HD VP4 vs UVD 4.0. Supported codecs: H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2 (GeForce GTX 670M) vs H.264 (FirePro W600).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 670M | FirePro W600 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | No NVENC (Fermi) | VCE 1.0 |
| Decoder | PureVideo HD VP4 | UVD 4.0 |
| Codecs | H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2 | H.264 |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce GTX 670M draws 75W versus the FirePro W600's 75W — a 0% difference. The FirePro W600 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GeForce GTX 670M) vs 350W (FirePro W600). Power connectors: 1x 6-pin vs PCIe-powered. Typical load temperature: 75°C vs Unknown.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 670M | FirePro W600 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 75W | 75W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | 1x 6-pin | PCIe-powered |
| Length | — | 168mm |
| Height | — | 111mm |
| Slots | 0-100% | 1 |
| Temp (Load) | 75°C | Unknown-100% |
| Perf/Watt | 22.9+1% | 22.6 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
















