AMD FirePro M5100 vs AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 Comparison

AMD FirePro M5100 and AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 are two professional mobile/workstation GPUs from different eras of AMD’s lineup. The data shows a clear generational divide, with the WX 4100 holding a decisive lead in the only directly comparable benchmark, while the M5100 trails significantly in raw compute but offers a distinct set of architectural traits. This analysis relies strictly on the provided benchmark scores and specifications to guide the verdict.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single head-to-head benchmark available is Geekbench OpenCL, and the result is lopsided. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 scores 17,642, while the AMD FirePro M5100 manages 6,830. That translates to a 61.3% advantage for the WX 4100, a massive gap that dwarfs the differences seen in each card’s nearest rival comparisons. For context, the M5100’s closest rivals—the AMD Radeon R7 M370 (6,764, +1%) and NVIDIA GeForce GT 1010 (6,698, +2%)—are within a couple of percent of its score. The WX 4100, by contrast, sits near the NVIDIA Quadro K620 (6,282, +0.8%) and AMD Radeon R7 M350 (6,327, +0.1%) in its own average benchmark grouping, yet its OpenCL result is nearly triple that of those rivals.

This disparity is not a marginal improvement; it is a wholesale shift in compute capability. The WX 4100 also posts strong results in other APIs: 21,018 in Geekbench Metal and 18,703 in Geekbench Vulkan, showing that its performance is consistent across different compute frameworks. The M5100 has no comparable data for those tests, so the OpenCL result stands as the primary evidence of its relative weakness. In DirectX tests, the WX 4100 shows a different profile: 16 in DirectX 10, 24 in DirectX 11, 22 in DirectX 12, and 56 in DirectX 9, with a G2D score of 646 and G3D score of 3,699. These numbers, while not directly comparable to the M5100, reinforce that the WX 4100 is a capable general-purpose GPU for its class.

The M5100’s only benchmark, OpenCL at 6,830, places it in the 38th percentile of all GPUs, barely above the WX 4100’s 37th percentile despite the latter’s far higher raw score. This oddity stems from the different benchmark suites used and the age of the data, but the head-to-head result is unambiguous: the WX 4100 is the faster card by a wide margin.

The Verdict

From the data alone, the AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 is the superior performer. It wins the only direct comparison by 61.3% in OpenCL, and its additional benchmark scores (Metal, Vulkan, multiple DirectX tests) indicate a broader and more robust feature set. The M5100, with its single OpenCL score of 6,830, is competitive only with much older or lower-tier parts like the GeForce GT 675M (6,946, -1.7%) or Radeon R5 M240 (6,975, -2.1%). For any workload that relies on compute shaders, OpenCL, or modern graphics APIs, the WX 4100 is the clear choice.

However, the verdict is not entirely one-sided. The M5100’s architecture and form factor—an MXM module—target a different use case: mobile workstations where space and power are constrained. The WX 4100 is a single-slot, PCIe 3.0 x8 card with a 50 W TDP and no power connectors, making it suitable for compact desktops. The M5100 has no listed TDP, but its MXM-A interface suggests it was designed for laptops. If the requirement is a drop-in upgrade for a legacy mobile workstation, the M5100 may be the only compatible option, despite its lower performance. Conversely, if performance is the sole criterion, the WX 4100 wins outright, with a launch MSRP of 399 USD for reference.

Picking between them hinges on the platform: the WX 4100 for new builds or desktop upgrades, the M5100 for legacy mobile systems where no other card will fit. The data does not support choosing the M5100 on performance grounds.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are separated by two full generations of AMD’s GCN architecture. The FirePro M5100 uses GCN 1.0 on a 28 nm process from TSMC, while the Radeon Pro WX 4100 uses GCN 4.0 on a 14 nm process from GlobalFoundries. This node shrink from 28 nm to 14 nm is the primary driver of the efficiency and clock speed differences. The M5100’s chip, codenamed Venus, packs 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 12.2M / mm². The WX 4100’s Baffin chip doubles the transistor count to 3,000 million on the same 123 mm² die, achieving a density of 24.4M / mm²—exactly double. That density increase is the physical manifestation of the architectural leap.

Clocks also tell the story. The M5100 runs at a base of 725 MHz with a boost of 775 MHz, while the WX 4100 starts at 1125 MHz and boosts to 1201 MHz. This is a ~55% higher boost clock, enabled by the smaller process node. Memory speeds follow suit: the M5100’s GDDR5 runs at 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective) for 72.00 GB/s bandwidth over a 128-bit bus, while the WX 4100’s GDDR5 runs at 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective) for 96.00 GB/s over the same bus width. The WX 4100 also doubles the memory capacity to 4 GB from 2 GB.

Compute resources are equally divergent. The M5100 has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, yielding a pixel rate of 12.40 GPixel/s and texture rate of 31.00 GTexel/s. The WX 4100 increases shading units to 1,024, TMUs to 64, and keeps ROPs at 16, producing 19.22 GPixel/s and 76.86 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput jumps from 992.0 GFLOPS on the M5100 to 2.460 TFLOPS on the WX 4100, with the latter also offering FP16 at the same 2.460 TFLOPS (1:1) rate—the M5100 has no FP16 capability listed. API support differs too: the M5100 supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170, while the WX 4100 supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3. Both share OpenGL 4.6.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100, with FP32 of 2.460 TFLOPS versus 992.0 GFLOPS for the FirePro M5100, and an OpenCL score of 17,642 versus 6,830.

Q: Are these cards compatible with the same motherboards?

A: No. The M5100 uses an MXM-A (3.0) bus interface and is an MXM Module, while the WX 4100 uses PCIe 3.0 x8 and is a Single-slot card.

Q: How much memory does each card have?

A: The M5100 has 2 GB of GDDR5, and the WX 4100 has 4 GB of GDDR5, both on a 128-bit bus.

Q: Which card supports newer graphics APIs?

A: The WX 4100 supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3, while the M5100 supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170.

Q: What is the power requirement for the WX 4100?

A: The WX 4100 has a 50 W TDP, no power connectors, and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The M5100 has no TDP listed.

Q: Does the WX 4100 have any benchmark wins over the M5100?

A: Yes, in the only head-to-head test (Geekbench OpenCL), the WX 4100 wins with a 61.3% lead.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 wins in every measurable performance category. It is 61.3% ahead in OpenCL, offers 2.460 TFLOPS FP32 versus 992.0 GFLOPS, and has higher texture rate (76.86 GTexel/s vs 31.00 GTexel/s) and pixel rate (19.22 GPixel/s vs 12.40 GPixel/s). Its memory bandwidth of 96.00 GB/s exceeds the M5100’s 72.00 GB/s, and it doubles VRAM to 4 GB. For compute-intensive tasks like rendering, simulation, or machine learning inference via OpenCL/Metal/Vulkan, the WX 4100 is the only rational pick. It also supports FP16 at full rate, which the M5100 lacks entirely.

The FirePro M5100’s only advantage is its form factor. As an MXM Module with MXM-A (3.0) interface, it fits in mobile workstations where the WX 4100’s PCIe card cannot. The M5100 has no TDP listed, but its mobile design and lower clocks (725 MHz base) suggest it was built for thermal envelopes that a 50 W desktop card might exceed. It also has a higher percentile ranking (38th vs 37th) in the global GPU database, though this reflects the benchmark mix rather than absolute performance.

In practical terms: choose the WX 4100 for any desktop workstation where space allows a single-slot PCIe card. Choose the M5100 only if you must upgrade a legacy laptop with an MXM slot, accepting a 61.3% performance deficit in OpenCL as the trade-off. The data shows no other scenario where the M5100 is preferable.