AMD FirePro W5000 vs AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 Comparison

The AMD FirePro W5000 and AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 represent two distinct eras of workstation graphics, separated by a generational shift in manufacturing and design philosophy. The data shows a clear split: the older W5000 leads in raw compute benchmarks, while the newer WX 2100 counters with modern features, efficiency, and a significantly smaller footprint. This analysis breaks down the architectural differences, benchmark results, and use-case scenarios to help determine which card fits a specific workstation need.

Architecture Differences

The two cards are built on fundamentally different architectures and process nodes. The AMD FirePro W5000 utilizes the Pitcairn chip based on the GCN 1.0 architecture, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. This older design packs 2,800 million transistors into a 212 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 13.2M / mm². In contrast, the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 employs the Lexa chip based on GCN 4.0, built on a more advanced 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The newer chip contains 2,200 million transistors on a much smaller 103 mm² die, achieving a higher transistor density of 21.4M / mm².

This architectural gap translates directly into different shader configurations. The FirePro W5000 features 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 32 render output units (ROPs). The Radeon Pro WX 2100, despite being newer, has fewer resources in each category: 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The compute potential, measured in FP32 performance, is nearly identical on paper — the W5000 delivers 1,267.2 GFLOPS while the WX 2100 outputs 1,248.3 GFLOPS. However, the WX 2100 adds FP16 support at a 1:1 ratio, offering 1,248.3 GFLOPS for half-precision workloads, a feature absent from the older card.

The memory subsystems also diverge sharply. Both cards feature 2 GB of GDDR5, but the W5000 uses a 256-bit bus width, providing 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The WX 2100, by contrast, is constrained to a 64-bit bus, yielding just 48.00 GB/s. The W5000's memory runs at 800 MHz (3.2 Gbps effective), while the WX 2100's memory operates at 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective) — the higher clock partially compensates for the narrower bus, but the bandwidth gap remains substantial. Clock speeds differ as well: the W5000 has no listed base or boost clock, while the WX 2100 runs at a 925 MHz base and 1219 MHz boost.

API support tells a story of progress. The W5000 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The WX 2100 improves on this with DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. Both cards are single-slot designs with no power connectors, but the power envelope differs dramatically: the W5000 has a 75 W TDP with a suggested 250 W PSU, while the WX 2100 sips just 35 W with a 200 W suggested PSU. The physical dimensions also differ — the W5000 is 183 mm long and 111 mm tall, whereas the WX 2100 is shorter at 168 mm and much lower-profile at 69 mm.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is Geekbench OpenCL, and the results favor the older card. The AMD FirePro W5000 scores 9,803 points, while the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 trails at 8,536 points. This represents a 14.8% advantage for the W5000. That is a decisive margin in a compute-bound workload, demonstrating that the W5000's wider memory bus and higher shader count outweigh the architectural improvements of the newer GCN 4.0 design.

Context from the nearest rival lists clarifies where each card sits in the broader landscape. The W5000's average benchmark score of 9,803 places it at the 47th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 (9,780, a 0.2% delta), the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M (9,832, a -0.3% delta), the NVIDIA Quadro 6000 (9,846, a -0.4% delta), and the NVIDIA Tesla M10 (9,724, a 0.8% delta). This clustering shows the W5000 sits in a tight performance band, effectively matching a consumer GTX 1070 in OpenCL compute while being slightly edged out by the Quadro 6000.

The WX 2100, with an average benchmark score of 9,653, lands at the 46th percentile. Its rival list includes the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M (9,645, a 0.1% delta), NVIDIA Quadro P4000 (9,665, a -0.1% delta), NVIDIA Quadro K5000 (9,637, a 0.2% delta), and NVIDIA Tesla C2070 (9,716, a -0.6% delta). Despite the lower raw score, the WX 2100's delta percentages are tighter, suggesting it competes closely with a different tier of cards — mobile and mid-range workstation parts rather than high-end desktop GPUs.

Notably, the WX 2100 has an additional Geekbench Vulkan score of 10,770, which is not available for the W5000. This suggests the newer card has stronger modern API performance, but without a comparable W5000 Vulkan result, it cannot be directly compared in this head-to-head.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear division of purpose. The AMD FirePro W5000 is the compute leader, delivering a 14.8% higher OpenCL score than its successor. If the workload is heavily compute-bound and relies on OpenCL, the W5000 is the objectively faster card. Its 102.4 GB/s of memory bandwidth versus the WX 2100's 48.00 GB/s is a 2.1x advantage that will matter in memory-intensive tasks like large texture loads or complex scene rendering.

However, the W5000's age shows in its feature set. It lacks FP16 support, has older API versions, and its 75 W TDP is more than double the WX 2100's 35 W. For a low-profile, low-power workstation that prioritizes small size and modern display connectivity, the WX 2100 is the pragmatic choice. It offers DisplayPort 1.4a outputs (one standard, two mini) compared to the W5000's older 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2 configuration. The WX 2100 also supports Vulkan 1.3 versus 1.2.170, which may be relevant for upcoming software.

The percentile rankings are nearly identical — 47th for the W5000 versus 46th for the WX 2100 — indicating that in the grand scheme of all GPUs, they occupy the same performance tier. The specific benchmark wins, however, are entirely one-sided: the W5000 wins 1 benchmark, the WX 2100 wins 0. For raw compute, the older card is the answer. For everything else, the newer card offers a more modern package.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The AMD FirePro W5000 scores 9,803, which is 14.8% higher than the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100's 8,536.

Q: Are both cards single-slot designs?

A: Yes. Both the AMD FirePro W5000 and the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 are listed as single-slot cards with no power connectors required.

Q: What is the difference in memory bandwidth?

A: The FirePro W5000 has a 256-bit bus providing 102.4 GB/s, while the Radeon Pro WX 2100 has a 64-bit bus providing 48.00 GB/s — a 2.1x advantage for the W5000.

Q: Does the Radeon Pro WX 2100 support half-precision compute?

A: Yes. The WX 2100 offers FP16 performance at 1,248.3 GFLOPS (1:1), a feature the FirePro W5000 does not list.

Q: Which card has a higher transistor density?

A: The Radeon Pro WX 2100 achieves 21.4M transistors per mm² on its 103 mm² die, compared to the FirePro W5000's 13.2M per mm² on a 212 mm² die.

Q: What are the TDP ratings for each card?

A: The FirePro W5000 has a 75 W TDP with a suggested 250 W PSU, while the Radeon Pro WX 2100 has a 35 W TDP with a suggested 200 W PSU.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD FirePro W5000 wins decisively in raw compute benchmarks. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 9,803 is 14.8% ahead of the WX 2100's 8,536, making it the superior choice for OpenCL-accelerated workloads that can leverage its 768 shading units and 102.4 GB/s memory bandwidth. The W5000 also has a wider 256-bit memory bus, which is advantageous for tasks that stream large datasets. Its pixel rate of 26.40 GPixel/s and texture rate of 39.60 GTexel/s are both higher than the WX 2100's 19.50 GPixel/s and 39.01 GTexel/s, respectively, indicating faster rasterization and texture fill in compatible scenarios.

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 wins on efficiency and modern features. Its 35 W TDP is less than half the W5000's 75 W, making it ideal for compact or thermally constrained systems. It supports FP16 compute at 1:1 ratio, which the W5000 lacks entirely. The WX 2100 also has newer display outputs — 1x DisplayPort 1.4a and 2x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a — compared to the W5000's 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2, enabling higher refresh rates or resolutions on modern monitors. Its Vulkan 1.3 support is a generation ahead of the W5000's 1.2.170, and it holds a 10,770 Vulkan benchmark score, a figure the W5000 cannot match. The WX 2100's 14 nm process node and smaller 103 mm² die also suggest better manufacturing efficiency, even if that does not translate to higher compute scores.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ on nearly every core specification. The chip design is different: Pitcairn (GCN 1.0) for the W5000 versus Lexa (GCN 4.0) for the WX 2100. The process node shifts from 28 nm (TSMC) to 14 nm (GlobalFoundries), with transistor counts of 2,800 million versus 2,200 million and die sizes of 212 mm² versus 103 mm² — a transistor density of 13.2M / mm² versus 21.4M / mm².

Clock speeds are listed only for the WX 2100, with a 925 MHz base and 1219 MHz boost; the W5000 has no base or boost figures. Memory clocks differ: the W5000 runs at 800 MHz (3.2 Gbps effective) while the WX 2100 runs at 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective). Memory bus width is 256-bit for the W5000 versus 64-bit for the WX 2100, resulting in bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s versus 48.00 GB/s. Shading units are 768 versus 512, TMUs are 48 versus 32, and ROPs are 32 versus 16. Pixel rate is 26.40 GPixel/s versus 19.50 GPixel/s, while texture rate is 39.60 GTexel/s versus 39.01 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 1,267.2 GFLOPS versus 1,248.3 GFLOPS, with FP16 only available on the WX 2100 at 1,248.3 GFLOPS (1:1).

TDP is 75 W versus 35 W, with suggested PSU ratings of 250 W versus 200 W. The bus interface is PCIe 3.0 x16 for the W5000 and PCIe 3.0 x8 for the WX 2100. Display outputs are 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2 versus 1x DisplayPort 1.4a and 2x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a. API support: DirectX 12 (11_1) versus 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6 for both, and Vulkan 1.2.170 versus 1.3. Dimensions are 183 mm x 111 mm versus 168 mm x 69 mm. The release dates are 2012-08-06 versus 2017-06-03, and both are marked end-of-life. The launch MSRP is 599 USD for the W5000 and 149 USD for the WX 2100.