AMD FirePro W5100 vs AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 Comparison

The AMD FirePro W5100 and AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 are both professional workstation graphics cards from AMD, separated by five years of architectural evolution. The data shows a close contest, with the older FirePro W5100 holding a slight edge in the recorded compute benchmark, while the newer Radeon Pro WX 3200 brings a much more modern feature set and efficiency profile. This analysis breaks down the recorded measurements to determine which card is better suited for specific workloads.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available in the database is the Geekbench OpenCL test. In this test, the AMD FirePro W5100 scores 11888 points, while the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 scores 11228 points. This gives the FirePro W5100 a 5.9% advantage in raw compute performance, a clear but not overwhelming margin.

Looking at the broader benchmark context, the FirePro W5100 also has a recorded Vulkan score of 13805 in the database, which is 16.1% higher than its own OpenCL result. The Radeon Pro WX 3200 has no Vulkan score recorded, so a direct comparison in that API is not possible from the data available.

The average benchmark score for each card tells a similar story. The FirePro W5100 averages 12847 points across its recorded tests, which places it at the 52nd percentile of all GPUs in the database. The Radeon Pro WX 3200 averages 11228 points, placing it at the 50th percentile. This 14.4% difference in average scores highlights that the FirePro W5100 is the stronger compute performer, but the WX 3200 sits almost exactly at the median of all recorded graphics cards.

Examining the nearest rivals provides additional context. The FirePro W5100's average score of 12847 puts it within 0.2% of the AMD Radeon 740M (which scores 12870), and it leads the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670 by 0.6% (12773 points). The Radeon Pro WX 3200, with its 11228 average, is essentially tied with the AMD FirePro W4300 (11225 points, 0% delta) and trails the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M by just 0.3% (11261 points). Interestingly, the WX 3200 leads the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q by 1.3%, though that comparison involves a mobile workstation part with a different performance profile.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two cards is substantial. The FirePro W5100 uses the Bonaire chip based on GCN 2.0 architecture, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It contains 2,080 million transistors on a 160 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 13.0 million transistors per mm². The Radeon Pro WX 3200 uses the Polaris 23 chip based on GCN 4.0 architecture, built on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It packs 2,200 million transistors onto a much smaller 103 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 21.4 million per mm². This represents a 64.6% improvement in density, reflecting the newer manufacturing process.

The compute unit configurations differ significantly. The FirePro W5100 has 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 16 raster operation units (ROPs). The Radeon Pro WX 3200 has fewer shading units (640) and TMUs (32), but retains the same 16 ROPs. Despite having fewer stream processors, the WX 3200 achieves higher peak pixel rate: 20.72 GPixel/s compared to 14.88 GPixel/s for the FirePro W5100. This is a 39.2% advantage in pixel throughput, likely due to higher effective clock speeds on the newer part.

Texture rate tells a different story. The FirePro W5100 reaches 44.64 GTexel/s, while the WX 3200 manages 41.44 GTexel/s, a 7.7% advantage for the older card. In floating-point performance, the FirePro W5100 delivers 1,428.5 GFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the WX 3200 achieves 1.658 TFLOPS (equivalent to 1,658 GFLOPS). This means the WX 3200 is about 16.1% faster in raw FP32 throughput. Notably, the WX 3200 also supports FP16 at a 1:1 ratio (1.658 TFLOPS), whereas the FirePro W5100 has no recorded FP16 capability.

Memory configurations are identical in capacity and type: both cards have 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, with 96.00 GB/s of bandwidth and memory clocked at 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective). The power envelopes differ considerably. The FirePro W5100 has a 50 W TDP with no power connectors required, while the Radeon Pro WX 3200 has a 65 W TDP, also with no power connectors. Both recommend a 250 W power supply. The WX 3200 delivers its higher compute performance at a 30% higher power draw, which is a reasonable trade-off.

The bus interface also differs: the FirePro W5100 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the WX 3200 uses PCIe 3.0 x8. This halving of the bus lanes could impact data transfer in bandwidth-heavy workloads, though the practical effect depends on the specific application. Display outputs are another point of differentiation. The FirePro W5100 provides 4x DisplayPort 1.2, while the WX 3200 offers 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a. The newer DisplayPort 1.4a standard supports higher resolutions and refresh rates than DisplayPort 1.2.

API support shows a generational leap. Both cards support DirectX 12 (12_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but the Vulkan support differs: the FirePro W5100 supports Vulkan 1.2.170, while the WX 3200 supports Vulkan 1.3. The newer Vulkan version brings improved performance and features in modern applications. Physical dimensions also vary: the FirePro W5100 measures 173 mm in length and 111 mm in height, while the WX 3200 is shorter at 167 mm and much shorter in height at 69 mm, making it a more compact card for space-constrained systems.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear split. For raw compute performance in OpenCL, the AMD FirePro W5100 wins with a 5.9% advantage in the head-to-head benchmark and a 14.4% higher average score across all recorded tests. Its 768 shading units and higher texture rate make it the stronger choice for compute-heavy workloads that are not limited by pixel throughput.

However, the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 wins on architecture and efficiency. It delivers 16.1% higher FP32 performance, 39.2% higher pixel rate, and adds FP16 support at 1:1 ratio. It uses a more modern 14 nm process with 64.6% higher transistor density, supports Vulkan 1.3, and offers DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. Its compact dimensions (167 mm length, 69 mm height) make it easier to fit in small form factor systems.

The verdict depends on the workload. Applications that stress OpenCL compute and texture operations will favor the FirePro W5100. Applications that benefit from pixel throughput, FP16 arithmetic, or the latest display standards will favor the Radeon Pro WX 3200. The WX 3200 also carries a launch MSRP of 199 USD, though the database records no launch price for the FirePro W5100.

FAQ

Q: Which card has better overall compute performance?

A: The AMD FirePro W5100. It scores 11888 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 11228 for the Radeon Pro WX 3200, a 5.9% advantage. Its average benchmark score of 12847 also exceeds the WX 3200's 11228.

Q: Does the Radeon Pro WX 3200 have any performance advantages?

A: Yes. It delivers 1.658 TFLOPS of FP32 compute versus 1,428.5 GFLOPS for the FirePro W5100 (16.1% higher), and its pixel rate of 20.72 GPixel/s is 39.2% higher than the FirePro W5100's 14.88 GPixel/s.

Q: How do their memory systems compare?

A: They are identical. Both cards feature 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, with 96.00 GB/s of bandwidth and memory running at 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective).

Q: What architectural generation gap separates these cards?

A: The FirePro W5100 uses GCN 2.0 on a 28 nm process, while the Radeon Pro WX 3200 uses GCN 4.0 on a 14 nm process. The newer process allows 21.4M transistors per mm² versus 13.0M per mm² for the older card.

Q: Do these cards support the same display outputs?

A: No. The FirePro W5100 has 4x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, while the Radeon Pro WX 3200 has 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The DisplayPort 1.4a standard is newer and supports higher bandwidth.

Q: Which card has higher power requirements?

A: The Radeon Pro WX 3200 has a 65 W TDP, which is 30% higher than the FirePro W5100's 50 W TDP. Neither card requires external power connectors, and both recommend a 250 W power supply.

Where Each One Wins

Compute and Texture Workloads: The AMD FirePro W5100 wins here. Its 5.9% lead in Geekbench OpenCL and 7.7% advantage in texture rate (44.64 GTexel/s versus 41.44 GTexel/s) make it the better choice for OpenCL compute tasks and texture-heavy rendering. Its 768 shading units provide more parallel execution paths than the WX 3200's 640. The 52nd percentile ranking versus the WX 3200's 50th percentile confirms its stronger overall position in the database.

Pixel-Intensive and Modern API Workloads: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 excels here. Its 20.72 GPixel/s pixel rate is 39.2% higher than the FirePro W5100's 14.88 GPixel/s, making it better suited for high-resolution rasterization and pixel-heavy effects. Its support for FP16 at 1:1 ratio (1.658 TFLOPS) enables accelerated half-precision compute, which the FirePro W5100 lacks entirely.

Efficiency and Density: The Radeon Pro WX 3200 wins on manufacturing efficiency. Its 14 nm process achieves 21.4M transistors per mm², a 64.6% improvement over the FirePro W5100's 13.0M per mm². It delivers 16.1% more FP32 performance despite having 16.7% fewer shading units, demonstrating the architectural efficiency of GCN 4.0.

Display Connectivity: The Radeon Pro WX 3200 wins with DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, which support higher resolutions and refresh rates than the FirePro W5100's DisplayPort 1.2. Its compact dimensions (167 mm length, 69 mm height) also make it easier to install in small chassis compared to the FirePro W5100's 173 mm by 111 mm footprint.

Legacy Compatibility: The FirePro W5100 offers a full PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, double the lane width of the WX 3200's PCIe 3.0 x8. For systems with older motherboards or workloads that transfer large datasets over the bus, this could provide an advantage, though the database does not include specific bandwidth benchmarks to quantify the impact.