AMD FirePro W5170M vs AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded benchmark data shows a clear overall winner in the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100, which takes both head-to-head tests. The largest margin comes in the Geekbench Vulkan test, where the WX 2100 scores 10,770 against the FirePro W5170M's 9,050, a 19% advantage. This is a substantial gap in a modern graphics API workload, indicating that the newer architecture handles Vulkan far more efficiently.

In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the WX 2100 again leads, scoring 8,536 versus 8,140 for the W5170M, a 4.9% difference. While smaller than the Vulkan gap, this result still favors the Radeon Pro WX 2100 in compute-oriented tasks. The data shows two wins for the WX 2100 and zero for the FirePro W5170M.

Looking at the broader database context, the WX 2100's average benchmark score is 9,653, placing it at the 46th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals are tightly clustered: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M (9,645, 0.1% behind), the NVIDIA Quadro P4000 (9,665, 0.1% ahead), the NVIDIA Quadro K5000 (9,637, 0.2% behind), and the NVIDIA Tesla C2070 (9,716, 0.6% ahead). This means the WX 2100 sits in a competitive band where performance differences between these cards are negligible, within a fraction of a percent.

The FirePro W5170M, by contrast, posts an average benchmark score of 8,595, which lands at the 44th percentile. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Arc A380 (8,558, 0.4% behind), the NVIDIA Quadro P2200 (8,686, 1.1% ahead), the AMD Radeon HD 8870M (8,462, 1.6% behind), and the NVIDIA GeForce MX330 (8,458, 1.6% behind). The W5170M is therefore roughly 12% slower than the WX 2100 in average score, a difference that is more pronounced than any single rival gap for either card.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different generations of AMD's Graphics Core Next design. The Radeon Pro WX 2100 uses the Lexa chip, built on GCN 4.0 architecture and manufactured on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The FirePro W5170M uses the Tropo chip, based on GCN 1.0 architecture and fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. This process node difference is significant: 14 nm versus 28 nm allows the newer chip to pack more transistors into a smaller area.

The WX 2100 contains 2,200 million transistors on a 103 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 21.4 million per square millimeter. The W5170M has 1,500 million transistors on a larger 123 mm² die, resulting in just 12.2 million per square millimeter. The newer process gives the WX 2100 nearly double the transistor density, which contributes to its higher clock speeds and efficiency.

Clock speeds also differ. The WX 2100 runs at a base clock of 925 MHz with a boost up to 1,219 MHz, while the W5170M operates at 900 MHz base and 925 MHz boost. The boost clock advantage of nearly 300 MHz is substantial and helps explain the WX 2100's lead in both benchmarks. Memory clocks follow a similar pattern: the WX 2100 uses 1,500 MHz (6 Gbps effective), while the W5170M runs at 1,125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective).

The memory subsystem differs in bus width. The WX 2100 has a 64-bit bus with 48.00 GB/s bandwidth, while the W5170M has a 128-bit bus with 72.00 GB/s bandwidth. Despite the narrower bus, the WX 2100's higher memory clock partially compensates, though the W5170M still offers more raw bandwidth. Both cards have 2 GB of GDDR5 memory.

Compute unit configurations vary as well. The WX 2100 has 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The W5170M has more shading units at 640, and more TMUs at 40, but the same 16 ROPs. Despite having fewer shading units, the WX 2100 achieves higher pixel and texture rates: 19.50 GPixel/s and 39.01 GTexel/s versus 14.80 GPixel/s and 37.00 GTexel/s for the W5170M. The FP32 throughput is also higher on the WX 2100 at 1,248.3 GFLOPS versus 1,184.0 GFLOPS, despite the W5170M's larger shader count.

API support shows generational differences. The WX 2100 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The W5170M supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The newer Vulkan version on the WX 2100 aligns with its 19% lead in the Vulkan benchmark. The WX 2100 also has explicit FP16 support at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, while the W5170M has no recorded FP16 capability.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins more benchmark tests?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 wins both recorded head-to-head tests. It leads by 4.9% in Geekbench OpenCL and by 19% in Geekbench Vulkan.

Q: What explains the large Vulkan performance gap?

A: The WX 2100 supports Vulkan 1.3, while the W5170M only supports Vulkan 1.2.170. The newer architecture, GCN 4.0 versus GCN 1.0, also factors into the 19% difference.

Q: Does the FirePro W5170M have any hardware advantage?

A: Yes, in raw specifications. The W5170M has 640 shading units versus 512, 40 TMUs versus 32, and a 128-bit memory bus offering 72.00 GB/s bandwidth versus 48.00 GB/s. These advantages do not translate into higher benchmark scores.

Q: How do these cards compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The WX 2100 sits within 0.6% of four NVIDIA cards (GTX 960M, Quadro P4000, Quadro K5000, Tesla C2070). The W5170M is within 1.6% of its nearest rivals, including the Intel Arc A380 and NVIDIA Quadro P2200.

Q: What is the production status of both cards?

A: Both are end-of-life products. The WX 2100 was released in June 2017, while the W5170M was released in August 2014.

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The WX 2100 averages 9,653, which is about 12% higher than the W5170M's 8,595. The percentile ranking is 46th for the WX 2100 and 44th for the W5170M.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every major specification category. The process node is 14 nm for the WX 2100 versus 28 nm for the W5170M. Transistor count is 2,200 million versus 1,500 million, with die sizes of 103 mm² versus 123 mm². Transistor density is 21.4M per mm² versus 12.2M per mm².

Clock speeds: the WX 2100 has a base of 925 MHz and boost of 1,219 MHz, while the W5170M has 900 MHz base and 925 MHz boost. Memory clocks are 1,500 MHz (6 Gbps effective) versus 1,125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective). Memory bandwidth is 48.00 GB/s versus 72.00 GB/s, with bus widths of 64-bit versus 128-bit.

Shading units are 512 versus 640, TMUs are 32 versus 40, and ROPs are identical at 16. Pixel rates are 19.50 GPixel/s versus 14.80 GPixel/s, and texture rates are 39.01 GTexel/s versus 37.00 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 1,248.3 GFLOPS versus 1,184.0 GFLOPS. The WX 2100 has FP16 at 1,248.3 GFLOPS (1:1), while the W5170M has none recorded.

Power and form factor: the WX 2100 has a TDP of 35 W, is single-slot, and requires no power connectors with a suggested PSU of 200 W. The W5170M has no recorded TDP, uses an MXM Module form factor, and also has no power connectors. Bus interfaces are PCIe 3.0 x8 for the WX 2100 versus MXM-A (3.0) for the W5170M.

Display outputs: the WX 2100 offers 1x DisplayPort 1.4a and 2x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a, while the W5170M is listed as portable device dependent. The WX 2100 has dimensions of 168 mm (6.6 inches) length and 69 mm (2.7 inches) height; the W5170M has no recorded dimensions.

API support differs in DirectX (12_0 versus 12 (11_1)) and Vulkan (1.3 versus 1.2.170), with OpenGL 4.6 on both. Release dates are June 2017 versus August 2014. The WX 2100 has a recorded launch MSRP of 149 USD; the W5170M has none.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the benchmark data, the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 is the superior performer. It wins both head-to-head tests, holds a higher average benchmark score (9,653 versus 8,595), and ranks at the 46th percentile versus the 44th for the FirePro W5170M. The Vulkan advantage of 19% is particularly decisive for any workload that leverages that API.

The WX 2100 is also the more modern part architecturally. Its GCN 4.0 design on a 14 nm process delivers higher clock speeds and better transistor density. While the W5170M has more shading units and more memory bandwidth, those advantages do not produce higher scores in the recorded tests. The data suggests that the newer architecture more than compensates for the narrower memory bus and smaller shader count.

The FirePro W5170M remains a viable option only in scenarios where its MXM Module form factor is required, since the WX 2100 is a standard single-slot PCIe card. For any user choosing between these two on performance alone, the WX 2100 is the clear pick. Its nearest rivals are all within 0.6% in average score, meaning it competes effectively against a range of NVIDIA professional and mobile cards from the same era.

In contrast, the W5170M's closest competitors include the Intel Arc A380 and NVIDIA Quadro P2200, and it trails the WX 2100 by a meaningful margin. Given that both are end-of-life products, the WX 2100 offers the better balance of compute, graphics API support, and overall benchmark standing. The data does not support choosing the W5170M unless the MXM form factor is a hard requirement.