AMD FirePro W5170M vs AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clear sweep for the AMD FirePro W5170M across the two benchmark tests in the database. In Geekbench OpenCL, the FirePro W5170M scores 8,140 points against 7,333 points for the Radeon Pro WX 3100, a delta of 11% in favor of the older mobile part. The gap widens further in Geekbench Vulkan, where the FirePro W5170M posts 9,050 points versus 7,827 points for the WX 3100, a 15.6% advantage. These are not marginal differences; the FirePro leads by a substantial margin in both compute and graphics API workloads.

Looking at the broader context, the FirePro W5170M sits at the 44th percentile among all GPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 8,595. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Arc A380 at 8,558 (0.4% behind), the NVIDIA Quadro P2200 at 8,686 (1.1% ahead), the AMD Radeon HD 8870M at 8,462 (1.6% behind), and the NVIDIA GeForce MX330 at 8,458 (1.6% behind). The FirePro essentially trades blows with the Arc A380 and Quadro P2200, while clearly outpacing the two lower-tier mobile parts.

The Radeon Pro WX 3100, by comparison, occupies the 41st percentile with an average score of 7,580. Its nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon R7 250 at 7,557 (0.3% behind), the Intel Arc A310 at 7,550 (0.4% behind), the AMD Radeon 540 at 7,673 (1.2% ahead), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 at 7,472 (1.4% behind). The WX 3100 clusters tightly with these entry-level desktop and mobile parts, but it trails the FirePro W5170M by roughly 13.4% on average score.

The head-to-head data is unambiguous: the FirePro W5170M wins both recorded tests, taking 2 wins to 0 for the Radeon Pro WX 3100. The Vulkan result is particularly telling, as a 15.6% lead suggests the older GCN 1.0 architecture retains strong driver optimization or the newer part suffers from a bottleneck in that specific API workload. The OpenCL gap of 11% reinforces the pattern, indicating the FirePro's higher shading unit count and texture unit count translate into real compute advantages despite its older design.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and manufacturing processes. The AMD FirePro W5170M uses the Tropo chip built on GCN 1.0 architecture, fabricated at TSMC on a 28 nm process. It packs 1,500 million transistors into a 123 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.2 million transistors per mm². The Radeon Pro WX 3100, in contrast, uses the Lexa chip with GCN 4.0 architecture, built at GlobalFoundries on a 14 nm process. It contains 2,200 million transistors on a smaller 103 mm² die, achieving a much higher transistor density of 21.4 million transistors per mm².

The core configurations differ significantly. The FirePro W5170M fields 640 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The Radeon Pro WX 3100 has fewer shading units at 512, fewer TMUs at 32, but the same 16 ROPs. Despite having fewer cores, the newer part clocks much higher: the WX 3100 runs at 925 MHz base and 1,219 MHz boost, while the FirePro operates at 900 MHz base and 925 MHz boost. This clock advantage helps the WX 3100 achieve a higher pixel rate of 19.50 GPixel/s versus 14.80 GPixel/s for the FirePro, and a texture rate of 39.01 GTexel/s versus 37.00 GTexel/s.

The FP32 compute figures tell a nuanced story. The FirePro W5170M delivers 1,184.0 GFLOPS, while the WX 3100 achieves 1,248.3 GFLOPS. The newer part also supports FP16 at 1,248.3 GFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, whereas the FirePro has no recorded FP16 capability. The transistor count difference is notable: 2,200 million versus 1,500 million, meaning the WX 3100 packs 46.7% more transistors into a 16.3% smaller die, enabled by the denser 14 nm process.

The API support also separates the two. The FirePro W5170M supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The Radeon Pro WX 3100 offers DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The newer part has a more complete DirectX 12 feature set and a newer Vulkan version, which may explain some of the benchmark differences or point to future-proofing advantages. The WX 3100 also features a more advanced display output configuration with 1x DisplayPort 1.4a and 2x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a, while the FirePro's outputs are listed as portable device dependent.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data shows the FirePro W5170M winning in both recorded tests, but the use-case split requires nuance beyond the raw scores. The FirePro's 11% OpenCL lead and 15.6% Vulkan lead suggest it holds advantages in general-purpose compute and cross-platform graphics workloads. Its higher shading unit count (640 versus 512) and TMU count (40 versus 32) likely contribute to these wins, as more parallel execution units can process more threads simultaneously, even at lower clock speeds.

The Radeon Pro WX 3100, despite losing the head-to-head, has advantages in specific areas. Its higher boost clock of 1,219 MHz versus 925 MHz gives it a peak pixel rate of 19.50 GPixel/s, which is 31.8% higher than the FirePro's 14.80 GPixel/s. This suggests the WX 3100 could be more responsive in fill-rate-bound scenarios such as high-resolution texture mapping or certain rasterization workloads. Its FP32 output of 1,248.3 GFLOPS also edges out the FirePro's 1,184.0 GFLOPS, meaning in pure compute throughput terms, the newer part is slightly faster per clock.

The WX 3100 also offers FP16 performance at 1,248.3 GFLOPS, a feature absent from the FirePro's recorded specifications. Applications that leverage half-precision arithmetic, such as certain machine learning inference or image processing tasks, would benefit from this capability. The 4 GB memory capacity, double the FirePro's 2 GB, allows the WX 3100 to handle larger datasets and textures without spilling to system memory. Its memory bandwidth of 96.00 GB/s versus 72.00 GB/s for the FirePro further supports memory-intensive workloads.

In practical terms, the FirePro W5170M appears better suited for compute-heavy professional tasks where its additional shading units and TMUs can be fully utilized, as evidenced by its benchmark wins. The Radeon Pro WX 3100, with its newer architecture, higher clocks, larger memory pool, and faster memory bandwidth, may be preferable for modern workloads that require larger working sets or leverage newer API features. The Vulkan 1.3 support on the WX 3100, versus 1.2.170 on the FirePro, could matter for applications built around the latest Vulkan extensions.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every major specification category. The process node shifts from 28 nm (TSMC) on the FirePro to 14 nm (GlobalFoundries) on the WX 3100. Transistor count rises from 1,500 million to 2,200 million, while die size shrinks from 123 mm² to 103 mm². Transistor density nearly doubles from 12.2M per mm² to 21.4M per mm².

Clock speeds are substantially higher on the newer part: base clock rises from 900 MHz to 925 MHz, boost clock from 925 MHz to 1,219 MHz, and memory clock from 1,125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective) to 1,500 MHz (6 Gbps effective). Memory capacity doubles from 2 GB to 4 GB, while bus width stays at 128 bit. Memory bandwidth improves from 72.00 GB/s to 96.00 GB/s.

The compute configuration changes with shading units dropping from 640 to 512, TMUs dropping from 40 to 32, and ROPs remaining at 16. Pixel rate rises from 14.80 GPixel/s to 19.50 GPixel/s, while texture rate rises from 37.00 GTexel/s to 39.01 GTexel/s. FP32 output increases slightly from 1,184.0 GFLOPS to 1,248.3 GFLOPS, and the WX 3100 adds FP16 at 1,248.3 GFLOPS where the FirePro has none.

The TDP is specified at 65 W for the WX 3100, with no TDP recorded for the FirePro. Slot width changes from MXM Module on the FirePro to Single-slot on the WX 3100. The bus interface moves from MXM-A (3.0) to PCIe 3.0 x8. The WX 3100 has defined dimensions of 168 mm length and 69 mm height, while the FirePro has no recorded dimensions. Display outputs shift from portable device dependent to 1x DisplayPort 1.4a and 2x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a. The WX 3100 has a suggested PSU of 250 W, while the FirePro has none.

API support differs in DirectX version (12 (11_1) versus 12 (12_0)) and Vulkan version (1.2.170 versus 1.3). Release dates are separated by nearly three years: August 2014 for the FirePro and June 2017 for the WX 3100. The FirePro's predecessor is FirePro Mobility and its successor is Radeon Pro Mobile; the WX 3100's predecessor is Radeon Pro GCN and its successor is Radeon Pro Vega. The WX 3100 has a launch MSRP of 199 USD, while the FirePro has no recorded MSRP.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins in OpenCL performance?

A: The AMD FirePro W5170M wins with a score of 8,140 points versus 7,333 points for the Radeon Pro WX 3100, a delta of 11% in favor of the FirePro.

Q: How large is the Vulkan performance gap?

A: The FirePro W5170M scores 9,050 points in Geekbench Vulkan, while the Radeon Pro WX 3100 scores 7,827 points. The FirePro leads by 15.6%.

Q: Does the Radeon Pro WX 3100 have any advantages in raw specifications?

A: Yes, the WX 3100 has a higher boost clock (1,219 MHz versus 925 MHz), more memory (4 GB versus 2 GB), higher memory bandwidth (96.00 GB/s versus 72.00 GB/s), and higher FP32 output (1,248.3 GFLOPS versus 1,184.0 GFLOPS).

Q: What architecture does each GPU use?

A: The FirePro W5170M uses GCN 1.0 with the Tropo chip on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The Radeon Pro WX 3100 uses GCN 4.0 with the Lexa chip on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries.

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

A: The FirePro W5170M has an average benchmark score of 8,595, putting it 0.4% ahead of the Intel Arc A380 and 1.1% behind the NVIDIA Quadro P2200. The Radeon Pro WX 3100 averages 7,580, placing it 0.3% ahead of the AMD Radeon R7 250 and 1.2% behind the AMD Radeon 540.

Q: Which GPU has better API support?

A: The Radeon Pro WX 3100 supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3, while the FirePro W5170M supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170. Both support OpenGL 4.6.