AMD FirePro W600 vs AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available in the database is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 takes a clear victory. It scores 7,333 points against the FirePro W600's 6,223 points, a lead of 17.8%. This is not a marginal difference; it represents a substantial generational leap in raw compute throughput.

Context from the nearest rivals strengthens this picture. The Radeon Pro WX 3100 sits at the 41st percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 7,580. Its closest competitor in the database is the AMD Radeon R7 250, which averages 7,557, a delta of just 0.3%. The Intel Arc A310 is similarly close at 7,550, a 0.4% gap. The WX 3100 also edges out the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650, which averages 7,472, putting the AMD card 1.4% ahead. Only the AMD Radeon 540 scores higher among its listed rivals, at 7,673, a 1.2% advantage over the WX 3100. These figures place the WX 3100 in a tightly contested mid-range bracket, but one where it holds its own against several modern competitors.

The FirePro W600, by contrast, sits at the 36th percentile, with an average score of 6,223. Its nearest rival, the AMD Radeon HD 6950, averages 6,210, a difference of only 0.2%. Interestingly, both the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti SUPER appear in its rival list with identical average scores of 6,270, each 0.7% ahead of the W600. The NVIDIA Quadro K620 is 0.9% ahead at 6,282. The fact that the W600's rivals include such modern, high-end cards is a quirk of the database's scoring, but it does highlight that the W600's raw score is closer to older mid-range parts than to any contemporary flagship.

The 17.8% delta between the two cards in the head-to-head is significant because it is consistent across the entire architecture. The WX 3100 does not just win in one niche; it wins in the single most general compute benchmark recorded, and it wins by a wide margin. The FirePro W600's best case in this comparison is that it is competitive with cards from its own era, but against the newer Radeon Pro part, it is clearly outclassed.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 has an average benchmark score of 7,580, while the AMD FirePro W600 averages 6,223. The WX 3100 ranks at the 41st percentile among all GPUs, compared to the W600's 36th percentile.

Q: How much faster is the WX 3100 in OpenCL compute?

A: In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the WX 3100 scores 7,333 versus the W600's 6,223, a 17.8% advantage. This is the only head-to-head benchmark recorded in the database.

Q: Do both cards support the same DirectX version?

A: No. The Radeon Pro WX 3100 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the FirePro W600 supports DirectX 12 (11_1). The WX 3100 also supports Vulkan 1.3, whereas the W600 supports Vulkan 1.2.170.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The WX 3100 has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 96.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The W600 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on the same 128-bit bus, but only 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: Which card has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The WX 3100 has a pixel rate of 19.50 GPixel/s, while the W600 has 12.00 GPixel/s. The WX 3100 also leads in texture rate at 39.01 GTexel/s versus 24.00 GTexel/s.

Q: Are both cards still in production?

A: No. Both are listed as end-of-life products. The WX 3100 was released later and is part of the Radeon Pro Polaris generation, while the W600 belongs to the FirePro GCN generation.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different eras of AMD's GPU design. The Radeon Pro WX 3100 uses the Lexa chip built on GCN 4.0 architecture, fabricated by GlobalFoundries on a 14 nm process. The FirePro W600 uses the Cape Verde chip with GCN 1.0 architecture, fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process. This process shrink is a major factor in the performance gap.

The transistor counts reflect the generational difference. The WX 3100 packs 2,200 million transistors into a die size of 103 mm², giving a transistor density of 21.4M per mm². The W600 has 1,500 million transistors on a larger 123 mm² die, resulting in a lower density of 12.2M per mm². The newer chip is both denser and more efficient per square millimeter.

Core counts are identical on paper: both have 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. However, the clock speeds differ dramatically. The WX 3100 has a base clock of 925 MHz and a boost clock of 1,219 MHz. The W600's base and boost clocks are not recorded in the database, but its memory clock is 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective), compared to the WX 3100's 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective). The higher clocks on the WX 3100 translate directly into its superior pixel rate of 19.50 GPixel/s versus 12.00 GPixel/s, and texture rate of 39.01 GTexel/s versus 24.00 GTexel/s.

The FP32 compute figures tell the same story. The WX 3100 delivers 1,248.3 GFLOPS, while the W600 manages 768.0 GFLOPS. The WX 3100 also records FP16 performance at 1,248.3 GFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, while the W600 has no FP16 data listed. This suggests the newer architecture has better support for reduced-precision workloads.

API support also differs. The WX 3100 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The W600 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. While both handle modern APIs, the WX 3100 has a more complete feature set for current software.

Memory architecture is another point of divergence. The WX 3100 has 4 GB of GDDR5 with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth, while the W600 has 2 GB with 64.00 GB/s. Both use a 128-bit bus, so the bandwidth difference comes from the faster memory clock on the newer card. The WX 3100's larger frame buffer is a clear advantage for modern workloads.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 | AMD FirePro W600 |

|----------------------|-------------------------|------------------|

| Chip | Lexa | Cape Verde |

| Architecture | GCN 4.0 | GCN 1.0 |

| Process node | 14 nm | 28 nm |

| Foundry | GlobalFoundries | TSMC |

| Transistors | 2,200 million | 1,500 million |

| Die size | 103 mm² | 123 mm² |

| Transistor density | 21.4M / mm² | 12.2M / mm² |

| Base clock | 925 MHz | Not recorded |

| Boost clock | 1,219 MHz | Not recorded |

| Memory clock | 1500 MHz, 6 Gbps effective | 1000 MHz, 4 Gbps effective |

| Memory size | 4 GB | 2 GB |

| Memory bandwidth | 96.00 GB/s | 64.00 GB/s |

| Pixel rate | 19.50 GPixel/s | 12.00 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 39.01 GTexel/s | 24.00 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 1,248.3 GFLOPS | 768.0 GFLOPS |

| FP16 | 1,248.3 GFLOPS (1:1) | Not recorded |

| TDP | 65 W | 75 W |

| Bus interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| Display outputs | 1x DisplayPort 1.4a, 2x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a | 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 |

| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 (11_1) |

| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.2.170 |

| Height | 69 mm (2.7 inches) | 111 mm (4.4 inches) |

| Width | Not recorded | 20 mm (0.8 inches) |

| Release date | 2017-06-11 | 2012-06-12 |

| Launch MSRP | 199 USD | 599 USD |

Both cards are single-slot, have no power connectors, and share a suggested PSU of 250 W. The WX 3100 has a lower TDP of 65 W despite being faster, a direct benefit of the 14 nm process. The W600 is taller at 111 mm versus 69 mm, and adds a width dimension of 20 mm, which may affect chassis compatibility. The W600 offers six mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, while the WX 3100 offers one DisplayPort 1.4a and two mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, a difference relevant for multi-monitor setups.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear conclusion: the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 is the superior card in nearly every measurable way. It wins the only head-to-head benchmark by 17.8%, has a higher average benchmark score (7,580 versus 6,223), a higher percentile ranking (41st versus 36th), double the memory capacity, and roughly 62% more FP32 compute (1,248.3 GFLOPS versus 768.0 GFLOPS). It is also more power-efficient, with a 65 W TDP versus 75 W, despite being built on a smaller process node.

The only area where the FirePro W600 holds an advantage is in display outputs. Its six mini-DisplayPort 1.2 connections outnumber the WX 3100's three outputs. For a user driving a large array of monitors, the W600 might still have a niche purpose. It also has a wider PCIe interface (x16 versus x8), though the practical impact of this depends on the workload.

For compute performance, the WX 3100 is the obvious choice. Its lead in OpenCL, memory bandwidth, and clock speeds makes it the stronger card for any GPU-accelerated task. The fact that it achieves this with a lower TDP and a lower launch MSRP (199 USD versus 599 USD) reinforces its position, though pricing is not the focus here.

The W600's release in 2012 and its GCN 1.0 architecture place it firmly in an older generation. Its 2 GB memory is a limitation for modern datasets, and its 64.00 GB/s bandwidth is a bottleneck compared to the WX 3100's 96.00 GB/s. The percentile gap, 36th versus 41st, is modest, but the head-to-head delta of 17.8% is decisive.

Where Each One Wins

The Radeon Pro WX 3100 wins in compute-heavy scenarios. Its OpenCL score of 7,333 against 6,223 is the clearest indicator. For tasks like rendering, simulation, or any workload that stresses FP32 throughput, the WX 3100's 1,248.3 GFLOPS versus 768.0 GFLOPS gives it a commanding lead. The larger 4 GB frame buffer and higher 96.00 GB/s bandwidth also make it better suited for larger textures and datasets.

The WX 3100 also wins on efficiency. Its 65 W TDP is lower than the W600's 75 W, and it delivers more performance per watt thanks to the 14 nm process. For systems with limited power budgets or thermal constraints, this is a meaningful advantage.

The FirePro W600 wins in one specific scenario: multi-monitor output. With six mini-DisplayPort 1.2 connections, it can drive more displays simultaneously than the WX 3100's three outputs. For a workstation dedicated to monitoring, signage, or any application requiring many independent displays, the W600's output configuration is unmatched in this comparison.

The W600 also has a wider PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, which could be relevant for bandwidth-sensitive applications that rely on host-device transfers. However, the database does not include a benchmark that isolates this factor, so its practical benefit remains unquantified.

For users prioritizing raw compute, modern API support, memory capacity, and power efficiency, the Radeon Pro WX 3100 is the clear winner. For users whose primary need is driving six displays from a single card, the FirePro W600 retains a narrow but real advantage.