AMD Radeon 540 vs AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 Comparison

The AMD Radeon 540 and AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 are both end-of-life, entry-level discrete GPUs built on the same 14 nm Lexa chip and GCN 4.0 architecture, yet they are configured very differently. The Radeon 540 is a stripped-down, low-power part with a 32-bit memory bus, while the Pro WX 3100 is a fuller implementation with quadruple the memory and a 128-bit bus. Benchmark results show a split decision: the Pro WX 3100 dominates in OpenCL compute, while the Radeon 540 counters with a significant win in Vulkan performance, making the choice between them entirely dependent on the target workload.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon 540 has a slightly higher average benchmark score of 7673, compared to 7580 for the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100, a margin of 1.2% in favor of the Radeon 540.

Q: How do the two cards compare in OpenCL performance?

A: The Radeon Pro WX 3100 is clearly ahead, scoring 7333 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 6184 for the Radeon 540. This represents a 15.7% advantage for the Pro WX 3100, making it the stronger choice for compute-heavy OpenCL workloads.

Q: Which card wins in Vulkan benchmarks?

A: The Radeon 540 takes a decisive win in Geekbench Vulkan, scoring 9162 against the Pro WX 3100's 7827. The 17.1% delta in favor of the Radeon 540 is the largest performance gap between the two in any test.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The Radeon 540 has 1024 MB of GDDR5 memory on a 32-bit bus, yielding 24.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The Radeon Pro WX 3100 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, providing 96.00 GB/s, which is four times the capacity and bandwidth.

Q: Do the cards share the same physical dimensions and power requirements?

A: Both are single-slot cards with no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 250 W. However, the Radeon 540 has a TDP of 50 W, while the Pro WX 3100 draws 65 W. The Pro WX 3100 is also physically longer at 168 mm (6.6 inches) and taller at 69 mm (2.7 inches), with the Radeon 540's dimensions not specified.

Q: Are the display outputs different?

A: Yes. The Radeon 540 offers 2x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, while the Radeon Pro WX 3100 provides 1x DisplayPort 1.4a and 2x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a, giving it more connectivity options for multi-monitor setups.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear bifurcation. For users prioritizing raw compute throughput in OpenCL applications, the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 is the definitive pick. Its 7333 OpenCL score beats the Radeon 540 by 15.7%, and its 4 GB memory and 96.00 GB/s bandwidth offer a substantial buffer for larger datasets than the 540's 1 GB and 24.00 GB/s can handle. This card is also the only one of the pair with a launch MSRP of 199 USD.

Conversely, for workloads that leverage Vulkan, the AMD Radeon 540 is the superior performer. Its 9162 Vulkan score is 17.1% higher than the Pro WX 3100's, and its average benchmark score of 7673 edges out the Pro WX 3100 by 1.2%. The Radeon 540 also consumes less power (50 W TDP vs 65 W) and offers dual DisplayPort outputs. Buyers should pick the Radeon 540 for Vulkan-centric tasks or when power efficiency and dual-display output are priorities, and the Pro WX 3100 for OpenCL compute and memory-heavy workloads where its larger frame buffer and faster memory are decisive.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results show a perfect 1-1 split, with each card claiming victory in a distinct API. The most significant win for the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 comes in the Geekbench OpenCL test. Here, the Pro WX 3100 scores 7333 against the Radeon 540's 6184, a delta of -15.7% from the Radeon 540's perspective. This is a substantial margin that aligns with the Pro WX 3100's superior hardware configuration, including more shading units and memory bandwidth. In practical terms, this suggests the Pro WX 3100 is over 15% faster in OpenCL compute tasks, which is critical for rendering and productivity applications that rely on this API.

The AMD Radeon 540 answers back decisively in the Geekbench Vulkan test. It posts a score of 9162, which is significantly higher than the Pro WX 3100's 7827. This 17.1% advantage is the largest single gap in the comparison, flipping the script on the OpenCL result. Given that Vulkan is a modern, low-overhead API used in gaming and some compute workloads, the Radeon 540's strong showing here indicates that its architecture is more efficient in this context, despite having fewer resources on paper. The average benchmark scores reflect this split, with the Radeon 540 at 7673 and the Pro WX 3100 at 7580. The nearest rival data reinforces the closeness of this matchup: the Radeon 540 sits just 0.6% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti (7723) and 1.2% ahead of the Pro WX 3100, while the Pro WX 3100 is 0.3% ahead of the AMD Radeon R7 250 (7557) and 1.4% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (7472).

Specification Differences

The two cards differ sharply in core and memory specifications, despite sharing the same chip. The Radeon Pro WX 3100 has 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs, while the Radeon 540 is cut down to 384 shading units and 24 TMUs, keeping the same 16 ROPs. This configuration gives the Pro WX 3100 a texture rate of 39.01 GTexel/s and a pixel rate of 19.50 GPixel/s, compared to 28.39 GTexel/s and 18.93 GPixel/s for the Radeon 540. The FP32 performance follows suit: the Pro WX 3100 delivers 1,248.3 GFLOPS versus 908.5 GFLOPS for the Radeon 540, a difference of over 37%.

Memory is where the gap widens further. The Radeon 540 ships with 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 32-bit bus, resulting in 24.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The Radeon Pro WX 3100 quadruples this with 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, achieving 96.00 GB/s. This is a 4x increase in both capacity and bandwidth, which is the single largest specification difference and a key driver of its OpenCL advantage. Clock speeds also differ: the Pro WX 3100 has a base clock of 925 MHz and a boost of 1219 MHz, whereas the Radeon 540's base and boost clocks are not specified. Both cards run memory at 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective). The TDPs are 50 W for the Radeon 540 and 65 W for the Pro WX 3100. Display outputs differ as well, with the Radeon 540 offering 2x DisplayPort 1.4a and the Pro WX 3100 offering 1x DisplayPort 1.4a plus 2x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a. The Pro WX 3100 has a defined length of 168 mm (6.6 inches) and height of 69 mm (2.7 inches), while the Radeon 540's dimensions are not listed. Both use a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface and have no power connectors, with a suggested PSU of 250 W.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built on the same fundamental architecture, which makes their performance differences purely a matter of configuration rather than design generation. They share the Lexa chip, fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries, with 2,200 million transistors on a 103 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 21.4M / mm². The architecture is GCN 4.0, and both belong to the Polaris generation, though they are in different product lines: the Radeon 540 is in the "Polaris (RX 500)" generation, while the Pro WX 3100 is in the "Radeon Pro Polaris (WX x100)" generation. The predecessor and successor names differ, with the Radeon 540 succeeding "Arctic Islands" and leading to "Vega," while the Pro WX 3100 succeeds "Radeon Pro GCN" and leads to "Radeon Pro Vega."

The architectural feature set is identical: both support DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. Neither card has ray tracing cores or tensor cores. The FP16 performance is equal to FP32 for both, at 908.5 GFLOPS for the Radeon 540 and 1,248.3 GFLOPS for the Pro WX 3100, both at a 1:1 ratio. The release dates differ slightly, with the Radeon 540 launching on 2017-04-19 and the Pro WX 3100 on 2017-06-11. The key architectural takeaway is that the Radeon 540 is a heavily cut-down version of the same silicon, with one-third fewer shading units and a memory interface that is a quarter of the width. This explains why the Pro WX 3100 excels in bandwidth-sensitive compute tasks, while the Radeon 540's higher Vulkan score suggests its reduced configuration is better optimized for that specific API path, or that clock behavior differs in ways not fully captured by the listed specs.