AMD Radeon 880M vs AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 Comparison
AMD Radeon 880M
Radeon Pro WX 2100
PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS
Analysis: AMD Radeon 880M vs AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100
FAQ
Q: How do the two GPUs compare in raw compute performance?
A: The AMD Radeon 880M delivers 4.454 TFLOPS FP32 and FP16, while the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 delivers 1,248.3 GFLOPS in both precisions. The 880M is roughly 3.6 times faster in peak FP32 throughput.
Q: Which GPU has more shading units and texture units?
A: The Radeon 880M has 768 shading units and 48 texture mapping units, while the Radeon Pro WX 2100 has 512 shading units and 32 TMUs. Both have 16 ROPs.
Q: What is the memory configuration difference?
A: The Pro WX 2100 has 2 GB of dedicated GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus with 48.00 GB/s bandwidth. The 880M uses System Shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth, so it draws from the host's main memory.
Q: Which GPU is more power efficient?
A: The Radeon 880M has a 15 W TDP, while the Radeon Pro WX 2100 has a 35 W TDP. The 880M consumes less than half the power while delivering far higher compute throughput.
Q: What is the process node and foundry difference?
A: The Pro WX 2100 is built on GlobalFoundries' 14 nm process with a 103 mm² die and 2,200 million transistors. The 880M uses TSMC's 4 nm process with a 233 mm² die and 34,000 million transistors.
Q: Do they support the same DirectX version?
A: No. The Pro WX 2100 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the 880M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2). The 880M also adds Vulkan 1.4 support, whereas the Pro WX 2100 supports Vulkan 1.3.
Where Each One Wins
The data splits decisively in favor of the AMD Radeon 880M across every recorded benchmark. In the two head-to-head tests, the 880M wins both: Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. The Pro WX 2100 records no benchmark wins in the head-to-head set.
The 880M's advantage is not marginal. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 31,285 against 8,536, a 72.7% lead. In Geekbench Vulkan, it scores 40,006 against 10,770, a 73.1% lead. These deltas translate into a compute-heavy workload advantage that dwarfs the Pro WX 2100's results.
The Pro WX 2100's only notable position is its 46th percentile versus the 880M's 43rd percentile in the database's all-GPU ranking. That percentile edge is small, and it does not translate into a single benchmark win in the direct comparison. The Pro WX 2100 also has a higher average benchmark score of 9,653 versus 8,436 for the 880M. However, the 880M's average is dragged down by its Passmark sub-scores, several of which are in the tens. The 880M's Passmark DirectX 10 score is 31, DirectX 11 is 73, DirectX 12 is 32, and DirectX 9 is 97. Its Passmark G3D score is 7,615 and its Passmark GPU Compute score is 3,719.
The Pro WX 2100 wins in the aggregate average because it only has two benchmark entries, both in the 8,000 to 10,000 range. The 880M has ten entries, including several DX9/DX10-era tests that do not reflect its modern architecture. For modern workloads, the 880M is the clear winner; for legacy API compatibility scoring, the Pro WX 2100 holds an edge in the database's composite.
Head-to-Head Benchmarks
Starting with Geekbench OpenCL, the Radeon 880M posts 31,285 points. The Radeon Pro WX 2100 posts 8,536 points. That is a delta of 72.7% in the 880M's favor. This test stresses general-purpose compute, and the 880M's 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 4.454 TFLOPS FP32 throughput are far beyond the Pro WX 2100's 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 1,248.3 GFLOPS.
In Geekbench Vulkan, the 880M scores 40,006 against the Pro WX 2100's 10,770. The delta is 73.1%. Vulkan performance reflects the 880M's newer RDNA 3.5 architecture, which supports Vulkan 1.4, versus the Pro WX 2100's GCN 4.0 architecture with Vulkan 1.3. The 880M also includes 12 ray tracing cores, a feature absent from the Pro WX 2100, which may contribute to the Vulkan gap in workloads that leverage RT hardware.
The 880M's texture rate is 139.2 GTexel/s versus the Pro WX 2100's 39.01 GTexel/s, a 3.6-fold difference. Its pixel rate is 46.40 GPixel/s versus 19.50 GPixel/s, a 2.4-fold difference. These rates align with the benchmark deltas: the 880M dominates in fill-rate-bound and compute-bound scenarios.
The nearest rival data for the Pro WX 2100 places it within 0.6% of the NVIDIA Quadro P4000, GTX 960M, Quadro K5000, and Tesla C2070. The nearest rival data for the 880M places it within 1.3% of the GTX 675MX, MX330, HD 8870M, and R9 M375X. The 880M's closest rival, the R9 M375X, trails by only 1.3%, while the Pro WX 2100's closest rival, the Tesla C2070, is 0.6% ahead. None of these rivals approach the 880M's Geekbench scores.
Specification Differences
The two GPUs differ across nearly every fundamental specification. The Pro WX 2100 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus with 48.00 GB/s bandwidth. The 880M uses System Shared memory with a system-dependent bus width and bandwidth. This makes the 880M's memory performance entirely dependent on the host platform, while the Pro WX 2100 has fixed dedicated memory.
Clock speeds differ substantially. The Pro WX 2100 runs at a 925 MHz base and 1219 MHz boost, with memory at 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective). The 880M runs at a 400 MHz base and 2900 MHz boost, with no fixed memory clock. The 880M's boost clock is more than double the Pro WX 2100's.
The Pro WX 2100 is a single-slot card, 168 mm long and 69 mm high, with no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 200 W. The 880M is an IGP with no slot width, dimensions, or PSU recommendation. The Pro WX 2100 has display outputs: one DisplayPort 1.4a and two mini-DisplayPort 1.4a. The 880M's display outputs are listed as portable device dependent.
The Pro WX 2100 uses a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface; the 880M uses PCIe 4.0 x8. The Pro WX 2100 was released on June 3, 2017, with a launch MSRP of 149 USD. The 880M was released on July 14, 2024, with no launch MSRP. The Pro WX 2100 is end-of-life, while the 880M is active. The Pro WX 2100's predecessor is Radeon Pro GCN and its successor is Radeon Pro Vega. The 880M's predecessor is Navi II IGP and it has no successor listed.
Architecture Differences
The architectural gap is generational. The Pro WX 2100 uses GCN 4.0 on the Lexa chip, part of the Radeon Pro Polaris (WX x100) generation. The 880M uses RDNA 3.5 on the Strix Point chip, part of the Navi III IGP (Strix Point Mobile) generation. The 880M is seven years newer in release date.
The process node shift is significant: 14 nm GlobalFoundries for the Pro WX 2100 versus 4 nm TSMC for the 880M. Transistor density reflects this: 21.4 million transistors per square millimeter for the Pro WX 2100 versus 145.9 million for the 880M. The 880M packs 34,000 million transistors into 233 mm², while the Pro WX 2100 packs 2,200 million into 103 mm².
The 880M includes 12 ray tracing cores; the Pro WX 2100 has none. Neither GPU has tensor cores. The 880M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4. The Pro WX 2100 supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3. Both support OpenGL 4.6.
The 880M's TDP is 15 W, less than half the Pro WX 2100's 35 W. Despite this, the 880M delivers 4.454 TFLOPS FP32, more than triple the Pro WX 2100's 1,248.3 GFLOPS. The 880M also achieves a higher pixel rate (46.40 GPixel/s vs 19.50 GPixel/s) and texture rate (139.2 GTexel/s vs 39.01 GTexel/s) while using less power.
The Verdict
The AMD Radeon 880M is the superior GPU in every head-to-head benchmark. It wins Geekbench OpenCL by 72.7% and Geekbench Vulkan by 73.1%. Its compute, texture, pixel, and fill-rate metrics all point the same way. For anyone running OpenCL compute workloads, Vulkan applications, or modern DirectX 12 Ultimate content, the 880M is the clear choice.
The AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 should be picked only in one narrow scenario: when the database's average benchmark score is the deciding factor. The Pro WX 2100 posts a higher average benchmark score (9,653 vs 8,436) and a higher all-GPU percentile (46 vs 43). This is entirely because the 880M's average is weighted down by low legacy Passmark DX9/DX10 scores, not because it loses modern workloads to the Pro WX 2100.
For legacy API compatibility testing where DirectX 9, 10, 11, and 12 Passmark scores matter, the 880M has entries, but they are all below 100. For users needing a dedicated 2 GB GDDR5 frame buffer with fixed bandwidth, the Pro WX 2100 offers that specific configuration. For everything else, the 880M's 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, 4.454 TFLOPS, 12 ray tracing cores, and 15 W TDP define the winning profile in this comparison.