AMD Radeon HD 8850M vs AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 Comparison

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 and the AMD Radeon HD 8850M are both end-of-life mobile graphics solutions, but the benchmark data shows they are remarkably close in overall compute performance despite their generational gap. In the single head-to-head benchmark available, the older HD 8850M edges out the newer Pro WX 3100, though the margin is razor-thin. The Pro WX 3100, built on a newer architecture, counters with superior memory bandwidth and modern feature support, making this a contest between raw compute parity and contemporary hardware capabilities.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available is Geekbench OpenCL, where the AMD Radeon HD 8850M scores 7447 against the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100's 7333. This gives the HD 8850M a 1.5% victory, a margin that is effectively within run-to-run noise for synthetic workloads. Both GPUs sit at nearly the same percentile rank among all GPUs, with the Pro WX 3100 at the 41st percentile and the HD 8850M at the 40th, confirming that neither card offers a meaningful compute advantage over the other at this performance tier.

Looking at the surrounding competitive field, the Pro WX 3100's average benchmark score of 7580 places it 0.3% ahead of the AMD Radeon R7 250 (7557) and 0.4% ahead of the Intel Arc A310 (7550). It trails the AMD Radeon 540 by 1.2% (7673) but sits 1.4% above the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (7472). The HD 8850M's average score of 7447 puts it 0.1% ahead of the Intel UHD Graphics 750 (7441) and 0.3% ahead of the AMD Radeon R7 350 (7425). It trails the GeForce GTX 1650 by 0.3% and the Intel Arc A310 by 1.4%. These deltas are all under 2%, painting a picture of a densely packed performance cluster where neither AMD part distinguishes itself decisively from a wide range of integrated and discrete alternatives.

The Pro WX 3100 does hold a clear advantage in memory bandwidth, offering 96.00 GB/s compared to the HD 8850M's 64.00 GB/s. This 50% bandwidth advantage is critical for texture-heavy workloads, even if raw shader output is similar. The Pro WX 3100 also has a higher pixel rate at 19.50 GPixel/s versus 10.00 GPixel/s, and a higher texture rate at 39.01 GTexel/s versus 25.00 GTexel/s, suggesting better fill-rate performance in real-world rendering tasks that the synthetic OpenCL test may not fully capture.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 has an average benchmark score of 7580, while the AMD Radeon HD 8850M scores 7447, making the Pro WX 3100 approximately 1.8% faster on average across all recorded tests.

Q: How do the two compare in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The AMD Radeon HD 8850M wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 7447, beating the Pro WX 3100's 7333 by a 1.5% margin.

Q: Which GPU has more memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 has significantly more memory bandwidth at 96.00 GB/s compared to the HD 8850M's 64.00 GB/s, a 50% advantage.

Q: What is the process node difference between the two?

A: The Pro WX 3100 is built on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries, while the HD 8850M uses a 28 nm process at TSMC. The smaller node allows the Pro WX 3100 to achieve a transistor density of 21.4M per mm² versus 12.2M per mm² for the older chip.

Q: Which GPU supports a newer version of Vulkan?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 supports Vulkan 1.3, while the AMD Radeon HD 8850M supports Vulkan 1.2.170.

Q: Do both GPUs support DirectX 12?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12, but the Pro WX 3100 supports feature level 12_0, whereas the HD 8850M only supports feature level 11_1.

The Verdict

The data points to a narrow but genuine split. For users prioritizing raw compute in synthetic benchmarks, the AMD Radeon HD 8850M is the statistical winner, taking the only head-to-head test by 1.5%. Its lower percentile ranking (40th vs 41st) is trivial, and its average score is only 1.8% behind the newer card. However, the Pro WX 3100 is the more capable piece of hardware in almost every other measurable way. Its 50% higher memory bandwidth, nearly double pixel rate, and superior texture rate make it the better choice for actual graphics workloads that stress memory and fill-rate rather than pure shader math. The Pro WX 3100 also has a higher average benchmark score and a better standing against common rivals like the GTX 1650, where it leads by 1.4% while the HD 8850M trails by 0.3%. The verdict is that the HD 8850M wins the only direct contest, but the Pro WX 3100 wins the broader war.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every core specification. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 features 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs, while the HD 8850M has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Clock speeds favor the Pro WX 3100 dramatically, with a base clock of 925 MHz and a boost clock of 1219 MHz, compared to the HD 8850M's 575 MHz base and 625 MHz boost. Memory configurations also differ, with the Pro WX 3100 offering 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus versus 2 GB of GDDR5 on the same 128-bit bus for the HD 8850M. The Pro WX 3100 runs its memory at 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective) while the HD 8850M runs at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective). The Pro WX 3100 has a TDP of 65 W and requires no power connectors, while the HD 8850M has no listed TDP or power connector information. The bus interface differs as well, with the Pro WX 3100 using PCIe 3.0 x8 and the HD 8850M using PCIe 3.0 x16. The Pro WX 3100 is a single-slot card measuring 168 mm in length, whereas the HD 8850M has no listed dimensions. The Pro WX 3100 also has a launch MSRP of 199 USD.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap is substantial. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 uses the Lexa chip based on GCN 4.0 architecture, fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries, while the HD 8850M uses the Venus chip based on GCN 1.0 architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. This node shrink from 28 nm to 14 nm allows the Pro WX 3100 to pack 2,200 million transistors into a 103 mm² die, achieving a density of 21.4M transistors per mm². The HD 8850M, by contrast, contains 1,500 million transistors on a larger 123 mm² die, yielding a density of just 12.2M per mm². The Pro WX 3100 supports DirectX 12_0, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3, while the HD 8850M supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The Pro WX 3100 also offers FP16 compute at 1,248.3 GFLOPS, matching its FP32 output at a 1:1 ratio, while the HD 8850M has no listed FP16 capability. The Pro WX 3100 belongs to the Radeon Pro Polaris generation, succeeding the Radeon Pro GCN and preceding the Radeon Pro Vega, while the HD 8850M is part of the Solar System generation, succeeding London and preceding Gem System.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon HD 8850M wins in the pure compute benchmark, taking Geekbench OpenCL with a 7447 score versus 7333. It also has more shading units (640 vs 512) and more texture mapping units (40 vs 32), which could give it an edge in workloads that scale with raw shader count. Its wider PCIe 3.0 x16 interface offers double the lane width of the Pro WX 3100's x8 connection, potentially reducing transfer bottlenecks in bandwidth-sensitive applications. The HD 8850M also holds a slight advantage in the nearest-rival comparison against the GeForce GTX 1650, trailing by only 0.3% while the Pro WX 3100 leads by 1.4%, suggesting it competes differently against the same competition.

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 wins in real-world graphics throughput. Its 96.00 GB/s memory bandwidth is 50% higher, which directly benefits high-resolution textures and anti-aliasing. Its pixel rate of 19.50 GPixel/s is nearly double the HD 8850M's 10.00 GPixel/s, making it far better suited for fill-rate-limited scenarios. Its texture rate of 39.01 GTexel/s exceeds the HD 8850M's 25.00 GTexel/s by 56%. The Pro WX 3100 also has a higher average benchmark score (7580 vs 7447), a higher percentile rank (41 vs 40), and supports newer API versions across the board. Its smaller 14 nm process node and higher clock speeds (925 MHz base, 1219 MHz boost) suggest better power efficiency and thermal headroom, even with a listed TDP of 65 W. For users needing modern display outputs, the Pro WX 3100 offers DisplayPort 1.4a connectivity, whereas the HD 8850M has no listed display outputs. The Pro WX 3100 is the choice for any workload that moves beyond synthetic shader tests into actual rendering, texture streaming, or API-compatibility-sensitive tasks.