AMD Radeon HD 8870M vs AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data offers one direct comparison between these two AMD mobile and workstation graphics solutions: the Geekbench OpenCL test. In that benchmark, the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 scores 8,536, while the AMD Radeon HD 8870M scores 8,462. The delta is a narrow 0.9% in favor of the Pro WX 2100, which is the sole head-to-head win recorded for either part. This is a razor-thin margin, essentially a statistical tie in raw compute throughput, yet the Pro WX 2100 does edge ahead.

Looking at the broader benchmark context, the Pro WX 2100 also has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 10,770, a test the HD 8870M does not appear in the database for. That absence is notable, since it suggests the older GCN 1.0 architecture may not have been validated for Vulkan in the same way, or simply that no measurement was recorded. The Pro WX 2100’s average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 9,653, whereas the HD 8870M’s average is 8,462. The difference in averages, about 14%, is larger than the single OpenCL delta, driven entirely by the Vulkan result inflating the newer card’s aggregate.

Relative to the nearest rivals in the database, the Pro WX 2100 sits at the 46th percentile of all GPUs, with an average score 0.1% above the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M (9,645), 0.1% below the NVIDIA Quadro P4000 (9,665), 0.2% above the NVIDIA Quadro K5000 (9,637), and 0.6% below the NVIDIA Tesla C2070 (9,716). These deltas are all within a single percentage point, placing the Pro WX 2100 in a very tight performance cluster.

The HD 8870M, by contrast, is at the 43rd percentile, with an average score 0.1% above the NVIDIA GeForce MX330 (8,458), 0.3% above the AMD Radeon 880M (8,436), 0.4% above the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX (8,427), and 1.1% below the Intel Arc A380 (8,558). Its nearest rivals are similarly close, but the entire cluster is roughly 12% lower than the Pro WX 2100’s peer group. This means that while the direct OpenCL comparison is close, the Pro WX 2100’s additional Vulkan coverage and its higher percentile ranking indicate a more versatile and slightly faster overall profile.

What the data does not show is any test where the HD 8870M wins outright. The wins tally is 1 for the Pro WX 2100 and 0 for the HD 8870M. Even in the only shared test, the margin is small enough that real-world variation could flip it, but the recorded results consistently favor the newer part.

Architecture Differences

The Pro WX 2100 is built on the Lexa chip using GCN 4.0 architecture, fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The HD 8870M uses the Venus chip with GCN 1.0 architecture, on a 28 nm process at TSMC. This generational gap is substantial: GCN 4.0 is several iterations ahead of GCN 1.0, bringing architectural refinements in shader efficiency, memory compression, and feature support.

Transistor counts tell part of the story. The Pro WX 2100 packs 2,200 million transistors into a 103 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 21.4 million per square millimeter. The HD 8870M has 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, for a density of 12.2 million per square millimeter. The Pro WX 2100 achieves higher density despite having fewer shading units, which reflects the more advanced process node and tighter integration.

The shading unit counts differ: the Pro WX 2100 has 512 shading units, while the HD 8870M has 640. Despite having fewer units, the Pro WX 2100 reaches a higher FP32 throughput of 1,248.3 GFLOPS versus 992.0 GFLOPS for the HD 8870M. This is a 25.8% advantage in raw compute, driven by much higher clock speeds. The Pro WX 2100 runs at a base clock of 925 MHz and a boost clock of 1,219 MHz, while the HD 8870M is limited to 725 MHz base and 775 MHz boost. The boost clock difference alone is over 57%, which more than compensates for the 20% reduction in shading units.

Texture and pixel rates follow similar patterns. The Pro WX 2100 has 32 TMUs and 16 ROPs, producing a texture rate of 39.01 GTexel/s and a pixel rate of 19.50 GPixel/s. The HD 8870M has 40 TMUs and 16 ROPs, but its lower clocks yield only 31.00 GTexel/s and 12.40 GPixel/s. The Pro WX 2100 leads texture throughput by 25.8% and pixel throughput by 57.3%. The pixel rate gap is particularly striking, as both parts share the same 16 ROP count, yet the newer card’s clock speed advantage translates directly into a much higher fill rate.

Memory subsystems also diverge. Both use 2 GB of GDDR5, but the Pro WX 2100 has a 64-bit bus with a bandwidth of 48.00 GB/s, while the HD 8870M has a 128-bit bus with 72.00 GB/s. The HD 8870M has a 50% wider bus and 50% more bandwidth, which is a clear win for the older part. However, the Pro WX 2100’s memory clock is 1,500 MHz (6 Gbps effective) versus 1,125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective) for the HD 8870M, so the newer memory runs faster per pin, but the narrower bus limits total throughput.

Feature support differs as well. The Pro WX 2100 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The HD 8870M supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The DirectX 12 feature level is a meaningful gap: 12_0 versus 11_1 means the Pro WX 2100 can handle more modern rendering features. The Vulkan version is also newer on the Pro WX 2100, and its recorded Vulkan benchmark confirms functional support.

The Pro WX 2100’s power envelope is rated at 35 W TDP, with no power connectors needed and a suggested PSU of 200 W. The HD 8870M has no TDP listed in the database, nor any power connector or PSU data. This absence makes direct power comparison impossible, but the Pro WX 2100’s 14 nm process and workstation-class design suggest a more efficient implementation, though that cannot be stated as fact from the data alone.

The Pro WX 2100 also carries a single-slot form factor, a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface, and display outputs of 1x DisplayPort 1.4a plus 2x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a. The HD 8870M has no recorded dimensions, slot width, or display outputs, and uses a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface. The x16 interface on the HD 8870M is potentially wider bandwidth for data transfer, but the Pro WX 2100’s x8 connection is likely sufficient for its 48 GB/s memory bandwidth.

The Verdict

The data points to the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 as the stronger part overall. It wins the only direct benchmark, has a higher average benchmark score, sits at a higher percentile, and supports a newer DirectX feature level and Vulkan version. The HD 8870M’s advantages are narrower: a wider memory bus with more bandwidth, more shading units, more TMUs, and a wider PCIe interface. But in every measured performance metric, the Pro WX 2100 comes out ahead, often by substantial margins.

For compute workloads, the Pro WX 2100’s FP32 advantage of 25.8% and its Vulkan support make it the clear choice. For pixel-heavy tasks, the Pro WX 2100’s 57.3% lead in pixel rate is decisive. For memory-bound scenarios, the HD 8870M’s 72.00 GB/s bandwidth could help, but the Pro WX 2100’s higher clocks and newer architecture may compensate in real workloads.

The HD 8870M is an older, end-of-life part from 2013, while the Pro WX 2100 is also end-of-life but from 2017. The four-year gap shows in the architecture, process node, and feature set. The Pro WX 2100’s launch MSRP was 149 USD, though pricing should not be the focus here. The HD 8870M has no recorded launch MSRP.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every specification category. The Pro WX 2100 uses the Lexa chip with GCN 4.0 architecture, while the HD 8870M uses Venus with GCN 1.0. Process nodes are 14 nm (GlobalFoundries) versus 28 nm (TSMC). Transistor counts are 2,200 million versus 1,500 million, and die sizes are 103 mm² versus 123 mm². Transistor density is 21.4M per mm² versus 12.2M per mm².

Clock speeds differ: base 925 MHz versus 725 MHz, boost 1,219 MHz versus 775 MHz. Memory clocks are 1,500 MHz (6 Gbps effective) versus 1,125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective). Memory bus widths are 64-bit versus 128-bit, with bandwidths of 48.00 GB/s versus 72.00 GB/s. Shading units are 512 versus 640, TMUs are 32 versus 40, and ROPs are 16 versus 16.

Pixel rates are 19.50 GPixel/s versus 12.40 GPixel/s, and texture rates are 39.01 GTexel/s versus 31.00 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput is 1,248.3 GFLOPS versus 992.0 GFLOPS. The Pro WX 2100 has a TDP of 35 W, a single-slot form factor, no power connectors, a suggested PSU of 200 W, and a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface. The HD 8870M has no recorded TDP, slot width, power connectors, or suggested PSU, and uses PCIe 3.0 x16.

Display outputs exist only for the Pro WX 2100: 1x DisplayPort 1.4a and 2x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a. API support differs: DirectX 12 (12_0) versus DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6 for both, and Vulkan 1.3 versus Vulkan 1.2.170. The Pro WX 2100 has a launch MSRP of 149 USD; the HD 8870M has none. Dimensions are recorded only for the Pro WX 2100: 168 mm length (6.6 inches) and 69 mm height (2.7 inches).

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 has an average benchmark score of 9,653, while the AMD Radeon HD 8870M averages 8,462. This is a 14.1% difference in favor of the Pro WX 2100.

Q: How do the two cards compare in the only shared benchmark?

A: In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Pro WX 2100 scores 8,536 and the HD 8870M scores 8,462. The Pro WX 2100 wins by 0.9%.

Q: Does the HD 8870M have any specification advantage over the Pro WX 2100?

A: Yes. The HD 8870M has a 128-bit memory bus versus 64-bit, giving it 72.00 GB/s of bandwidth versus 48.00 GB/s. It also has more shading units (640 versus 512), more TMUs (40 versus 32), and a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface versus x8.

Q: Why does the Pro WX 2100 have higher compute throughput despite fewer shading units?

A: The Pro WX 2100 has a boost clock of 1,219 MHz versus 775 MHz for the HD 8870M, and a base clock of 925 MHz versus 725 MHz. This clock advantage leads to 1,248.3 GFLOPS FP32 versus 992.0 GFLOPS.

Q: What API feature level differences are recorded?

A: The Pro WX 2100 supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3, while the HD 8870M supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Q: Which card has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The Pro WX 2100 has a pixel rate of 19.50 GPixel/s, compared to 12.40 GPixel/s for the HD 8870M. This is a 57.3% advantage, despite both having 16 ROPs.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 wins in every recorded benchmark and in most theoretical throughput metrics. Its strengths are compute performance (FP32 1,248.3 GFLOPS versus 992.0 GFLOPS), pixel fill rate (19.50 GPixel/s versus 12.40 GPixel/s), texture fill rate (39.01 GTexel/s versus 31.00 GTexel/s), and modern API support (DirectX 12_0, Vulkan 1.3). It also has a higher percentile ranking (46th versus 43rd) and a higher average benchmark score (9,653 versus 8,462). The Vulkan score of 10,770 is an additional data point that the HD 8870M lacks entirely, suggesting the Pro WX 2100 is better suited to Vulkan-based workloads.

The AMD Radeon HD 8870M wins in memory bandwidth (72.00 GB/s versus 48.00 GB/s), memory bus width (128-bit versus 64-bit), shading unit count (640 versus 512), TMU count (40 versus 32), and PCIe interface width (x16 versus x8). These are structural advantages that could matter in specific scenarios, such as large texture streaming or workloads that favor wider memory buses. However, the recorded benchmarks do not show any test where these advantages translate into a win. The HD 8870M’s nearest rival cluster is also lower overall, with an average score around 8,462, versus the Pro WX 2100’s 9,653.

For users prioritizing raw compute, modern API support, or workstation-style display outputs (DisplayPort 1.4a), the Pro WX 2100 is the data-backed choice. For scenarios where memory bandwidth is the bottleneck, the HD 8870M’s 72.00 GB/s could offer an edge, but no benchmark in the database confirms this. The Pro WX 2100 also has a lower TDP of 35 W, which may be relevant for thermal-constrained systems, though the HD 8870M’s power draw is unrecorded. Ultimately, the data favors the Pro WX 2100 across all measured categories, with the HD 8870M retaining only theoretical advantages in bus width and unit counts.