AMD Radeon Pro 450 vs AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a narrow split between these two professional GPUs, with each taking one benchmark victory by a modest margin. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the AMD Radeon Pro 450 scores 9,002 points, while the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 trails with 8,536 points. That translates to a 5.5% advantage for the Pro 450, a solid but not overwhelming lead in this compute-oriented workload. OpenCL performance often reflects raw throughput under general-purpose parallel workloads, and the Pro 450's higher shading unit count appears to contribute here.

The Vulkan result flips the outcome, but with a smaller delta. The Radeon Pro WX 2100 posts 10,770 points against the Pro 450's 10,518, a 2.3% edge. Vulkan is a lower-level API that rewards different architectural efficiencies, and the WX 2100's higher clock speeds likely play a role in closing the gap. When averaging both benchmarks, the Pro 450 holds an aggregate advantage: its average benchmark score sits at 10,804, while the WX 2100 averages 9,653. That is a meaningful overall spread, roughly 11.9% in favor of the Pro 450 across the recorded tests.

Context from the nearest rivals reinforces how close these cards are to their direct competition. The Pro 450's average score of 10,804 places it within 0.4% of the NVIDIA Quadro K2200 (10,761), 0.7% behind the GeForce MX350 (10,883), and 1.1% ahead of the GeForce GTX 560 Ti (10,690). The WX 2100, with its 9,653 average, sits within 0.1% of the GeForce GTX 960M (9,645), 0.1% behind the Quadro P4000 (9,665), and 0.6% below the Tesla C2070 (9,716). Neither card dramatically outperforms its peer group; both occupy tightly contested performance bands.

What the head-to-head data implies is a trade-off between compute-heavy and graphics-API-specific workloads. The Pro 450 leads in OpenCL by a wider margin than the WX 2100 leads in Vulkan. For users prioritizing general compute kernels, the Pro 450 appears stronger. For Vulkan-based rendering paths, the WX 2100 edges ahead, though the advantage is smaller and may be less perceptible in real-world scenarios.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Pro 450 demonstrates its strongest case in OpenCL workloads. Its 5.5% lead over the WX 2100 in that test suggests better suitability for applications that leverage OpenCL for acceleration, such as certain simulation, image processing, or data-parallel tasks. The card also holds a higher average benchmark score overall, which points to more consistent performance across the recorded test set. Its 640 shading units versus the WX 2100's 512 provide a theoretical advantage in parallel compute throughput, even if clock speeds temper that advantage.

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 wins in the Vulkan benchmark, albeit by a narrower 2.3% margin. Vulkan's explicit control over GPU resources can favor architectures with higher clock rates, and the WX 2100's boost clock of 1,219 MHz versus no listed boost clock for the Pro 450 suggests a frequency advantage. For users running Vulkan-based applications, game engines, or modern graphics pipelines, the WX 2100 may deliver slightly better frame pacing or lower latency. Additionally, the WX 2100 offers a higher pixel rate at 19.50 GPixel/s compared to 12.80 GPixel/s for the Pro 450, which could benefit rasterization-heavy tasks.

The use-case split is therefore relatively clear: OpenCL-centric workflows lean toward the Pro 450, while Vulkan-centric rendering leans toward the WX 2100. The average score gap, however, tilts the overall balance toward the Pro 450 for mixed workloads.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs share the GCN 4.0 architecture and a 14 nm fabrication process at GlobalFoundries, but they diverge in several key specifications. The Pro 450 uses the Baffin chip with 3,000 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 24.4M per mm². The WX 2100 uses the Lexa chip with 2,200 million transistors on a 103 mm² die, resulting in a slightly lower density of 21.4M per mm². This means the Pro 450 packs more transistors into a physically larger die, which correlates with its higher shading unit count.

The Pro 450 features 640 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The WX 2100, by contrast, has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The Pro 450's extra 128 shading units and 8 TMUs give it a theoretical compute and texturing advantage, reflected in its 32.00 GTexel/s texture rate versus 39.01 GTexel/s for the WX 2100. Notably, despite fewer TMUs, the WX 2100 achieves a higher texture rate due to its higher clock speeds. Similarly, the WX 2100's pixel rate of 19.50 GPixel/s exceeds the Pro 450's 12.80 GPixel/s, again a function of clocks rather than ROP count.

FP32 performance tells a similar story: the WX 2100 reaches 1,248.3 GFLOPS, while the Pro 450 delivers 1,024.0 GFLOPS. Both cards offer FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, meaning the WX 2100 also leads in half-precision throughput. Memory configurations differ as well. The Pro 450 uses a 128-bit bus with 81.28 GB/s bandwidth, while the WX 2100 uses a 64-bit bus with 48.00 GB/s. Both have 2 GB of GDDR5, but the Pro 450's wider bus provides substantially higher memory bandwidth, which can matter in bandwidth-sensitive workloads. The WX 2100 compensates with a higher effective memory clock of 6 Gbps versus 5.1 Gbps for the Pro 450, but the narrower bus still limits overall throughput.

Physical and power characteristics also differ. Both cards consume 35 W, but the Pro 450 is an MXM module, while the WX 2100 is a single-slot card measuring 168 mm in length and 69 mm in height. The WX 2100 requires no power connectors and lists a suggested PSU of 200 W, whereas the Pro 450's power connector details are not recorded. The WX 2100 offers explicit display outputs: 1x DisplayPort 1.4a and 2x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a. The Pro 450's display outputs are listed as portable device dependent, reflecting its intended integration into mobile workstations.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 450 averages 10,804 points across its recorded benchmarks, while the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 averages 9,653 points.

Q: How much faster is the Pro 450 in OpenCL?

A: The Pro 450 scores 9,002 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 5.5% higher than the WX 2100's 8,536.

Q: Does the WX 2100 win any benchmarks?

A: Yes, the WX 2100 wins the Geekbench Vulkan test with 10,770 points, a 2.3% advantage over the Pro 450's 10,518.

Q: What are the memory bandwidth differences?

A: The Pro 450 has a 128-bit bus and 81.28 GB/s bandwidth, while the WX 2100 has a 64-bit bus and 48.00 GB/s bandwidth. Both use 2 GB of GDDR5.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The Pro 450 has 640 shading units, compared to 512 on the WX 2100.

Q: What is the physical form factor of each?

A: The Pro 450 is an MXM module, while the WX 2100 is a single-slot card measuring 168 mm in length and 69 mm in height.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon Pro 450 | AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 |

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

| Chip | Baffin | Lexa |

| Transistors | 3,000 million | 2,200 million |

| Die Size | 123 mm² | 103 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 24.4M / mm² | 21.4M / mm² |

| Base Clock | Not listed | 925 MHz |

| Boost Clock | Not listed | 1,219 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 5.1 Gbps effective | 6 Gbps effective |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 81.28 GB/s | 48.00 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 640 | 512 |

| TMUs | 40 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 12.80 GPixel/s | 19.50 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 32.00 GTexel/s | 39.01 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 1,024.0 GFLOPS | 1,248.3 GFLOPS |

| FP16 | 1,024.0 GFLOPS (1:1) | 1,248.3 GFLOPS (1:1) |

| Slot Width | MXM Module | Single-slot |

| Power Connectors | Not listed | None |

| Suggested PSU | Not listed | 200 W |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 1x DisplayPort 1.4a, 2x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a |

| Length | Not listed | 168 mm (6.6 inches) |

| Height | Not listed | 69 mm (2.7 inches) |

| Release Date | 2016-10-29 | 2017-06-03 |

| Predecessor | Not listed | Radeon Pro GCN |

| Successor | Not listed | Radeon Pro Vega |

| Launch MSRP | Not listed | 149 USD |

| Generation | Radeon Pro Mac (400 Series) | Radeon Pro Polaris (WX x100) |

| Percentile vs All GPUs | 49 | 46 |

The Verdict

The data points to a nuanced conclusion. The AMD Radeon Pro 450 is the stronger all-around performer, with a higher average benchmark score and a decisive OpenCL win. Its wider memory bus and greater shading unit count make it the better choice for compute-heavy professional workloads that rely on OpenCL. The card also places in a slightly higher percentile of all GPUs, at 49 versus 46 for the WX 2100.

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100, however, counters with a Vulkan victory and higher raw throughput metrics in FP32, pixel rate, and texture rate, all driven by its higher clock speeds. Its single-slot form factor, explicit DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, and lack of power connectors make it easier to deploy in standard desktop workstations, especially where space is constrained. The 149 USD launch MSRP, stated once here, also reflects a lower entry point, though pricing considerations are otherwise outside this analysis.

For users prioritizing OpenCL compute and memory bandwidth, the Pro 450 is the data-backed pick. For those whose workloads lean on Vulkan or who need a compact single-slot card with modern display outputs, the WX 2100 offers a credible alternative. The recorded benchmarks show neither card dominates decisively; the choice depends on which API and workload profile matters most.