AMD Radeon Pro 5300M vs AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 Comparison

AMD Radeon Pro 5300M vs AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a stark contrast between these two mobile workstation GPUs, with the AMD Radeon Pro 5300M dominating the only two tests where both cards have recorded scores. In Geekbench OpenCL, the 5300M delivers a score of 29,252 against the WX 2100's 8,536, a decisive 242.7% advantage. That is not a marginal improvement; it represents a three-and-a-half-fold increase in raw compute throughput for OpenCL workloads, a metric heavily utilized in rendering and scientific applications. The Vulkan results tell a similar, albeit slightly less extreme, story. The 5300M posts 27,912 points, while the WX 2100 manages 10,770, leaving the older card trailing by 159.2%. Both figures underscore that the 5300M is in a completely different performance tier.

Looking beyond the head-to-head tests, the broader benchmark suite in the FACT PACK reinforces this gap. The 5300M records a Passmark G3D score of 5,918, while its G2D score sits at 582 and its GPU compute score at 2,658. The WX 2100 lacks these specific Passmark entries, but its average benchmark score of 9,653 across all tests is notably lower than the 5300M's average of 10,013. Even in the DirectX legacy tests, the 5300M shows respectable numbers—80 in DirectX 9, 37 in DirectX 11, 36 in DirectX 10, and 25 in DirectX 12—though without WX 2100 equivalents, these serve only as a baseline for its own capabilities. The percentile rankings further contextualize the divide: the 5300M sits at the 48th percentile of all GPUs, while the WX 2100 rests at the 46th percentile. While the percentile difference appears small, the raw score delta in the shared tests is anything but.

The nearest rivals for each card also illuminate their respective competitive positions. The 5300M's closest competitor is the NVIDIA Quadro K5100M, which scores an average of 10,043—a mere 0.3% differential from the 5300M's average. The WX 2100, meanwhile, trades blows with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M (0.1% ahead) and the NVIDIA Quadro P4000 (0.1% behind). What this suggests is that while the 5300M is a mid-pack performer by modern standards, the WX 2100 is fighting in an even lower weight class, largely alongside mobile gaming GPUs from several generations ago.

Architecture Differences

The architectural chasm between these two cards is the root cause of their performance disparity. The 5300M is built on the Navi 14 chip using RDNA 1.0 architecture, fabricated on a 7 nm process at TSMC. The WX 2100, in contrast, utilizes the Lexa chip based on GCN 4.0 architecture, manufactured on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. This generational leap in process technology alone—7 nm versus 14 nm—explains much of the efficiency and performance gap. The transistor counts tell a dramatic story: the 5300M packs 6,400 million transistors into a 158 mm² die, achieving a density of 40.5 million transistors per square millimeter. The WX 2100 houses just 2,200 million transistors on a 103 mm² die, with a density of only 21.4 million per square millimeter. The 5300M therefore has nearly three times the transistor budget, which translates directly into its compute advantage.

The memory subsystems differ fundamentally as well. The 5300M wields 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering a bandwidth of 192.0 GB/s at an effective speed of 12 Gbps. The WX 2100 is confined to 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus, yielding just 48.00 GB/s at 6 Gbps effective. That is a four-fold bandwidth advantage for the 5300M, which matters enormously for texture-heavy workloads and large data sets. The shading resources are equally lopsided: 1,280 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 32 ROPs on the 5300M versus 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs on the WX 2100. Pixel throughput stands at 40.00 GPixel/s versus 19.50 GPixel/s, and texture rate at 100.0 GTexel/s versus 39.01 GTexel/s. The FP32 compute peaks at 3.200 TFLOPS for the 5300M, while the WX 2100 manages just 1,248.3 GFLOPS. Notably, the 5300M supports FP16 at 6.400 TFLOPS via a 2:1 ratio, whereas the WX 2100 operates at 1:1, meaning no acceleration for half-precision workloads.

Feature support also diverges. The 5300M supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the WX 2100 is limited to DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3—both cards share OpenGL 4.6. The 5300M runs on PCIe 4.0 x8, doubling the interface bandwidth of the WX 2100's PCIe 3.0 x8. The WX 2100 does offer a dedicated single-slot form factor with 1x DisplayPort 1.4a and 2x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, whereas the 5300M's display outputs are listed as portable device dependent. Power draw reflects the performance gap: the 5300M consumes 85 W, while the WX 2100 sips just 35 W, and the suggested PSU for the WX 2100 is 200 W. Neither card requires external power connectors.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL compute workloads?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 5300M is overwhelmingly faster, scoring 29,252 in Geekbench OpenCL versus the WX 2100's 8,536, a 242.7% advantage.

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

A: The 5300M leads with a Geekbench Vulkan score of 27,912 against 10,770 for the WX 2100, representing a 159.2% performance gap.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between the two?

A: The 5300M offers 192.0 GB/s bandwidth from 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, while the WX 2100 provides 48.00 GB/s from 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus—a four-fold difference.

Q: Are there any benchmark categories where the WX 2100 wins?

A: No. In the head-to-head comparison, the 5300M wins both tests (OpenCL and Vulkan), and the WX 2100 records zero wins in the available data.

Q: What architectural generation does each card belong to?

A: The 5300M uses RDNA 1.0 on a 7 nm TSMC process, while the WX 2100 uses GCN 4.0 on a 14 nm GlobalFoundries process.

Q: How does the transistor count differ?

A: The 5300M contains 6,400 million transistors on a 158 mm² die, versus 2,200 million on a 103 mm² die for the WX 2100.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon Pro 5300M | AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 |

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

| Architecture | RDNA 1.0 | GCN 4.0 |

| Process Node | 7 nm | 14 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | GlobalFoundries |

| Transistors | 6,400 million | 2,200 million |

| Die Size | 158 mm² | 103 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 40.5M / mm² | 21.4M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1000 MHz | 925 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1250 MHz | 1219 MHz |

| Memory Speed | 12 Gbps effective | 6 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 2 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 192.0 GB/s | 48.00 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1280 | 512 |

| TMUs | 80 | 32 |

| ROPs | 32 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 40.00 GPixel/s | 19.50 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 100.0 GTexel/s | 39.01 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 3.200 TFLOPS | 1,248.3 GFLOPS |

| FP16 | 6.400 TFLOPS (2:1) | 1,248.3 GFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 85 W | 35 W |

| Suggested PSU | None listed | 200 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |

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

| DirectX Support | 12 (12_1) | 12 (12_0) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.4 | 1.3 |

| Slot Width | Not listed | Single-slot |

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

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

| Release Date | 2019-11-12 | 2017-06-03 |

| Predecessor | None listed | Radeon Pro GCN |

| Successor | None listed | Radeon Pro Vega |

| Launch MSRP | None listed | 149 USD |

The Verdict

The data paints an unambiguous picture: the AMD Radeon Pro 5300M is the superior GPU by every measurable compute and memory metric. It wins 2 of 2 head-to-head benchmarks, delivers more than triple the FP32 throughput (3.200 TFLOPS versus 1,248.3 GFLOPS), and offers four times the memory bandwidth. The WX 2100's only advantages are lower power consumption (35 W versus 85 W), a smaller footprint with a defined single-slot design, and a launch MSRP of 149 USD—though the 5300M has no listed MSRP for comparison. For any workload that stresses the GPU—rendering, simulation, or machine learning inference—the 5300M is the clear choice. The WX 2100, with its older GCN 4.0 architecture, 2 GB VRAM, and 64-bit bus, is confined to light-duty tasks where raw compute is secondary to power efficiency.

The percentile data adds nuance. The 5300M's 48th percentile and average score of 10,013 place it near the NVIDIA Quadro K5100M (10,043, -0.3%) and the Radeon R9 M375 (10,070, -0.6%). The WX 2100's 46th percentile and 9,653 average put it alongside the GTX 960M (9,645, +0.1%) and Quadro P4000 (9,665, -0.1%). In absolute terms, both cards are mid-pack, but the 5300M's lead over the WX 2100 is substantial enough to classify them in different performance segments entirely. The 5300M is a modern entry-level professional mobile GPU; the WX 2100 is a legacy product that was modest even at its 2017 release.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Pro 5300M wins in every scenario where computational horsepower is the bottleneck. Its 242.7% OpenCL lead and 159.2% Vulkan lead make it the only viable option for GPU-accelerated rendering, CAD, video encoding, or any workload that leverages OpenCL or Vulkan APIs. The 4 GB GDDR6 frame buffer at 192.0 GB/s permits larger textures and more complex scenes than the 2 GB GDDR5 at 48.00 GB/s. Its 7 nm process and RDNA 1.0 architecture also future-proof it better, with Vulkan 1.4 support and DirectX 12_1 features. The 5300M's higher TDP of 85 W indicates it is designed for machines that can sustain longer bursts of intense compute, likely in larger laptops or mobile workstations.

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 wins where power efficiency and physical flexibility are paramount. Its 35 W TDP means it generates less heat and drains batteries more slowly, making it suitable for ultra-portable or fanless designs. The single-slot, 168 mm length, and 69 mm height form factor allow it to fit into compact chassis where the 5300M's portable-device-dependent layout may not. The WX 2100 also offers explicit display outputs—1x DisplayPort 1.4a and 2x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a—which is an advantage for users needing direct multi-monitor connectivity without docking solutions. Its launch MSRP of 149 USD, while not directly comparable to the 5300M's unlisted price, suggests it was positioned as an entry-level option. For professionals whose tasks are mostly CPU-bound or involve only 2D graphics, the WX 2100's lower power draw and physical adaptability could outweigh its lackluster compute numbers. However, the benchmark evidence is clear: any task that actually exercises the GPU will favor the 5300M by a wide margin.