AMD Radeon Pro 5500M vs AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 Comparison

FAQ

Q: How does the AMD Radeon Pro 5500M compare to the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 in compute workloads?

A: The Radeon Pro 5500M dominates compute benchmarks. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 31,088 versus 8,536 for the WX 2100, a 264.2% advantage. In Geekbench Vulkan, the 5500M scores 35,134 against 10,770, a 226.2% lead.

Q: What are the architectural generations of these two GPUs?

A: The Radeon Pro 5500M is built on RDNA 1.0 with the Navi 14 chip, while the Radeon Pro WX 2100 uses GCN 4.0 with the Lexa chip. The 5500M uses a 7 nm process at TSMC, whereas the WX 2100 uses a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries.

Q: Which GPU has more memory and bandwidth?

A: The Radeon Pro 5500M has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 192.0 GB/s. The WX 2100 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus, providing 48.00 GB/s. The 5500M offers four times the capacity and four times the bandwidth.

Q: What is the thermal design power difference?

A: The Radeon Pro 5500M has a TDP of 85 W, while the WX 2100 has a TDP of 35 W. The WX 2100 is a single-slot card measuring 168 mm in length, whereas the 5500M is a mobile part with dimensions dependent on the portable device.

Q: Do these GPUs support different PCIe generations?

A: Yes. The Radeon Pro 5500M uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while the Radeon Pro WX 2100 uses PCIe 3.0 x8. This gives the 5500M double the per-lane bandwidth of the older interface.

Q: Which GPU has a higher launch MSRP?

A: Only the Radeon Pro WX 2100 has a recorded launch MSRP of 149 USD. The Radeon Pro 5500M has no launch MSRP listed in the database.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data shows a clear split: the Radeon Pro 5500M wins every recorded head-to-head test, but each GPU has distinct usage scenarios where its characteristics matter more than raw compute scores.

The Radeon Pro 5500M is the obvious choice for performance-sensitive workloads. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 31,088 and Vulkan score of 35,134 place it in a different class from the WX 2100. For tasks that leverage compute shaders, machine learning inference, or graphics rendering, the 5500M delivers over three times the OpenCL throughput and over two times the Vulkan throughput of the WX 2100. The 8 GB memory capacity also allows larger datasets and textures to reside on the GPU without spilling to system memory.

The Radeon Pro WX 2100, while far behind in raw scores, has its own niche. Its 35 W TDP and single-slot design make it suitable for compact workstations where power and space are constrained. The card requires no external power connectors and has a suggested PSU of 200 W, meaning it can drop into existing low-power systems. Its 168 mm length and 69 mm height fit into small chassis. For legacy applications that rely on GCN architecture optimizations, or for multi-GPU setups where multiple low-profile cards are preferred, the WX 2100 remains functional. The 2 GB GDDR5 memory is sufficient for 1080p professional applications that do not require large framebuffers.

The 5500M also wins on interface modernity. PCIe 4.0 x8 provides twice the bandwidth of PCIe 3.0 x8, which benefits data transfer heavy workloads. However, the WX 2100 has a display output advantage in fixed configurations: it offers 1x DisplayPort 1.4a and 2x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a, whereas the 5500M's outputs are "Portable Device Dependent". For users needing predictable multi-monitor connectivity in a desktop, the WX 2100 provides that out of the box.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent different architectural generations from AMD. The Radeon Pro 5500M uses RDNA 1.0, a significant redesign from the older GCN (Graphics Core Next) architecture. The WX 2100 uses GCN 4.0, which is the fourth iteration of that design.

The 5500M is built on the Navi 14 chip using a 7 nm process at TSMC. It contains 6,400 million transistors on a 158 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 40.5 million per square millimeter. The WX 2100 uses the Lexa chip on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries, with 2,200 million transistors on a 103 mm² die, giving a density of 21.4 million per square millimeter. The 5500M packs nearly three times the transistors into a die that is only about 53% larger in area.

The compute resources differ substantially. The 5500M has 1,536 shading units, 96 texture mapping units, and 32 raster operation units. The WX 2100 has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This means the 5500M has three times the shading units, three times the TMUs, and twice the ROPs.

The 5500M supports FP16 at a 2:1 ratio relative to FP32, with FP16 performance of 8.909 TFLOPS versus FP32 of 4.454 TFLOPS. The WX 2100 has identical FP16 and FP32 performance at 1,248.3 GFLOPS (1:1 ratio). This makes RDNA's packed math capabilities a notable advantage for workloads that can use half-precision.

Both GPUs support DirectX 12, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan, but the 5500M supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the WX 2100 supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3. The 5500M's newer API support aligns with its newer architecture.

Neither GPU has ray tracing cores or tensor cores, so both rely on traditional shading for all rendering and compute.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across almost every measurable specification.

• Process node: 7 nm (TSMC) for the 5500M versus 14 nm (GlobalFoundries) for the WX 2100.
• Transistors: 6,400 million versus 2,200 million.
• Die size: 158 mm² versus 103 mm².
• Transistor density: 40.5 million per mm² versus 21.4 million per mm².
• Base clock: 1000 MHz versus 925 MHz.
• Boost clock: 1450 MHz versus 1219 MHz.
• Memory type: GDDR6 versus GDDR5.
• Memory size: 8 GB versus 2 GB.
• Memory bus: 128-bit versus 64-bit.
• Memory bandwidth: 192.0 GB/s versus 48.00 GB/s.
• Effective memory speed: 12 Gbps versus 6 Gbps.
• Shading units: 1,536 versus 512.
• TMUs: 96 versus 32.
• ROPs: 32 versus 16.
• Pixel rate: 46.40 GPixel/s versus 19.50 GPixel/s.
• Texture rate: 139.2 GTexel/s versus 39.01 GTexel/s.
• FP32 performance: 4.454 TFLOPS versus 1,248.3 GFLOPS.
• FP16 performance: 8.909 TFLOPS (2:1) versus 1,248.3 GFLOPS (1:1).
• TDP: 85 W versus 35 W.
• Power connectors: None for both.
• Suggested PSU: None listed for the 5500M, 200 W for the WX 2100.
• Bus interface: PCIe 4.0 x8 versus PCIe 3.0 x8.
• Display outputs: "Portable Device Dependent" versus 1x DisplayPort 1.4a and 2x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a.
• Slot width: Not listed for the 5500M, single-slot for the WX 2100.
• Dimensions: None listed for the 5500M, 168 mm length and 69 mm height for the WX 2100.
• Release date: 2019-11-12 for the 5500M versus 2017-06-03 for the WX 2100.
• Predecessor: None listed for the 5500M, Radeon Pro GCN for the WX 2100.
• Successor: None listed for the 5500M, Radeon Pro Vega for the WX 2100.

The 5500M is a newer, larger, and more powerful part, while the WX 2100 is a smaller, lower-power desktop workstation card.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records two head-to-head benchmark comparisons between these GPUs. The results are one-sided.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the Radeon Pro 5500M scores 31,088 against the WX 2100's 8,536. This gives the 5500M a 264.2% advantage. The score difference of 22,552 points is substantial. This test measures general-purpose compute using the OpenCL API, and the 5500M's higher shading unit count, faster memory, and newer architecture contribute to its overwhelming lead.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the 5500M scores 35,134 versus 10,770, a 226.2% advantage. The 5500M leads by 24,364 points. Vulkan is a low-level graphics and compute API, and the 5500M's RDNA 1.0 architecture with its 2:1 FP16 support likely explains part of the gap, as Vulkan compute shaders can exploit half-precision math.

Looking at the broader average benchmark context, the 5500M has an average benchmark score of 11,528 across all recorded tests, placing it in the 51st percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Tesla K20c (average score 11,479, delta of 0.4% ahead), the AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT (11,627, 0.8% behind), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 (11,680, 1.3% behind), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M (11,261, 2.4% ahead). This places the 5500M in the middle of the GPU performance distribution.

The WX 2100 has an average benchmark score of 9,653, putting it in the 46th percentile. Its nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M (9,645, 0.1% ahead), the NVIDIA Quadro P4000 (9,665, 0.1% behind), the NVIDIA Quadro K5000 (9,637, 0.2% ahead), and the NVIDIA Tesla C2070 (9,716, 0.6% behind). The WX 2100 sits in a tightly packed cluster of older mid-range GPUs.

The 5500M also has additional benchmark records that the WX 2100 lacks, including Passmark DirectX 10 (36), DirectX 11 (42), DirectX 12 (29), DirectX 9 (96), G2D (648), G3D (6,732), and GPU Compute (3,240) tests. These scores show the 5500M's DirectX 9 performance is strongest among its DirectX tests, while DirectX 12 is the weakest. The WX 2100 has no recorded Passmark scores in the database, so no comparison is possible for those workloads.

The head-to-head data confirms the Radeon Pro 5500M is the superior performer in every measured category. The wins tally shows 2 wins for the 5500M and 0 for the WX 2100. The magnitude of the deltas, above 226% in both tests, indicates these are not marginal differences but generational leaps in compute capability.