AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64 vs AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100 Comparison

Both AMD cards are built on the same Vega 10 silicon and GCN 5.0 architecture, yet the benchmark data reveals they are far from twins. The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64 decisively outclasses the AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100 in every recorded Geekbench test, despite the WX 9100 having a higher boost clock and memory bandwidth. The numbers tell a story of two different interpretations of the same chip, one tuned for raw compute throughput and the other for workstation stability, but in this dataset, only one comes out ahead.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking disparity appears in the Geekbench Vulkan test. The Radeon Pro Vega 64 scores 74,174 against the WX 9100's 54,711, a massive 35.6% delta. This is not a marginal victory; it is a generational gap in graphics API performance. The data suggests the Vega 64's driver stack or firmware is significantly better optimized for the Vulkan API, or that the WX 9100's lower sustained clocks during this workload cripple its potential. For any workload leveraging Vulkan, the choice is unambiguous.

In OpenCL, the gap narrows but remains decisive. The Vega 64 posts 71,094 while the WX 9100 manages 66,605, a 6.7% difference. This is a substantial margin in compute tasks, suggesting the Vega 64's higher base clock of 1250 MHz versus 1200 MHz provides a tangible advantage in sustained parallel workloads. The WX 9100's boost clock of 1500 MHz is higher, but the benchmark results imply it cannot sustain that frequency under the load, or that the Vega 64's memory configuration handles the OpenCL test pattern more efficiently.

The closest contest is in Geekbench Metal, where the Vega 64 scores 71,868 and the WX 9100 trails at 71,319, a razor-thin 0.8% delta. This near-tie is remarkable because it shows that on Apple's Metal API, the two cards are effectively interchangeable in performance. The WX 9100's higher memory bandwidth of 483.8 GB/s compared to 402.4 GB/s does not translate into a Metal advantage, nor does the Vega 64's higher base clock provide a significant edge. This result hints that Metal is less sensitive to the clock and bandwidth differences that define the OpenCL and Vulkan results.

Across all three tests, the Radeon Pro Vega 64 wins 3 out of 3 head-to-head matchups. The average benchmark score reinforces this hierarchy: the Vega 64 sits at 72,379, while the WX 9100 falls to 64,212. That 12.7% aggregate gap places the Vega 64 in the 91st percentile of all GPUs, while the WX 9100 lands at the 89th percentile. The data consistently shows the Vega 64 as the superior compute and graphics performer, with the only question being the magnitude of the victory depending on the API in use.

The Verdict

The data is clear: the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64 is the faster card in every measured scenario. If the sole criterion is raw performance in Geekbench Metal, OpenCL, and Vulkan, the Vega 64 wins without qualification. The 35.6% Vulkan advantage alone is enough to recommend it over the WX 9100 for any application that leverages that API, and the 6.7% OpenCL lead solidifies its position for general compute work.

However, the WX 9100 is not without its own justification. It draws less power at 230 W versus 250 W, and it offers a higher boost clock of 1500 MHz, which could translate to better performance in bursty, single-threaded scenarios that Geekbench does not capture. It also has a higher pixel rate of 96.00 GPixel/s and texture rate of 384.0 GTexel/s, suggesting it could excel in fill-rate-bound tasks. The WX 9100's 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs also make it a more practical choice for multi-monitor professional setups, while the Vega 64's display outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent," indicating it is designed for integrated laptop systems.

The verdict from the data is that the Vega 64 is the performance pick, but the WX 9100 is the workstation integration pick. For someone building a desktop workstation with multiple displays, the WX 9100's connectivity and lower power draw are compelling. For anyone who prioritizes compute throughput or Vulkan performance, the Vega 64 is the only rational choice. The 0.8% Metal delta is negligible, but the 35.6% Vulkan delta is not. The WX 9100's launch MSRP was 1,599 USD, but that price does not buy performance parity here.

Architecture Differences

Both cards share the same fundamental architecture: GCN 5.0 on a 14 nm process from GlobalFoundries. They both pack 12,500 million transistors on a 495 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 25.3M / mm². The compute core configuration is identical: 4096 shading units, 256 texture mapping units, and 64 render output units. Neither card features dedicated ray tracing or tensor cores, which places them firmly in the pre-RDNA era of AMD's GPU design.

The architectural divergence lies entirely in clock speeds and memory tuning. The Radeon Pro Vega 64 operates at a base clock of 1250 MHz and a boost of 1350 MHz, while the WX 9100 runs at a lower 1200 MHz base but a higher 1500 MHz boost. This inverted clock profile suggests the WX 9100 is designed for short bursts of high-frequency work, while the Vega 64 favors sustained, predictable performance. The memory clocks also differ: the Vega 64 runs its HBM2 at 786 MHz (1572 Mbps effective), while the WX 9100 pushes it to 945 MHz (1890 Mbps effective).

These clock differences translate directly into different throughput ceilings. The WX 9100 achieves 12.29 TFLOPS FP32 and 24.58 TFLOPS FP16, edging out the Vega 64's 11.06 TFLOPS FP32 and 22.12 TFLOPS FP16. The WX 9100 also has higher theoretical pixel and texture rates. Yet the benchmark data shows the Vega 64 winning, which implies that the WX 9100's theoretical peak is not being realized in practice. The memory bandwidth discrepancy—483.8 GB/s for the WX 9100 versus 402.4 GB/s for the Vega 64—should favor the WX 9100, but it does not. This suggests a memory controller or driver-level bottleneck is holding the WX 9100 back in the Geekbench workloads.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher boost clock?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100 has a boost clock of 1500 MHz, while the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64 boosts to 1350 MHz.

Q: Why does the Radeon Pro Vega 64 win the Vulkan benchmark by such a large margin?

A: The Vega 64 scores 74,174 in Geekbench Vulkan versus 54,711 for the WX 9100, a 35.6% difference. The data does not specify a cause, but the magnitude suggests driver optimization or sustained clock behavior favoring the Vega 64.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth of each card?

A: The Radeon Pro WX 9100 offers 483.8 GB/s bandwidth, while the Radeon Pro Vega 64 provides 402.4 GB/s.

Q: Do both cards have the same number of shading units?

A: Yes, both feature 4096 shading units, along with 256 TMUs and 64 ROPs.

Q: Which card has a lower power draw?

A: The Radeon Pro WX 9100 draws 230 W, which is 20 W less than the Radeon Pro Vega 64's 250 W.

Q: Are there any benchmark tests where the WX 9100 wins?

A: According to the head-to-head data, the Radeon Pro WX 9100 wins 0 out of 3 tests. The closest it comes is a 0.8% deficit in Geekbench Metal.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64 is the clear winner in compute and graphics APIs. It leads by 0.8% in Metal, 6.7% in OpenCL, and 35.6% in Vulkan. This makes it the superior choice for any workload that relies on general-purpose GPU compute, such as machine learning inference, data processing, or rendering pipelines that use OpenCL or Vulkan. Its 91st percentile ranking versus the WX 9100's 89th percentile reinforces its status as the higher-performing part overall.

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100 wins in areas not captured by the benchmark suite. It has a higher boost clock, higher pixel and texture rates, and more memory bandwidth. This makes it theoretically better for fill-rate-bound applications like high-resolution texture mapping or pixel-heavy post-processing effects. Its 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs are a clear win for multi-display professional environments, and its dual-slot form factor with 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin power connectors makes it a standard desktop workstation component. The Vega 64's "IGP" slot width and "Portable Device Dependent" outputs indicate it is meant for integrated mobile systems, not traditional desktop builds.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in several key specification fields. The base clock is 1250 MHz for the Vega 64 versus 1200 MHz for the WX 9100. The boost clock is 1350 MHz for the Vega 64 versus 1500 MHz for the WX 9100. Memory clock runs at 786 MHz (1572 Mbps effective) on the Vega 64 and 945 MHz (1890 Mbps effective) on the WX 9100. Memory bandwidth is 402.4 GB/s versus 483.8 GB/s. Pixel rate is 86.40 GPixel/s versus 96.00 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 345.6 GTexel/s versus 384.0 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 11.06 TFLOPS versus 12.29 TFLOPS. FP16 performance is 22.12 TFLOPS versus 24.58 TFLOPS. TDP is 250 W versus 230 W. Slot width is "IGP" versus "Dual-slot". Power connectors are "None" versus "1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin". The WX 9100 has a suggested PSU of 550 W, while the Vega 64 has none listed. Display outputs are "Portable Device Dependent" versus "6x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a". Dimensions: the WX 9100 is 267 mm (10.5 inches) long and 111 mm (4.4 inches) high, while the Vega 64 has no listed dimensions. The WX 9100 has a predecessor ("Radeon Pro GCN") and successor ("Radeon Pro Vega"), while the Vega 64 has neither. Release dates are 2017-06-26 for the Vega 64 and 2017-07-09 for the WX 9100.