AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 vs AMD Radeon R9 M360 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a clear overall winner, but the margin varies dramatically depending on the workload. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 scores 8,536 points against 8,211 for the AMD Radeon R9 M360. That is a 4% advantage, a modest gap that places both cards in a similar performance tier for general compute tasks. The OpenCL result reflects a close contest where architectural refinements yield only a small edge.

The Geekbench Vulkan test tells a very different story. Here the Radeon Pro WX 2100 jumps to 10,770 points, while the Radeon R9 M360 manages only 8,047 points. That represents a 33.8% lead for the WX 2100, a substantial margin that highlights how modern API support and architectural efficiency can translate into significant real-world differences. The Vulkan score is the single biggest differentiator between these two cards, and it suggests that the newer GPU handles driver-level and API-level optimizations far better.

Looking at the aggregate data, the Radeon Pro WX 2100 holds an average benchmark score of 9,653, placing it in the 46th percentile of all GPUs in the database. The Radeon R9 M360 averages 8,129, which lands it at the 42nd percentile. The WX 2100's nearest rivals in the database include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M with an average score of 9,645 (a 0.1% delta), the NVIDIA Quadro P4000 at 9,665 (0.1% behind), and the NVIDIA Quadro K5000 at 9,637 (0.2% ahead). The R9 M360, by contrast, sits near the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M, which scores 8,135 (0.1% higher), and the NVIDIA GeForce 945M at 8,099 (0.4% behind).

The head-to-head win count is decisive: the Radeon Pro WX 2100 wins both recorded benchmarks, with two victories and zero losses. However, the data cautions against overgeneralizing from the OpenCL result alone. A 4% lead in that test is within the range of driver or workload variability, whereas the 33.8% Vulkan advantage is a structural difference that persists across titles and applications. In short, the WX 2100 is the faster card, but the magnitude of its superiority depends heavily on whether the software stack favors modern APIs.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different generations of AMD's GCN architecture, and that fundamental split explains most of the performance divergence. The Radeon Pro WX 2100 uses the Lexa chip built on GCN 4.0, fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The Radeon R9 M360 uses the Tropo chip based on GCN 1.0, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The process node difference is significant: 14 nm allows for tighter transistor packing and lower power draw per unit of work.

Transistor counts reflect the design philosophy of each era. The WX 2100 packs 2,200 million transistors into a die size of 103 mm², yielding a transistor density of 21.4 million per square millimeter. The R9 M360 contains 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, for a density of 12.2 million per square millimeter. The WX 2100 nearly doubles the density, which is exactly what the newer process enables. Interestingly, the R9 M360 has a larger physical die despite fewer transistors, a direct consequence of the older 28 nm node.

Both cards feature 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 raster operation pipelines. The compute resources are identical on paper, yet the WX 2100 achieves higher clock speeds: a base of 925 MHz and a boost of 1,219 MHz, versus the R9 M360's base of 900 MHz and boost of 925 MHz. That clock advantage translates directly into throughput. The WX 2100 delivers 1,248.3 GFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the R9 M360 manages 947.2 GFLOPS. The pixel rate also favors the WX 2100 at 19.50 GPixel/s versus 14.80 GPixel/s, and texture rate follows suit at 39.01 GTexel/s versus 29.60 GTexel/s.

Memory subsystems diverge sharply. The WX 2100 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus, producing 48.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The R9 M360 uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, producing 72.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The R9 M360 has more capacity and more bandwidth, which could benefit certain large dataset workloads, but the WX 2100's higher compute throughput compensates in most scenarios. Memory clocks also differ: the WX 2100 runs at 1500 MHz with 6 Gbps effective data rate, while the R9 M360 runs at 1125 MHz with 4.5 Gbps effective.

API support is another generational separator. The WX 2100 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The R9 M360 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The DirectX feature level difference matters for modern games and compute workloads, and the Vulkan version gap likely contributes to the WX 2100's massive lead in the Vulkan benchmark.

Power and physical design also reflect their intended markets. The WX 2100 draws 35 W, requires a 200 W suggested power supply, and uses no external power connectors. It is a single-slot card with PCIe 3.0 x8 interface. The R9 M360's TDP and power connector details are not recorded in the database, but it uses a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface. The WX 2100 also includes display outputs (one DisplayPort 1.4a and two mini-DisplayPort 1.4a), while the R9 M360's display outputs are unlisted.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 averages 9,653 points across recorded benchmarks, compared to 8,129 for the AMD Radeon R9 M360. The WX 2100 also sits at the 46th percentile of all GPUs, versus the 42nd percentile for the R9 M360.

Q: How large is the performance gap in Vulkan workloads?

A: In the Geekbench Vulkan test, the Radeon Pro WX 2100 scores 10,770 against 8,047 for the R9 M360, a 33.8% advantage. This is the largest recorded difference between the two cards.

Q: Do the two cards have the same compute core counts?

A: Yes, both have 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The performance difference comes from higher clock speeds and architectural improvements in the WX 2100, not from raw core counts.

Q: Which card has more memory bandwidth?

A: The Radeon R9 M360 has 72.00 GB/s of bandwidth from a 128-bit bus and 4 GB of GDDR5. The Radeon Pro WX 2100 has 48.00 GB/s from a 64-bit bus and 2 GB of GDDR5.

Q: What process nodes are used by each GPU?

A: The Radeon Pro WX 2100 uses a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries, while the Radeon R9 M360 uses a 28 nm process at TSMC. The WX 2100's die is 103 mm² with 2,200 million transistors; the R9 M360's die is 123 mm² with 1,500 million transistors.

Q: Which card supports newer graphics APIs?

A: The Radeon Pro WX 2100 supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3. The Radeon R9 M360 supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 | AMD Radeon R9 M360 |

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

| Architecture | GCN 4.0 | GCN 1.0 |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 28 nm |

| Foundry | GlobalFoundries | TSMC |

| Transistors | 2,200 million | 1,500 million |

| Die Size | 103 mm² | 123 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 21.4M / mm² | 12.2M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 925 MHz | 900 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1219 MHz | 925 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1500 MHz, 6 Gbps effective | 1125 MHz, 4.5 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 64 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 48.00 GB/s | 72.00 GB/s |

| Pixel Rate | 19.50 GPixel/s | 14.80 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 39.01 GTexel/s | 29.60 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 1,248.3 GFLOPS | 947.2 GFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 1,248.3 GFLOPS (1:1) | Not recorded |

| TDP | 35 W | Not recorded |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | Not recorded |

| Power Connectors | None | Not recorded |

| Suggested PSU | 200 W | Not recorded |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | 1x DisplayPort 1.4a, 2x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a | Not recorded |

| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 (11_1) |

| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.2.170 |

| Release Date | 2017-06-03 | 2015-05-04 |

| Launch MSRP | 149 USD | Not recorded |

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 wins in raw compute throughput, modern API support, and power efficiency. Its FP32 output of 1,248.3 GFLOPS is roughly 32% higher than the R9 M360's 947.2 GFLOPS, and its boost clock of 1,219 MHz versus 925 MHz gives it a sustained performance advantage in bursty workloads. The Vulkan benchmark result, with a 33.8% lead, makes the WX 2100 the clear choice for applications that leverage Vulkan for rendering or compute. Its 14 nm process and 35 W TDP also make it more suitable for compact or thermally constrained systems, especially given its single-slot design and lack of external power connectors. The WX 2100's display outputs, including DisplayPort 1.4a, add professional connectivity that the R9 M360 lacks in the recorded data.

The AMD Radeon R9 M360 retains advantages in memory capacity and bandwidth. Its 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus delivers 72.00 GB/s, which is 50% higher than the WX 2100's 48.00 GB/s. For workloads that are bandwidth-bound rather than compute-bound, such as large texture streaming or certain data-parallel tasks, the R9 M360 could hold its own or even outperform the WX 2100. The wider bus also provides better headroom for higher resolutions or multi-sample anti-aliasing, where memory throughput becomes the limiting factor. The R9 M360's PCIe 3.0 x16 interface offers double the lane width of the WX 2100's x8 connection, which may reduce transfer bottlenecks in some system configurations.

The OpenCL benchmark shows only a 4% gap, suggesting that in legacy compute APIs, the two cards are nearly interchangeable. Users running OpenCL-only applications might not notice the difference. However, the aggregate data favors the WX 2100 in both recorded benchmarks, and its higher transistor density, newer architecture, and superior API profile make it the more future-proof option. The R9 M360 is best suited for scenarios where memory capacity and bandwidth take priority over compute throughput, while the WX 2100 dominates in modern API workloads and efficiency-sensitive deployments.