AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 vs AMD Radeon R9 M375 Comparison

# AMD Radeon R9 M375 vs AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100

The AMD Radeon R9 M375 and AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 are two end-of-life mobile GPUs from different eras of AMD's product stack. The R9 M375, released in May 2015, is built on the older GCN 1.0 architecture using a 28 nm process, while the Pro WX 2100, released in June 2017, uses the GCN 4.0 architecture on a 14 nm process. Benchmark data shows a split decision: the R9 M375 wins the OpenCL test by 22.5%, while the Pro WX 2100 counters with a 10.1% victory in Vulkan. With one win each, the choice between them depends heavily on the workload and API in question.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon R9 M375 is the clear winner in OpenCL compute workloads. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 10,457 stands 22.5% above the Pro WX 2100's 8,536. This margin is substantial and suggests the R9 M375's higher shading unit count — 640 versus 512 — combined with its wider 128-bit memory bus, gives it a meaningful advantage in general-purpose GPU compute tasks that leverage OpenCL. The R9 M375 also posts a higher average benchmark score of 10,070 against the Pro WX 2100's 9,653, placing it in the 48th percentile of all GPUs versus the Pro WX 2100's 46th percentile. In terms of nearest rivals, the R9 M375 sits just 0.3% above the NVIDIA Quadro K5100M and 0.6% above the AMD Radeon Pro 5300M, while edging out the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 870M by 1.1%. Its average score trails the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A by 2%, but the overall picture is one of a solid mid-pack performer.

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100, conversely, wins decisively in Vulkan graphics workloads. Its Geekbench Vulkan score of 10,770 is 10.1% higher than the R9 M375's 9,682. This is notable because the Pro WX 2100 has fewer shading units (512 vs. 640) and a narrower 64-bit memory bus, yet its newer GCN 4.0 architecture and higher boost clock of 1219 MHz (versus 1015 MHz on the R9 M375) deliver superior Vulkan performance. The Pro WX 2100 also benefits from GDDR5 memory running at 6 Gbps effective, compared to the R9 M375's DDR3 at 1800 Mbps effective. The Pro WX 2100's average benchmark score of 9,653 places it within a razor-thin margin of its nearest rivals: it is 0.1% above the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M and 0.2% above the NVIDIA Quadro K5000, while sitting 0.1% below the NVIDIA Quadro P4000 and 0.6% below the NVIDIA Tesla C2070. For users prioritizing Vulkan-based applications or modern API support, the Pro WX 2100 is the stronger choice.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R9 M375 has a higher average benchmark score of 10,070, compared to the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100's 9,653. This puts the R9 M375 in the 48th percentile of all GPUs, while the Pro WX 2100 sits in the 46th percentile.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in OpenCL performance?

A: The AMD Radeon R9 M375 wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 10,457, which is 22.5% higher than the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100's 8,536. This is the R9 M375's strongest benchmark result.

Q: Which GPU performs better in Vulkan?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 takes the Geekbench Vulkan test with a score of 10,770, beating the AMD Radeon R9 M375's 9,682 by a margin of 10.1%. This is the Pro WX 2100's standout result.

Q: What are the memory specifications of each GPU?

A: Both GPUs have 2 GB of memory, but the AMD Radeon R9 M375 uses DDR3 on a 128-bit bus with 28.80 GB/s bandwidth, while the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 uses GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus with 48.00 GB/s bandwidth. Despite the narrower bus, the Pro WX 2100's GDDR5 memory provides significantly higher bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has a higher boost clock?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 has a higher boost clock of 1219 MHz, compared to the AMD Radeon R9 M375's 1015 MHz. However, the R9 M375 has a higher base clock at 1000 MHz versus 925 MHz on the Pro WX 2100.

Q: What is the TDP of the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 has a TDP of 35 W and a suggested PSU of 200 W. It requires no power connectors and is a single-slot card. The R9 M375's TDP is not listed in the data.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark results reveal a clear split between the two GPUs, with each winning one test by a significant margin. In Geekbench OpenCL, the AMD Radeon R9 M375 scores 10,457 against the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100's 8,536, a delta of 22.5% in favor of the older GPU. This is a substantial gap, and it underscores the R9 M375's advantage in raw compute throughput. The R9 M375's 640 shading units and 40 texture mapping units, combined with its 128-bit memory interface, provide a strong foundation for OpenCL workloads that scale with shader count and memory bandwidth.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the tables turn decisively. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 scores 10,770, while the AMD Radeon R9 M375 manages only 9,682, giving the Pro WX 2100 a 10.1% victory. This result is particularly interesting given the Pro WX 2100's lower shading unit count (512 vs. 640) and narrower memory bus (64-bit vs. 128-bit). However, the Pro WX 2100's GCN 4.0 architecture, higher boost clock (1219 MHz vs. 1015 MHz), and faster GDDR5 memory (48.00 GB/s bandwidth vs. 28.80 GB/s) more than compensate in Vulkan workloads. The newer architecture also supports Vulkan 1.3, whereas the R9 M375 is limited to Vulkan 1.2.170, which may contribute to better driver optimization and API-level efficiency in the Pro WX 2100.

Looking at the broader benchmark context, the R9 M375's average score of 10,070 places it among a tight cluster of rivals, all within a 2% range. The NVIDIA Quadro K5100M (10,043) is just 0.3% behind, the AMD Radeon Pro 5300M (10,013) is 0.6% behind, and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 870M (9,959) is 1.1% behind. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A (10,273) leads the R9 M375 by 2%. The Pro WX 2100's average of 9,653 sits in an even tighter cluster, with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M (9,645) just 0.1% behind, the NVIDIA Quadro K5000 (9,637) 0.2% behind, and the NVIDIA Quadro P4000 (9,665) and NVIDIA Tesla C2070 (9,716) leading by 0.1% and 0.6% respectively. These narrow margins highlight how competitive this performance tier is, regardless of which GPU is chosen.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every major specification category, reflecting their different generations and market positions. The AMD Radeon R9 M375 is built on the Tropo chip with a 28 nm process from TSMC, while the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 uses the Lexa chip on a 14 nm process from GlobalFoundries. The R9 M375 packs 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 12.2M per mm². The Pro WX 2100, despite having a smaller 103 mm² die, contains 2,200 million transistors, yielding a much higher density of 21.4M per mm².

Clock speeds also differ notably. The R9 M375 has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 1015 MHz, while the Pro WX 2100 starts at 925 MHz but boosts to 1219 MHz. Memory clocks are dramatically different: the R9 M375 runs at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) with DDR3 memory, while the Pro WX 2100 runs at 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective) with GDDR5. Both have 2 GB of memory, but the R9 M375 uses a 128-bit bus for 28.80 GB/s bandwidth, whereas the Pro WX 2100 uses a 64-bit bus for 48.00 GB/s bandwidth — a 67% advantage for the Pro WX 2100 despite the narrower interface.

The compute unit configurations diverge as well. The R9 M375 has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, while the Pro WX 2100 has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Pixel rates favor the Pro WX 2100 at 19.50 GPixel/s versus 16.24 GPixel/s, while texture rates are nearly identical (40.60 GTexel/s for the R9 M375 vs. 39.01 GTexel/s for the Pro WX 2100). FP32 performance is close, with the R9 M375 at 1,299.2 GFLOPS and the Pro WX 2100 at 1,248.3 GFLOPS. The Pro WX 2100 also supports FP16 at 1,248.3 GFLOPS (1:1), while the R9 M375 has no listed FP16 capability.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is significant, as they represent two distinct generations of AMD's Graphics Core Next (GCN) design. The AMD Radeon R9 M375 is based on GCN 1.0, the original iteration of the architecture, built on a 28 nm process. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100, by contrast, uses GCN 4.0, which was AMD's fourth-generation GCN design, manufactured on a 14 nm process. This generational leap brings substantial improvements in efficiency and feature support.

The transistor counts tell the story of architectural evolution. The R9 M375's Tropo chip contains 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, while the Pro WX 2100's Lexa chip packs 2,200 million transistors into a smaller 103 mm² die. This 47% increase in transistor count on a 16% smaller die is made possible by the 14 nm process, and it enables the Pro WX 2100 to deliver competitive performance with fewer shading units (512 vs. 640) and fewer TMUs (32 vs. 40). The higher transistor density of 21.4M per mm² on the Pro WX 2100 (versus 12.2M per mm² on the R9 M375) reflects the more advanced manufacturing technology.

Feature support also differs between the two architectures. The Pro WX 2100 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the R9 M375 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6, but the Pro WX 2100 offers Vulkan 1.3 compared to the R9 M375's Vulkan 1.2.170. The Pro WX 2100 also includes modern display outputs with 1x DisplayPort 1.4a and 2x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a, while the R9 M375 has no listed display outputs. The Pro WX 2100 is a professional-grade card with a single-slot form factor, 35 W TDP, and no power connectors, while the R9 M375's power characteristics are not specified. These architectural differences explain why the Pro WX 2100, despite having fewer compute units, can outperform the R9 M375 in Vulkan while the R9 M375 retains its OpenCL lead.