AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 vs AMD Radeon RX 550 Comparison

FAQ

Q: What is the core configuration of the AMD Radeon RX 550 and the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100?

A: Both GPUs share the same Lexa chip with 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 raster operation pipelines.

Q: How do the memory subsystems differ between the two cards?

A: The RX 550 has a 128-bit bus with 112.0 GB/s of bandwidth, while the WX 2100 has a 64-bit bus with 48.00 GB/s. Both have 2 GB of GDDR5 memory.

Q: Which card has a higher boost clock?

A: The Radeon Pro WX 2100 boosts to 1219 MHz, which is higher than the RX 550's 1183 MHz boost.

Q: What is the thermal design power difference?

A: The RX 550 consumes 50 W, while the WX 2100 draws only 35 W. The WX 2100 also suggests a 200 W power supply versus the RX 550's 250 W suggestion.

Q: Which GPU has better overall benchmark performance?

A: The RX 550 has an average benchmark score of 11075 versus 9653 for the WX 2100, representing a roughly 15% advantage.

Q: Do both cards support the same graphics APIs?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon RX 550 is the clear performance leader in every benchmark category. It wins both head-to-head tests: Geekbench OpenCL with a 29.6% advantage and Geekbench Vulkan with a 13.9% advantage. The data shows a consistent pattern where the RX 550 outperforms the WX 2100 across compute and graphics workloads.

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100, however, wins in efficiency and physical design. Its 35 W TDP is 15 W lower than the RX 550, and it requires a 200 W power supply instead of 250 W. The WX 2100 is also a single-slot card, whereas the RX 550 takes dual slots. For systems where space and power draw are primary concerns, the WX 2100 presents a more compact solution.

The display output configuration also favors the WX 2100 for professional setups. It offers three DisplayPort outputs (one full-size and two mini), while the RX 550 has one DVI, one HDMI 2.0b, and one DisplayPort 1.4a. The WX 2100's multiple DisplayPort connections could be more suitable for multi-monitor professional workstations.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs use the same Lexa chip built on GCN 4.0 architecture, fabricated by GlobalFoundries on a 14 nm process. The transistor count is identical at 2,200 million, and the die size matches at 103 mm². The transistor density is also the same at 21.4M per mm².

The generations differ in naming and positioning. The RX 550 belongs to the Polaris (RX 500) generation, while the WX 2100 belongs to the Radeon Pro Polaris (WX x100) generation. Despite this naming difference, the underlying architecture is identical GCN 4.0.

The predecessor and successor paths differ: the RX 550 follows Arctic Islands and leads to Vega, while the WX 2100 follows Radeon Pro GCN and leads to Radeon Pro Vega. This reflects their different market positioning rather than fundamental architectural changes.

Neither card includes ray tracing cores or tensor cores, as these features are absent from the GCN 4.0 architecture. The FP16 performance matches FP32 at 1:1 ratio for both cards, indicating no specialized half-precision hardware.

Specification Differences

The clock speeds differ notably. The RX 550 has a base clock of 1100 MHz and boost of 1183 MHz. The WX 2100 has a lower base of 925 MHz but a higher boost of 1219 MHz. This results in different peak rates: the WX 2100 achieves 19.50 GPixel/s and 39.01 GTexel/s, while the RX 550 reaches 18.93 GPixel/s and 37.86 GTexel/s.

Memory configuration shows the largest gap. The RX 550 uses a 128-bit bus with 112.0 GB/s bandwidth and 1750 MHz memory clock (7 Gbps effective). The WX 2100 uses a 64-bit bus with 48.00 GB/s bandwidth and 1500 MHz memory clock (6 Gbps effective). Both have 2 GB of GDDR5.

The FP32 compute output differs slightly: the WX 2100 produces 1,248.3 GFLOPS versus 1,211.4 GFLOPS for the RX 550, a difference of about 3% in favor of the Pro card.

Physical specifications vary significantly. The RX 550 measures 145 mm (5.7 inches) and is dual-slot, while the WX 2100 measures 168 mm (6.6 inches) with a height of 69 mm (2.7 inches) and is single-slot. Neither card requires external power connectors.

Release dates differ by about six weeks: the RX 550 launched on April 19, 2017, and the WX 2100 on June 3, 2017. Both are end-of-life products.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench OpenCL test shows the RX 550 scoring 11063 against the WX 2100's 8536, a 29.6% difference. This is the largest performance gap between the two cards and indicates substantial compute advantage for the RX 550. The RX 550's wider memory bus likely contributes to this result, as OpenCL workloads often benefit from higher bandwidth.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the RX 550 scores 12270 versus 10770 for the WX 2100, a 13.9% lead. While still favoring the RX 550, the margin is smaller than in OpenCL. This suggests the WX 2100's higher boost clock helps narrow the gap in graphics-oriented workloads.

The average benchmark scores reinforce the RX 550's position. Its 11075 average places it in the 50th percentile of all GPUs, while the WX 2100's 9653 average sits in the 46th percentile. The RX 550's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000D Blackwell Max-Q at 11088 (0.1% higher) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER at 11047 (0.3% lower). The WX 2100's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M at 9645 (0.1% higher) and the NVIDIA Quadro P4000 at 9665 (0.1% lower).

The RX 550 wins both head-to-head matchups, giving it a 2-0 record. The deltas are consistent in direction, though the magnitude varies from 13.9% to 29.6% depending on the workload type.

The Verdict

The data clearly favors the AMD Radeon RX 550 for raw performance. It wins both recorded benchmarks with margins of 29.6% in OpenCL and 13.9% in Vulkan. Its average benchmark score of 11075 places it at the 50th percentile, four points higher than the WX 2100's 46th percentile. Users seeking maximum compute and graphics throughput should choose the RX 550.

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 has its own strengths. Its 35 W TDP makes it more power-efficient than the 50 W RX 550, and its 200 W power supply suggestion is lower. The single-slot design and triple DisplayPort output configuration may appeal to workstation builders with dense multi-GPU or multi-monitor setups. The WX 2100 also achieves slightly higher peak rates: 19.50 GPixel/s and 39.01 GTexel/s versus 18.93 GPixel/s and 37.86 GTexel/s for the RX 550.

The decision hinges on priorities. For performance-centric builds, the RX 550 is the unambiguous choice based on benchmark data. For power-constrained or space-limited professional systems where the higher boost clock and display output flexibility matter more than raw bandwidth, the WX 2100 offers a compelling profile. The RX 550's 128-bit memory bus provides 112.0 GB/s of bandwidth, more than double the WX 2100's 48.00 GB/s, which explains its consistent performance advantage despite the Pro card's higher boost clock.