AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 vs AMD Radeon RX 550X Comparison

# The Verdict

The data presents a clear but narrow picture: the AMD Radeon RX 550X wins both head-to-head benchmarks against the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100, yet the margins are modest. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RX 550X scores 9662 against the WX 2100's 8536, a 13.2% advantage. In Geekbench Vulkan, the gap narrows to 4.9%, with 11299 versus 10770. Neither card is a powerhouse — the RX 550X sits at the 49th percentile of all GPUs, while the WX 2100 sits at the 46th.

The RX 550X is the pick for anyone prioritizing raw compute throughput. It delivers a higher average benchmark score (10481 vs 9653), and its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 6500M (1.2% ahead) and NVIDIA Tesla C2075 (0.8% ahead), placing it in a competitive mid-pack. The WX 2100, by contrast, trades blows with the NVIDIA Quadro P4000 (-0.1%) and GTX 960M (0.1%), showing it is essentially at parity with a broader field.

However, the WX 2100 counters with efficiency and form factor. Its 35 W TDP is 30% lower than the RX 550X's 50 W, and it is single-slot versus dual-slot. It also offers three display outputs (one DisplayPort 1.4a and two mini-DisplayPort 1.4a) compared to the RX 550X's three outputs (DVI, HDMI 2.0b, DisplayPort 1.4a). For a workstation where space and power draw are constraints, the WX 2100 has a structural argument despite losing on raw scores.

Buyers should choose the RX 550X for compute-bound tasks that leverage OpenCL or Vulkan acceleration, and the WX 2100 for compact, low-power professional deployments where multi-display output and minimal thermal footprint matter more than peak benchmark numbers.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 550X has an average benchmark score of 10481, while the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 averages 9653. This represents an 8.6% gap in favor of the RX 550X.

Q: What is the performance difference in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The RX 550X scores 9662 in Geekbench OpenCL, beating the WX 2100's 8536 by 13.2%. This is the largest head-to-head margin between the two cards.

Q: How do these cards compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The RX 550X's closest rival is the AMD Radeon R9 M275X, which scores 10582 (-1% delta), and the AMD Radeon RX 6600S at 10629 (-1.4%). The WX 2100's nearest rival is the NVIDIA Quadro P4000 at 9665 (-0.1%), with the NVIDIA Quadro K5000 close behind at 9637 (0.2%).

Q: What are the memory specifications of each card?

A: The RX 550X has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, yielding 96.00 GB/s bandwidth. The WX 2100 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus, yielding 48.00 GB/s bandwidth. The RX 550X has exactly double the bandwidth.

Q: Which card is more power-efficient?

A: The WX 2100 has a TDP of 35 W and a suggested PSU of 200 W, while the RX 550X has a TDP of 50 W and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The WX 2100 also occupies a single slot versus the RX 550X's dual-slot design.

Q: Do both cards support the same APIs?

A: Yes, both cards support DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. They also share the same GCN 4.0 architecture and 14 nm process node.

Architecture Differences

Both cards are built on the same Lexa chip, using GCN 4.0 architecture, fabricated by GlobalFoundries on a 14 nm process. Both have 2,200 million transistors on a 103 mm² die, yielding an identical transistor density of 21.4M per mm². The shading units (512), texture mapping units (32), and render output units (16) are also identical. Neither card has ray tracing cores or tensor cores.

The architectural divergence lies in their respective generations. The RX 550X belongs to the Polaris (RX 500X) generation, while the WX 2100 is part of the Radeon Pro Polaris (WX x100) generation. This positioning reflects different design intents: the RX 550X is a consumer-oriented Polaris refresh, while the WX 2100 is a professional workstation variant. The predecessor and successor lines also differ — the RX 550X follows Polaris and leads to Vega, whereas the WX 2100 follows Radeon Pro GCN and leads to Radeon Pro Vega.

The clock behavior is where the architecture expresses itself differently. The RX 550X has a base clock of 1100 MHz and a boost of 1183 MHz. The WX 2100 has a lower base clock of 925 MHz but a higher boost of 1219 MHz. This suggests the WX 2100 is tuned for burst performance under professional workloads, while the RX 550X maintains a higher sustained baseline. Despite the identical core counts, the pixel rate (19.50 GPixel/s for WX 2100 vs 18.93 GPixel/s for RX 550X) and texture rate (39.01 GTexel/s vs 37.86 GTexel/s) are slightly higher on the WX 2100 due to its higher boost clock. The FP32 and FP16 throughput are also marginally higher on the WX 2100 at 1,248.3 GFLOPS versus 1,211.4 GFLOPS, both at a 1:1 ratio.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in several key specification fields. Memory is the most pronounced difference: the RX 550X offers 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth, while the WX 2100 provides 2 GB on a 64-bit bus with 48.00 GB/s. This is a 2x advantage in both capacity and bandwidth for the RX 550X.

Clock speeds diverge as noted: base clocks are 1100 MHz (RX 550X) versus 925 MHz (WX 2100), but boost clocks are 1183 MHz versus 1219 MHz respectively. Memory clocks are identical at 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective).

Power and physical design differ substantially. The RX 550X has a 50 W TDP, a 250 W suggested PSU, and a dual-slot form factor, measuring 145 mm (5.7 inches) in length. The WX 2100 has a 35 W TDP, a 200 W suggested PSU, and a single-slot design, measuring 168 mm (6.6 inches) in length with a height of 69 mm (2.7 inches). Neither card requires external power connectors.

Display outputs differ in type: the RX 550X has 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0b, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a. The WX 2100 has 1x DisplayPort 1.4a and 2x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a. Both use a PCIe 3.0 x8 bus interface.

Release dates and pricing also differ. The RX 550X was released on 2018-12-15, while the WX 2100 was released earlier on 2017-06-03. The WX 2100 has a launch MSRP of 149 USD; the RX 550X has no launch MSRP listed. Both are end-of-life products.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data shows the RX 550X winning both recorded tests. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RX 550X scores 9662 against the WX 2100's 8536, a 13.2% delta. This is a substantial margin — the WX 2100 would need a significant boost to close that gap. In Geekbench Vulkan, the RX 550X scores 11299 versus 10770, a 4.9% delta. The Vulkan gap is much smaller, suggesting that the WX 2100 is relatively stronger in this API, perhaps due to its higher boost clock.

The average benchmark scores reinforce the RX 550X's edge: 10481 versus 9653, an 8.6% overall advantage. However, the percentile rankings tell a nuanced story. The RX 550X sits at the 49th percentile of all GPUs, while the WX 2100 sits at the 46th. This 3-percentile difference is small, indicating that both cards occupy a similar performance tier globally despite the head-to-head deltas.

The nearest rival comparisons contextualize each card differently. The RX 550X's rivals are a mixed bag: it trails the AMD Radeon R9 M275X by 1% and the AMD Radeon RX 6600S by 1.4%, while leading the NVIDIA Tesla C2075 by 0.8% and the AMD Radeon RX 6500M by 1.2%. The WX 2100's rivals cluster tightly around it: the NVIDIA Quadro P4000 leads by 0.1%, the NVIDIA Tesla C2070 leads by 0.6%, and the NVIDIA Quadro K5000 trails by 0.2%, with the GTX 960M trailing by 0.1%. The WX 2100 is essentially in a dead heat with its nearest competitors, whereas the RX 550X shows slightly more variance.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 550X wins in compute-heavy scenarios that stress memory bandwidth and sustained throughput. Its 96.00 GB/s bandwidth is double that of the WX 2100, which directly benefits OpenCL workloads that move large data sets. The 13.2% OpenCL win reflects this advantage. The 4 GB memory capacity also allows larger working sets without spillover, a practical win for rendering or data-parallel tasks. Its lower base clock (1100 MHz) but consistent boost (1183 MHz) suggests stable performance under sustained load.

The WX 2100 wins in the efficiency and physical design domain. Its 35 W TDP and single-slot profile make it suitable for dense workstation builds where power limits or chassis space are constraints. The 200 W suggested PSU versus 250 W for the RX 550X lowers system power requirements. The three display outputs (one standard DisplayPort, two mini-DisplayPort) offer flexibility for multi-monitor professional setups, and the higher boost clock (1219 MHz) gives it a slight edge in pixel rate (19.50 GPixel/s) and texture rate (39.01 GTexel/s) despite fewer memory resources. Its Vulkan score of 10770 is only 4.9% behind the RX 550X, showing relative strength in that API.

For users who need raw compute and memory capacity, the RX 550X is the data-backed choice. For users who need a low-profile, low-power card with multiple DisplayPort outputs and can accept lower OpenCL scores, the WX 2100 fills that role. The Radeon Pro branding and earlier release date (2017-06-03) suggest the WX 2100 targets professional validation, while the RX 550X's later release (2018-12-15) positions it as a general-purpose Polaris refresh. The data does not show the WX 2100 winning any benchmark, but its structural advantages in power, size, and display connectivity are real and measurable.