AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 vs Intel Arc A380 Comparison

AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 and Intel Arc A380 are two very different products that happen to share a launch MSRP of 149 USD. The data shows a decisive generational and architectural gap between them, with the Intel part dominating in every recorded head-to-head benchmark. However, the WX 2100 still holds relevance in specific legacy or power-constrained environments. This analysis breaks down where each card wins, the architectural reasons for the performance split, and what the recorded numbers mean for potential users.

Where Each One Wins

The recorded benchmark data is unambiguous: the Intel Arc A380 wins every single head-to-head test. In the two shared benchmarks, the Arc A380 scores 38,224 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 8,536 for the WX 2100, and 36,736 in Geekbench Vulkan versus 10,770. That is a 77.7% and 70.7% lead respectively, meaning the Arc A380 is roughly 4.5x and 3.4x faster in those workloads.

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 does not win any of the two head-to-head benchmarks, but it does have one clear advantage: power consumption. The WX 2100 has a TDP of 35 W, uses no power connectors, and is a single-slot card. The Arc A380 draws 75 W, requires a single 8-pin connector, and is a dual-slot design. For systems with minimal power delivery or physical space constraints, the WX 2100 is the only viable option of the two. Its 168 mm length and 69 mm height also make it far easier to fit into compact chassis compared to the Arc A380's 222 mm length and 114 mm height.

The Arc A380 also wins on software feature support in the database. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the WX 2100 only reaches DirectX 12 (12_0). The Intel card also supports Vulkan 1.4 versus 1.3 for AMD, and includes 8 dedicated ray tracing cores, which the AMD card completely lacks. For any modern gaming or compute workload that leverages ray tracing or the latest graphics API features, the Arc A380 is the only choice.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from completely different eras and design philosophies. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 uses the Lexa chip based on GCN 4.0 architecture, built on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It packs 2,200 million transistors on a 103 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 21.4M per mm². The Intel Arc A380 uses the DG2-128 chip based on Xe-HPG architecture, built on a 6 nm process at TSMC. It contains 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die, with a density of 45.9M per mm², more than double the AMD part's density.

The compute resources are vastly different. The WX 2100 has 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The Arc A380 doubles those counts to 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The Intel card also adds 8 ray tracing cores, which the AMD card does not have. The clock speeds also favor Intel: the WX 2100 runs at 925 MHz base and 1,219 MHz boost, while the Arc A380 runs at 2,000 MHz base and 2,050 MHz boost, nearly double the base clock.

Memory is another major divide. The WX 2100 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus, delivering 48.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The Arc A380 has 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 96-bit bus, delivering 186.0 GB/s, nearly four times the bandwidth. The Intel card also uses a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface versus PCIe 3.0 x8 for AMD, which further reduces data transfer bottlenecks.

The raw throughput numbers reflect these differences. The WX 2100 delivers 19.50 GPixel/s pixel rate, 39.01 GTexel/s texture rate, and 1,248.3 GFLOPS FP32. The Arc A380 delivers 65.60 GPixel/s, 131.2 GTexel/s, and 4.198 TFLOPS FP32. The Intel card is also stronger in FP16: 8.397 TFLOPS at 2:1 ratio versus 1,248.3 GFLOPS at 1:1 ratio for AMD.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two shared benchmarks paint a clear picture of the performance gap. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Intel Arc A380 scores 38,224 against 8,536 for the AMD WX 2100. That is a delta of -77.7% from the perspective of the AMD card, meaning the Intel card is more than four times faster. This is the largest margin in any recorded test and reflects the massive difference in shading units, memory bandwidth, and clock speeds.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the Arc A380 scores 36,736 versus 10,770 for the WX 2100, a delta of -70.7%. While the margin is slightly smaller than OpenCL, it is still a commanding lead for Intel. The Vulkan test benefits from the Arc A380's modern architecture and its Vulkan 1.4 support, while the WX 2100's older GCN design and Vulkan 1.3 support limit its performance.

The average benchmark scores across all recorded tests further confirm this gap. The WX 2100 has an average benchmark score of 9,653, while the Arc A380 has an average of 8,558. This seems contradictory to the head-to-head results, but it is explained by the different benchmark sets. The Arc A380 has additional tests including PassMark DirectX 9/10/11/12 and 3DMark Steel Nomad, which drag down its average. For instance, the Arc A380 scores only 37 in PassMark DirectX 10 and 38 in DirectX 11, while its PassMark G3D score is 6,252. The WX 2100 only has the two Geekbench tests, both of which are higher than the Arc A380's PassMark scores but lower than its Geekbench scores.

The percentile rankings also reflect the broader context. The WX 2100 sits at the 46th percentile of all GPUs, while the Arc A380 is at the 44th percentile. This suggests that while the Arc A380 is faster in these specific tests, the WX 2100 is not dramatically worse in the overall distribution of GPU performance. The nearest rivals for the WX 2100 are the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M (0.1% faster), NVIDIA Quadro P4000 (0.1% slower), NVIDIA Quadro K5000 (0.2% faster), and NVIDIA Tesla C2070 (0.6% faster). The Arc A380's nearest rivals are the AMD FirePro W5170M (0.4% faster), AMD Radeon HD 8870M (1.1% slower), NVIDIA GeForce MX330 (1.2% slower), and AMD Radeon 880M (1.4% slower).

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The Intel Arc A380 is significantly faster, scoring 38,224 versus 8,536 for the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100, a 77.7% lead.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 have any ray tracing capability?

A: No, the WX 2100 has no ray tracing cores. The Intel Arc A380 has 8 dedicated ray tracing cores.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The WX 2100 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus with 48.00 GB/s bandwidth. The Arc A380 has 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 96-bit bus with 186.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card requires less power and physical space?

A: The WX 2100 has a 35 W TDP, is single-slot, and requires no power connectors. The Arc A380 has a 75 W TDP, is dual-slot, and requires a single 8-pin connector.

Q: What are the API support differences?

A: The WX 2100 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The Arc A380 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare?

A: The WX 2100 has an average benchmark score of 9,653, while the Arc A380 has an average of 8,558. This is due to the Arc A380 having more low-scoring tests in its set, not because it is slower in shared tests.

The Verdict

The data is conclusive: the Intel Arc A380 is the superior performer in every recorded head-to-head benchmark. Its Geekbench OpenCL score is 77.7% higher and its Vulkan score is 70.7% higher than the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100. The Arc A380 also offers more than double the shading units, TMUs, and ROPs, plus 8 ray tracing cores, 6 GB of memory versus 2 GB, and nearly four times the memory bandwidth. It also supports the latest DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4 APIs.

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 retains one practical advantage: power and size. At 35 W with no external power connector and a single-slot design, it can fit into older or compact systems where the Arc A380's 75 W draw and dual-slot footprint with an 8-pin connector would be impossible. Its 168 mm length and 69 mm height also make it easier to install in small form factor cases.

For any user who can accommodate the Arc A380's physical and power requirements, the choice is clear: the Intel card delivers 4.5x and 3.4x performance in the two shared benchmarks, and its architectural advantages (ray tracing, newer API support, more memory) are not matched by the AMD card. The WX 2100 is only recommended for systems that cannot support a dual-slot, 75 W, 8-pin card. In that narrow niche, the WX 2100 is the only option, but it comes with a massive performance penalty. The recorded data leaves no room for debate: the Arc A380 is the definitive winner in raw performance, while the WX 2100 wins only on power efficiency and physical compatibility.