AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 vs NVIDIA GeForce MX350 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a clear overall victory for the NVIDIA GeForce MX350, which wins both recorded tests against the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100. The most decisive margin comes in the Geekbench Vulkan test, where the MX350 scores 13,077 points against the WX 2100's 10,770, a difference of 21.4%. That is a substantial gap, indicating the NVIDIA part holds a significant advantage in Vulkan-based workloads, likely due to a combination of higher clock speeds and more efficient architecture.

In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the margin narrows considerably but still favors the MX350. The NVIDIA card posts 8,689 points, while the AMD card manages 8,536. The delta here is just 1.8%, a much closer contest. This suggests that in OpenCL compute tasks, the two GPUs are nearly equivalent, with the MX350 only edging ahead by a slim margin. The overall average benchmark score reflects this split: the MX350 sits at 10,883, while the WX 2100 trails at 9,653.

Looking at the broader database context, the MX350's average score places it in the 49th percentile of all GPUs, while the WX 2100 lands in the 46th percentile. The MX350's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon Pro 450 (average score 10,804, delta 0.7%), the NVIDIA Quadro K2200 (10,761, delta 1.1%), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER (11,047, delta -1.5%), and the AMD Radeon RX 550 (11,075, delta -1.7%). This places the MX350 in a tight cluster, slightly behind the GTX 1650 SUPER and RX 550, but marginally ahead of the older Quadro and Radeon Pro parts.

For the WX 2100, the nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M (average score 9,645, delta 0.1%), the NVIDIA Quadro P4000 (9,665, delta -0.1%), the NVIDIA Quadro K5000 (9,637, delta 0.2%), and the NVIDIA Tesla C2070 (9,716, delta -0.6%). The WX 2100 sits right in the middle of this group, with deltas under 1% in all cases, indicating it performs essentially on par with these older or lower-tier workstation cards.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce MX350 wins in every recorded benchmark category, so the choice is straightforward for users prioritizing raw performance. The biggest win is in Vulkan, where the 21.4% lead over the WX 2100 is substantial. This makes the MX350 the better option for applications that leverage Vulkan for rendering or compute, such as modern game engines or Vulkan-based productivity tools.

The MX350 also wins the OpenCL test, but by a much smaller margin of 1.8%. This means that in OpenCL-heavy workflows, such as certain scientific simulations, video encoding, or machine learning inference, the two cards are nearly interchangeable. Users with workloads that are exclusively OpenCL-based might not notice a significant difference between the two.

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100, while not winning any direct benchmark, still has its place. Its nearest rival data shows it performs within 0.6% of the NVIDIA Tesla C2070 and within 0.1% of the Quadro P4000, indicating it is a capable card for legacy workstation tasks. However, the data clearly shows that in every measured scenario, the MX350 is the faster GPU.

For users who require Vulkan performance, the MX350 is the clear winner. For those who prioritize OpenCL compute and are sensitive to the 1.8% difference, the choice is less clear, but the MX350 still holds the edge. The WX 2100, with its lower average score and 46th percentile ranking, is better suited for basic workstation duties where the performance gap is acceptable.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX350 has an average benchmark score of 10,883, while the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 has an average score of 9,653.

Q: What is the largest performance difference in the head-to-head tests?

A: The largest difference is in the Geekbench Vulkan test, where the MX350 scores 13,077 against the WX 2100's 10,770, a delta of 21.4%.

Q: How close is the OpenCL performance between the two cards?

A: The OpenCL test shows only a 1.8% difference, with the MX350 scoring 8,689 and the WX 2100 scoring 8,536.

Q: Which card has a higher percentile ranking among all GPUs?

A: The MX350 ranks in the 49th percentile, while the WX 2100 ranks in the 46th percentile.

Q: What are the closest rivals to the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100?

A: The closest rivals are the NVIDIA Quadro P4000 (delta -0.1%), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M (delta 0.1%), the NVIDIA Quadro K5000 (delta 0.2%), and the NVIDIA Tesla C2070 (delta -0.6%).

Q: Does the AMD card win any benchmark test?

A: No, the data shows the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 loses both the OpenCL and Vulkan tests to the MX350, with 0 wins recorded.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across several key specifications, starting with their manufacturers and chip designs. The NVIDIA GeForce MX350 uses the GP107S chip, while the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 uses the Lexa chip. The MX350 is built on the Pascal architecture, while the WX 2100 uses GCN 4.0. Both are manufactured on a 14 nm process, but the MX350 comes from Samsung, while the WX 2100 comes from GlobalFoundries.

The transistor counts differ significantly: the MX350 has 3,300 million transistors on a 132 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 25.0M per mm². The WX 2100 has 2,200 million transistors on a 103 mm² die, with a density of 21.4M per mm². This means the MX350 packs more transistors into a larger die, resulting in higher density.

Clock speeds also differ. The MX350 has a base clock of 1354 MHz and a boost clock of 1468 MHz, while the WX 2100 has a base clock of 925 MHz and a boost clock of 1219 MHz. Memory clocks follow a similar pattern, with the MX350 running at 1752 MHz (7 Gbps effective) and the WX 2100 at 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective). Despite both having 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 64-bit bus, the MX350 achieves a bandwidth of 56.06 GB/s, while the WX 2100 manages 48.00 GB/s.

The compute units differ as well. The MX350 has 640 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, while the WX 2100 has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This results in higher pixel and texture rates for the MX350: 23.49 GPixel/s and 46.98 GTexel/s, versus 19.50 GPixel/s and 39.01 GTexel/s for the WX 2100. The FP32 performance is 1.879 TFLOPS for the MX350 and 1,248.3 GFLOPS for the WX 2100. The FP16 performance shows a stark contrast: the MX350 achieves only 29.36 GFLOPS (1:64 ratio), while the WX 2100 reaches 1,248.3 GFLOPS (1:1 ratio), meaning the AMD card has full-rate FP16.

Power consumption differs, with the MX350 rated at 20 W TDP and the WX 2100 at 35 W TDP. The bus interface also differs: the MX350 uses PCIe 3.0 x4, while the WX 2100 uses PCIe 3.0 x8. The WX 2100 has a single-slot design and measures 168 mm in length and 69 mm in height, while the MX350 has no recorded dimensions and is described as "Portable Device Dependent" for display outputs. The WX 2100 features 1x DisplayPort 1.4a and 2x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divergence between these two GPUs is significant. The NVIDIA GeForce MX350 is based on the Pascal architecture, which was designed for efficient gaming and mobile performance. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 uses GCN 4.0, a compute-oriented architecture that powers many AMD workstation cards. This fundamental difference explains why the MX350 excels in Vulkan, while the WX 2100's FP16 performance is notably stronger.

The process nodes are identical at 14 nm, but the foundries differ: Samsung for the MX350 and GlobalFoundries for the WX 2100. The MX350's transistor density is higher at 25.0M per mm², compared to 21.4M per mm² for the WX 2100. This density advantage, combined with higher clock speeds, contributes to the MX350's superior benchmark results.

The MX350 has more shading units (640 versus 512) but the same number of TMUs and ROPs (32 and 16, respectively). This gives the MX350 higher pixel and texture rates, which are 23.49 GPixel/s and 46.98 GTexel/s, versus 19.50 GPixel/s and 39.01 GTexel/s for the WX 2100. The FP32 throughput is also higher on the MX350 at 1.879 TFLOPS, compared to 1,248.3 GFLOPS on the WX 2100.

The FP16 capability is a major architectural split. The MX350 has a 1:64 FP16 ratio, meaning it processes FP16 at a fraction of the FP32 rate, resulting in just 29.36 GFLOPS. The WX 2100, however, has a 1:1 FP16 ratio, delivering 1,248.3 GFLOPS. This makes the AMD card dramatically better for workloads that use FP16 precision, such as certain machine learning or image processing tasks.

The API support also differs. Both support DirectX 12 and OpenGL 4.6, but the MX350 supports DirectX 12_1 and Vulkan 1.4, while the WX 2100 supports DirectX 12_0 and Vulkan 1.3. The MX350's newer Vulkan version aligns with its strong Vulkan benchmark performance.

The WX 2100 has a predecessor (Radeon Pro GCN) and successor (Radeon Pro Vega), while the MX350 has no recorded predecessor or successor. The WX 2100 was released on 2017-06-03, while the MX350 came later on 2020-02-09. Both are marked as end-of-life products. The WX 2100 has a launch MSRP of 149 USD. The MX350's power connectors are listed as "None," and its TDP is 20 W, while the WX 2100 has a TDP of 35 W and a suggested PSU of 200 W.