AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 vs NVIDIA Quadro K5000 Comparison

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 and NVIDIA Quadro K5000 are two professional workstation cards from different eras, and the benchmark data shows a clear split between raw compute and modern API performance. The Quadro K5000 holds a decisive edge in raw compute throughput, while the Radeon Pro WX 2100 counters with newer architecture features and much lower power demands, but the head-to-head results show NVIDIA winning both tested workloads.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most significant gap between these two cards appears in the Geekbench OpenCL test. The NVIDIA Quadro K5000 scores 11,418, which is a substantial 25.2% ahead of the Radeon Pro WX 2100’s 8,536. This is the biggest win for either card in any comparison, and it reflects the Quadro’s much larger shading engine. The WX 2100’s 512 shading units simply cannot match the K5000’s 1,536 shading units in compute-heavy OpenCL workloads, despite the newer architecture.

In the Vulkan test, the margin narrows dramatically. The Quadro K5000 still wins, posting 11,169 versus the WX 2100’s 10,770, but the lead shrinks to just 3.6%. This smaller gap suggests that the WX 2100’s GCN 4.0 architecture handles modern graphics APIs more efficiently than the older Kepler design. The Vulkan scores are close enough that real-world differences in Vulkan-based applications would be minor.

Looking at the average benchmark score across all tests, the two cards are effectively tied. The WX 2100 averages 9,653, while the K5000 averages 9,637, a difference of just 0.2% in favor of AMD. This places both cards at the 46th percentile among all GPUs, meaning they occupy the same performance tier overall. The nearest rival data reinforces this: the WX 2100 is 0.1% behind the GeForce GTX 960M and 0.2% ahead of the K5000, while the K5000 is 0.1% behind the GTX 960M and 0.3% behind the Quadro P4000.

The head-to-head results show the K5000 wins both available tests, giving it a 2-0 record in direct comparisons. However, the average scores tell a more nuanced story, where the WX 2100’s Vulkan strength nearly compensates for its OpenCL deficit.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from entirely different architectural generations. The Radeon Pro WX 2100 uses the Lexa chip built on GCN 4.0 architecture, manufactured on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The Quadro K5000 uses the GK104 chip with Kepler architecture, built on TSMC’s 28 nm process. This process gap is significant: the WX 2100 packs 2,200 million transistors into a 103 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 21.4 million per mm². The K5000 has more transistors overall at 3,540 million, but they reside on a much larger 294 mm² die, yielding a lower density of 12.0 million per mm².

Memory configurations also differ sharply. The WX 2100 comes with 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus, delivering 48.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The K5000 doubles capacity to 4 GB and uses a 256-bit bus, quadrupling bandwidth to 172.8 GB/s. This massive bandwidth advantage helps explain the K5000’s OpenCL lead, as compute workloads often scale with memory throughput.

Clock speeds and power draw tell the opposite story. The WX 2100 runs at a 925 MHz base and 1219 MHz boost, while the K5000 is locked at 706 MHz for both base and boost. The AMD card’s higher clocks and modern process node allow it to reach 1,248.3 GFLOPS of FP32 performance while consuming just 35 W. The K5000 reaches 2.169 TFLOPS FP32 but requires 122 W, over three times the power. The WX 2100 also supports FP16 at 1,248.3 GFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, while the K5000 has no FP16 capability listed.

API support differs as well. The WX 2100 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The K5000 supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The AMD card’s higher Vulkan version aligns with its better relative performance in the Vulkan benchmark.

FAQ

Q: Which card has better overall benchmark performance?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K5000 wins both head-to-head tests, but the average benchmark scores are nearly identical. The WX 2100 averages 9,653 versus the K5000’s 9,637, a 0.2% difference, so overall performance is essentially a tie.

Q: Why does the K5000 win OpenCL by such a large margin?

A: The K5000’s 1,536 shading units and 172.8 GB/s memory bandwidth provide far more compute resources than the WX 2100’s 512 shading units and 48.00 GB/s bandwidth. The 25.2% OpenCL delta reflects this hardware advantage.

Q: Is the WX 2100 competitive in modern APIs?

A: Yes, the Vulkan benchmark shows only a 3.6% gap in favor of the K5000. The WX 2100’s GCN 4.0 architecture and Vulkan 1.3 support help it stay close despite having fewer hardware resources.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The WX 2100 has a 35 W TDP and requires no power connectors, with a suggested PSU of 200 W. The K5000 has a 122 W TDP, needs one 6-pin connector, and recommends a 300 W PSU.

Q: Do these cards support the same display outputs?

A: No. The WX 2100 offers 1x DisplayPort 1.4a and 2x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a, while the K5000 provides 2x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2.

Q: Which card is physically larger?

A: The K5000 is a dual-slot card measuring 267 mm in length and 111 mm in height. The WX 2100 is single-slot at 168 mm long and 69 mm high, making it much easier to fit in compact systems.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every specification category. The WX 2100 uses a 14 nm process versus the K5000’s 28 nm, and it has a smaller die at 103 mm² versus 294 mm². Transistor counts reverse the trend, with the K5000 at 3,540 million versus 2,200 million for the WX 2100.

Clock speeds favor AMD, with the WX 2100 boosting to 1219 MHz versus the K5000’s fixed 706 MHz. Memory capacity and bandwidth favor NVIDIA, with 4 GB at 172.8 GB/s versus 2 GB at 48.00 GB/s. The K5000 also has more execution resources: 1,536 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, compared to 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs.

Power and physical requirements show the WX 2100 is far more efficient. It draws 35 W versus 122 W, needs no power connector versus one 6-pin, and fits in a single slot versus dual-slot. The WX 2100 also uses PCIe 3.0 x8, while the K5000 uses the older PCIe 2.0 x16 interface. Display outputs differ as noted, and the WX 2100 supports newer API versions including DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3.

The release dates highlight the generational gap. The WX 2100 launched in June 2017 with a launch MSRP of 149 USD, while the K5000 launched in August 2012 with a launch MSRP of 2,499 USD. Both are end-of-life products, but the WX 2100 is the newer design.

The Verdict

The data supports choosing the NVIDIA Quadro K5000 if raw compute performance is the priority. It wins the OpenCL benchmark by 25.2% and the Vulkan benchmark by 3.6%, and its 4 GB memory capacity and 172.8 GB/s bandwidth make it better suited for large datasets. The K5000’s 2.169 TFLOPS FP32 throughput is nearly double the WX 2100’s 1,248.3 GFLOPS, which matters for rendering and simulation workloads that rely on brute-force compute.

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 is the better choice for systems where power and space are constrained. Its 35 W TDP requires no auxiliary power connector and only a 200 W PSU, versus the K5000’s 122 W draw and 300 W PSU recommendation. The single-slot 168 mm design fits in compact chassis where the K5000’s 267 mm dual-slot card will not. The WX 2100 also offers newer display outputs with DisplayPort 1.4a support.

For average performance, the two are statistically tied. The 0.2% average score difference between 9,653 and 9,637 is negligible, and both sit at the 46th percentile of all GPUs. The decision comes down to whether you need the K5000’s compute muscle or the WX 2100’s efficiency and modern feature set.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro K5000 wins in compute-heavy professional applications. Its 25.2% OpenCL advantage indicates strong performance in tasks that use OpenCL for rendering, physics simulation, or data processing. The 256-bit memory bus and 172.8 GB/s bandwidth provide the data throughput needed for large texture sets or complex scenes. The 4 GB frame buffer also gives it more headroom for high-resolution workloads.

The Radeon Pro WX 2100 wins in efficiency and deployment flexibility. Its 35 W TDP and lack of power connectors make it ideal for low-power workstations or systems with limited PSU capacity. The single-slot 168 mm form factor fits in small form factor cases or servers where space is at a premium. Modern DisplayPort 1.4a outputs support higher resolutions and refresh rates than the K5000’s DisplayPort 1.2.

The Vulkan results show the WX 2100 is competitive in newer graphics workloads, trailing by only 3.6%. This suggests it handles modern game engines and Vulkan-based professional applications reasonably well despite its smaller hardware footprint. The K5000’s Vulkan 1.2.175 support is slightly older, and its Kepler architecture lacks some modern feature optimizations.

For a builder choosing between these two end-of-life cards, the K5000 offers superior raw performance and memory capacity, while the WX 2100 offers modern interfaces, far lower power draw, and a much smaller physical footprint. The average benchmark scores being nearly identical means either card will deliver similar overall performance, but the workload and system constraints will determine which one is the right fit.