AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 vs NVIDIA Quadro K5100M Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro K5100M and AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 are both end-of-life mobile workstation GPUs, but they represent vastly different design philosophies and eras. The data shows a clear overall winner in raw compute, but the newer AMD part offers significant architectural advantages. The K5100M holds a decisive lead in the single shared benchmark, yet the WX 2100 counters with modern API support and much higher efficiency.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available between these two cards is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the result is not close. The NVIDIA Quadro K5100M scores 11771 points, while the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 manages 8536 points. This translates to a 37.9% advantage for the NVIDIA part. This is a substantial margin that places the K5100M in a different performance tier for general compute workloads.

Looking at the broader context, the K5100M's average benchmark score of 10043 places it in the 48th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rival, the AMD Radeon R9 M375, scores 10070, a negligible -0.3% difference. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 870M trails by just 0.8%, and the professional-grade NVIDIA Quadro 6000 is only 2% behind. This indicates that despite its age, the K5100M's compute performance remains competitive with a cluster of mid-range GPUs from its generation.

The WX 2100, by contrast, has an average benchmark score of 9653, putting it in the 46th percentile. Its closest competitor is the NVIDIA Tesla C2070, which leads by 0.6%, while the NVIDIA Quadro P4000 is a mere 0.1% ahead. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M scores 9645, a 0.1% gap, and the NVIDIA Quadro K5000 trails by 0.2%. This grouping shows the WX 2100 is firmly in the same performance bracket as these other cards, but it cannot match the K5100M's raw OpenCL dominance. The benchmark results indicate that for pure compute throughput, the older, larger Kepler chip is the superior performer.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro K5100M wins on raw computational power. Its OpenCL score of 11771 is the headline figure, and it also holds a separate Geekbench Metal score of 8315. This compute advantage is rooted in its much larger silicon. The GK104 chip packs 1536 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, and 32 raster operation pipelines. These specifications allow it to reach 2.369 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, a figure that dwarfs the AMD card's output. For users running OpenCL-accelerated tasks, the K5100M is the clear choice based on the data.

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 wins on efficiency and modern features. Its TDP is just 35 W compared to the K5100M's 100 W, making it a far more power-frugal option for thin-and-light mobile workstations. It also supports a more modern API feature set. While the K5100M's DirectX support is listed as 12 (11_0), the WX 2100 fully supports DirectX 12 (12_0). The AMD card also boasts Vulkan 1.3 support, whereas the NVIDIA card is limited to Vulkan 1.2.175. This makes the WX 2100 more future-proof for applications that rely on these newer graphics APIs. Furthermore, the WX 2100 has a distinct advantage in FP16 compute, offering 1,248.3 GFLOPS (1:1) performance, a capability the K5100M lacks entirely.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear trade-off. For users whose primary workload is OpenCL compute, the NVIDIA Quadro K5100M is the unequivocal winner. Its 37.9% lead in the head-to-head test is a massive margin that no other benchmark data in this pack contradicts. The higher average benchmark score of 10043 versus 9653 further reinforces its overall performance superiority. If raw speed in compute-heavy tasks is the sole criterion, the K5100M is the card to choose.

However, the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 makes a compelling case for a different kind of user. Its 35 W TDP is less than half of the NVIDIA card's, a critical factor in a mobile workstation where battery life and thermal management are paramount. The support for Vulkan 1.3 and full DirectX 12 (12_0) suggests better compatibility with modern software stacks. The 1:1 FP16 rate is a significant advantage for workloads that can utilize half-precision math, such as certain machine learning inference tasks. For a user prioritizing efficiency, modern API support, and FP16 capability over peak FP32 performance, the WX 2100 is the more sensible choice. The verdict is not about which is "better" overall, but which is better for a specific, defined purpose. The K5100M is for maximum compute; the WX 2100 is for modern, efficient workflows.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K5100M has a higher average benchmark score of 10043, compared to the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100's 9653.

Q: By how much does the NVIDIA card win in the OpenCL benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K5100M scores 11771 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 37.9% higher than the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100's score of 8536.

Q: Does the AMD card support a newer version of Vulkan?

A: Yes, the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 supports Vulkan 1.3, while the NVIDIA Quadro K5100M is limited to Vulkan 1.2.175.

Q: What is the difference in power consumption between the two cards?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 has a TDP of 35 W, which is significantly lower than the NVIDIA Quadro K5100M's TDP of 100 W.

Q: Which card has a higher transistor density?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 has a higher transistor density of 21.4M / mm², compared to the NVIDIA Quadro K5100M's 12.0M / mm².

Q: What is the memory bus width difference?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K5100M uses a 256 bit memory bus, while the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 uses a 64 bit bus.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures from different eras. The NVIDIA Quadro K5100M is based on the Kepler architecture, specifically the GK104 chip, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. This chip is large, with 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100, on the other hand, uses the GCN 4.0 architecture with the Lexa chip, built on a more advanced 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. This newer chip is far smaller and more efficient, packing 2,200 million transistors into just 103 mm². The transistor density reflects this: the AMD chip achieves 21.4M / mm² versus the NVIDIA chip's 12.0M / mm².

The architectural differences manifest in the compute capabilities. The NVIDIA card has a massive advantage in the number of execution units, with 1536 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The AMD card has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This explains the NVIDIA card's superior texture fill rate of 98.69 GTexel/s versus 39.01 GTexel/s, and pixel rate of 24.67 GPixel/s versus 19.50 GPixel/s. Crucially, the AMD architecture supports FP16 compute at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, offering 1,248.3 GFLOPS of half-precision performance. The NVIDIA Kepler architecture has no FP16 support listed. The AMD card also supports newer API versions, including Vulkan 1.3 and full DirectX 12 (12_0), while the NVIDIA card is limited to Vulkan 1.2.175 and DirectX 12 (11_0).

Specification Differences

The most significant specification differences highlight the generational gap between these two mobile workstation GPUs.

• Manufacturer: NVIDIA vs AMD
• Architecture: Kepler vs GCN 4.0
• Process Node: 28 nm vs 14 nm
• Transistors: 3,540 million vs 2,200 million
• Die Size: 294 mm² vs 103 mm²
• Base Clock: 771 MHz vs 925 MHz
• Boost Clock: 771 MHz vs 1219 MHz
• Memory Size: 8 GB vs 2 GB
• Memory Bus Width: 256 bit vs 64 bit
• Memory Bandwidth: 115.2 GB/s vs 48.00 GB/s
• Shading Units: 1536 vs 512
• Texture Mapping Units: 128 vs 32
• Raster Operation Pipelines: 32 vs 16
• FP32 Performance: 2.369 TFLOPS vs 1,248.3 GFLOPS
• FP16 Performance: Not listed vs 1,248.3 GFLOPS (1:1)
• TDP: 100 W vs 35 W
• Bus Interface: MXM-B (3.0) vs PCIe 3.0 x8
• Display Outputs: Portable Device Dependent vs 1x DisplayPort 1.4a, 2x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a
• Vulkan Support: 1.2.175 vs 1.3
• DirectX Support: 12 (11_0) vs 12 (12_0)
• Release Date: 2013-07-22 vs 2017-06-03