AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 vs NVIDIA Quadro M2000M Comparison

Architecture Differences

The NVIDIA Quadro M2000M and AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 represent two distinct design philosophies in mobile and compact workstation graphics. The M2000M is built on NVIDIA's Maxwell architecture, using the GM107 chip fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. This older node packs 1,870 million transistors into a 148 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.6 million per square millimeter. In contrast, the WX 2100 employs AMD's GCN 4.0 architecture with the Lexa chip, produced on a more modern 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It crams 2,200 million transistors into a smaller 103 mm² die, achieving a significantly higher density of 21.4 million per square millimeter.

The compute configurations differ meaningfully. The M2000M fields 640 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The WX 2100 counters with 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and also 16 ROPs. Despite fewer shading units, the AMD part has a notable feature: it supports FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, both rated at 1,248.3 GFLOPS. The NVIDIA part lists no FP16 capability, with FP32 peaking at 1,455.4 GFLOPS. This gives the M2000M a raw FP32 advantage of roughly 16.6 percent.

Memory subsystems diverge sharply. The M2000M uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 80.19 GB/s of bandwidth. The WX 2100 ships with only 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus, halving the bus width and dropping bandwidth to 48.00 GB/s. Clock speeds tell part of the story: the M2000M runs at 1098 MHz base and 1137 MHz boost, while the WX 2100 has a lower 925 MHz base but a higher 1219 MHz boost. Memory clocks also differ, with the M2000M at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) versus the WX 2100's 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective). The AMD card's narrower bus ultimately limits throughput despite faster memory clocks.

Other architectural differences include power and interface. The M2000M is a 55 W MXM module with an MXM-A (3.0) bus interface and no power connectors. The WX 2100 is a 35 W single-slot card using PCIe 3.0 x8, with a suggested PSU of 200 W. Display outputs also differ: the M2000M is "portable device dependent," while the WX 2100 offers 1x DisplayPort 1.4a and 2x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a. API support shows the AMD part ahead on DirectX (12_0 versus 12 (11_0) for NVIDIA) and Vulkan (1.3 versus 1.4, though the NVIDIA number is higher). Both support OpenGL 4.6.

The Verdict

The data presents a split decision. For raw compute throughput in OpenCL, the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M is the clear winner. Its 10,057 OpenCL score beats the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100's 8,536 by 17.8 percent. This aligns with the M2000M's higher FP32 rating and larger memory bandwidth. For Vulkan workloads, the situation reverses decisively: the WX 2100 scores 10,770 against the M2000M's 9,606, a 10.8 percent advantage for AMD. This suggests the GCN architecture's async compute capabilities and newer driver stack give it an edge in modern graphics APIs.

Average benchmark scores tell a nuanced story. The M2000M averages 9,832 across its two tests, placing it at the 47th percentile of all GPUs. The WX 2100 averages 9,653, sitting at the 46th percentile. The M2000M's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Quadro 6000 (avg 9,846, delta -0.1 percent), AMD FirePro W5000 (avg 9,803, delta 0.3 percent), and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 (avg 9,780, delta 0.5 percent). The WX 2100 sits near the NVIDIA Quadro P4000 (avg 9,665, delta -0.1 percent) and GeForce GTX 960M (avg 9,645, delta 0.1 percent). Both cards are essentially mid-pack performers, but the M2000M edges slightly ahead in aggregate.

Choose the M2000M if your workload is OpenCL-heavy and you need more memory (4 GB versus 2 GB) and higher bandwidth. Choose the WX 2100 if Vulkan performance matters more, if you prefer lower power draw (35 W versus 55 W), or if you need fixed display outputs rather than portable-device-dependent connectivity. The WX 2100 also offers a newer process node and FP16 support, which could benefit specific compute tasks. The M2000M launched in December 2015; the WX 2100 arrived in June 2017, and both are now end-of-life products. The WX 2100 had a launch MSRP of 149 USD.

FAQ

Q: Which card wins in OpenCL performance?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M2000M wins decisively, scoring 10,057 versus the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100's 8,536, a 17.8 percent advantage.

Q: Which card wins in Vulkan performance?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 wins, scoring 10,770 against the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M's 9,606, an 10.8 percent advantage.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The M2000M averages 9,832 (47th percentile) while the WX 2100 averages 9,653 (46th percentile), a difference of roughly 1.9 percent in favor of NVIDIA.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The M2000M has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 80.19 GB/s bandwidth. The WX 2100 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus with 48.00 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Do they differ in power consumption?

A: Yes, the M2000M is rated at 55 W TDP as an MXM module, while the WX 2100 is a 35 W single-slot card with a suggested PSU of 200 W.

Q: What are their respective nearest rivals in average score?

A: The M2000M's nearest rival is the NVIDIA Quadro 6000 (avg 9,846, delta -0.1 percent). The WX 2100's nearest rival is the NVIDIA Quadro P4000 (avg 9,665, delta -0.1 percent).

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two available benchmark tests produce a clean split, with each card taking one decisive victory. In Geekbench OpenCL, the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M posts a score of 10,057 against the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100's 8,536. That is a 17.8 percent margin, the largest single-test gap between the two cards. The M2000M's advantage likely stems from its higher FP32 throughput (1,455.4 GFLOPS versus 1,248.3 GFLOPS) and more than double the memory bandwidth. OpenCL workloads often scale with raw shader output and memory bandwidth, both areas where the NVIDIA part holds a clear edge. The M2000M's 640 shading units versus 512 also contribute, as does its wider 128-bit memory interface.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the tables turn completely. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 achieves 10,770, while the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M scores 9,606. The 10.8 percent gap in AMD's favor is substantial, though smaller than NVIDIA's OpenCL margin. Vulkan is a low-overhead API that rewards efficient draw-call handling and async compute capabilities, both hallmarks of GCN architecture. The WX 2100's higher boost clock (1219 MHz versus 1137 MHz) and faster memory clock (1500 MHz versus 1253 MHz) may also help in latency-sensitive Vulkan workloads, even with the narrower 64-bit bus. The M2000M's older Maxwell architecture, with its DirectX 12 (11_0) feature level, appears less optimized for modern explicit APIs.

The head-to-head results show one win each, but the magnitudes differ. NVIDIA's 17.8 percent OpenCL win is larger than AMD's 10.8 percent Vulkan win. If you weight both tests equally, the average scores reflect this: the M2000M averages 9,832 versus 9,653 for the WX 2100. That gives NVIDIA a net aggregate advantage of about 1.9 percent. However, the choice is rarely about aggregate scores alone. Workload-specific performance matters more. For OpenCL-heavy professional applications, the M2000M's bigger memory and bandwidth are hard to ignore. For Vulkan-based rendering or compute, the WX 2100 is the better pick.

Looking at the nearest rivals for context: the M2000M's 9,832 average sits just 0.1 percent below the NVIDIA Quadro 6000 (9,846) and 0.3 percent above the AMD FirePro W5000 (9,803). It even edges out the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 (9,780) by 0.5 percent. The WX 2100's 9,653 average is 0.1 percent above the GeForce GTX 960M (9,645) and 0.2 percent above the Quadro K5000 (9,637), but 0.1 percent below the Quadro P4000 (9,665) and 0.6 percent below the Tesla C2070 (9,716). Both cards hold their own against much more powerful desktop parts, which speaks to the efficiency of their respective architectures.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every major specification category. Starting with the chip itself: the M2000M uses the GM107 on a 28 nm TSMC process, while the WX 2100 uses the Lexa on a 14 nm GlobalFoundries process. Transistor counts differ, with the M2000M at 1,870 million and the WX 2100 at 2,200 million. Die size favors the AMD part at 103 mm² versus 148 mm², giving it a transistor density of 21.4M per mm² compared to 12.6M per mm² for NVIDIA.

Clock speeds show a mixed picture. The M2000M has a higher base clock (1098 MHz versus 925 MHz) but a lower boost clock (1137 MHz versus 1219 MHz). Memory clocks favor the WX 2100 at 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective) against the M2000M's 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective). However, the M2000M's 128-bit bus versus the WX 2100's 64-bit bus means the NVIDIA part still delivers 80.19 GB/s bandwidth against AMD's 48.00 GB/s.

Compute resources differ in count but not in ROPs. The M2000M has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The WX 2100 has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Pixel rates are close, with the M2000M at 18.19 GPixel/s and the WX 2100 at 19.50 GPixel/s. Texture rates favor NVIDIA at 45.48 GTexel/s versus 39.01 GTexel/s. FP32 output also favors NVIDIA at 1,455.4 GFLOPS against 1,248.3 GFLOPS, but the WX 2100 matches its FP32 rate for FP16 (1,248.3 GFLOPS 1:1), a capability the M2000M lacks entirely.

Memory capacity is a major differentiator: 4 GB on the M2000M versus 2 GB on the WX 2100. Both use GDDR5, but the bus widths and bandwidths are as described above. Power draw favors the AMD part at 35 W TDP versus 55 W for NVIDIA. Form factors also differ: the M2000M is an MXM Module with MXM-A (3.0) interface, while the WX 2100 is a Single-slot card with PCIe 3.0 x8. The M2000M has no power connectors; the WX 2100 also has none but suggests a 200 W PSU. Physical dimensions are only given for the WX 2100 at 168 mm length and 69 mm height. Display outputs are portable-device-dependent on the M2000M, while the WX 2100 offers 1x DisplayPort 1.4a and 2x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a.

API support differs in DirectX and Vulkan versions. The M2000M supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.4, while the WX 2100 supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3. Both support OpenGL 4.6. Release dates are about 18 months apart, with the M2000M launching December 2015 and the WX 2100 in June 2017. Both are end-of-life, with predecessors and successors noted in the data. The WX 2100 had a launch MSRP of 149 USD.