AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 vs NVIDIA Quadro P2200 Comparison

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 and NVIDIA Quadro P2200 are both professional workstation cards aimed at different segments of the market. The data in the database shows a clear performance hierarchy, but the choice between them depends heavily on the specific workload, API requirements, and physical constraints of the system. This analysis compares the two based solely on recorded measurements and specifications.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark results in the database are unequivocal. In Geekbench OpenCL, the NVIDIA Quadro P2200 scores 32,344, while the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 scores 8,536. That is a delta of -73.6% for the AMD card, meaning the Quadro P2200 is roughly 3.8 times faster in this compute-oriented test. The gap is substantial and reflects fundamental differences in raw compute resources.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the results tell a similar story. The Quadro P2200 achieves 31,351, compared to the WX 2100's 10,770. The delta here is -65.6% for AMD, so NVIDIA still leads by a wide margin, though the relative gap narrows slightly compared to OpenCL. The Vulkan test shows the WX 2100 is not entirely outclassed in API efficiency, but the absolute score difference remains decisive.

Across the two head-to-head benchmarks, the Quadro P2200 wins both. The database records zero wins for the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 and two wins for the NVIDIA card. This is not a close contest. The average benchmark score for the WX 2100 is 9,653, while the Quadro P2200's average is 8,686, which appears contradictory given the head-to-head results. However, the average includes different test suites; the Quadro P2200 has nine recorded benchmarks, including several Passmark tests where it scores low (e.g., Passmark DirectX 12 at 33, DirectX 10 at 45), which drags its average down. The WX 2100 only has two recorded benchmarks, both of which are higher relative to its own average. This discrepancy highlights why single-metric comparisons can mislead; the head-to-head data is the most direct comparison available.

For context, the WX 2100's nearest rivals in the database include the NVIDIA Quadro P4000 with a delta of -0.1% and the NVIDIA Quadro K5000 at +0.2%, meaning the WX 2100 sits in a tight cluster of older or lower-tier workstation cards. The Quadro P2200's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 v2 at -0.7% and the Intel Arc A380 at +1.5%, placing it in a different performance tier altogether. The percentile rankings reinforce this: the WX 2100 sits at the 46th percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro P2200 sits at the 44th percentile. Despite the Quadro P2200's higher raw scores in the head-to-head, its broader benchmark suite pulls its percentile down slightly, but the direct comparison leaves no doubt about which is faster.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 does not win any recorded benchmark against the Quadro P2200. Its only recorded strengths are relative to its own low-power design and compatibility, not in performance. The data shows zero wins for AMD, so any use case favoring the WX 2100 must come from non-performance attributes.

The Quadro P2200 wins in both OpenCL and Vulkan. OpenCL is a general-purpose compute API, so the P2200 is better suited for tasks like rendering, simulation, or any GPU-accelerated workload that leverages OpenCL. Vulkan is a low-overhead graphics and compute API; the P2200's dominance there suggests it handles modern game engines or Vulkan-based professional applications much more effectively. For any workload that relies on these APIs, the choice is clear.

The WX 2100, however, has a lower TDP of 35 watts compared to the P2200's 75 watts. In power-constrained systems, such as small form factor workstations or servers with limited cooling, the WX 2100 may be the only viable option despite its performance deficit. The WX 2100 also has no power connectors, while the P2200 also has none, but the suggested PSU for the WX 2100 is 200 W versus 250 W for the P2200. If the system's power supply is small, the WX 2100 is easier to integrate.

For memory, the P2200 offers 5 GB of GDDR5X on a 160-bit bus, yielding 200.2 GB/s bandwidth. The WX 2100 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus, yielding 48.00 GB/s. If a workload requires large textures or datasets that exceed 2 GB, the WX 2100 will fail or spill to system memory, while the P2200 has more than double the capacity. The P2200 also has 40 ROPs versus 16, and 80 TMUs versus 32, so it wins in pixel and texture throughput as well.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different architectural generations and foundries. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 uses the Lexa chip built on GCN 4.0 architecture, manufactured on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It packs 2,200 million transistors into a 103 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 21.4 million per square millimeter. The NVIDIA Quadro P2200 uses the GP106 chip on the Pascal architecture, built on a 16 nm process at TSMC. It contains 4,400 million transistors on a 200 mm² die, with a density of 22.0 million per square millimeter. The die size difference is significant: the P2200's chip is nearly twice as large, which partially explains its higher performance.

Clock speeds differ notably. The WX 2100 has a base clock of 925 MHz and a boost clock of 1219 MHz. The P2200 starts at 1000 MHz base and boosts to 1493 MHz. The P2200's higher boost clock, combined with more shading units, delivers far more compute throughput. The WX 2100 has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The P2200 has 1280 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 40 ROPs. That is 2.5 times the shading units, 2.5 times the TMUs, and 2.5 times the ROPs. This explains the massive delta in pixel rate: the P2200 achieves 59.72 GPixel/s versus 19.50 GPixel/s for the WX 2100. Texture rate is similarly lopsided: 119.4 GTexel/s versus 39.01 GTexel/s.

Memory architecture is another major divergence. The WX 2100 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 at 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective) on a 64-bit bus. The P2200 uses 5 GB of GDDR5X at 1251 MHz (10 Gbps effective) on a 160-bit bus. The bandwidth difference is stark: 48.00 GB/s versus 200.2 GB/s. FP32 compute is 1,248.3 GFLOPS for the WX 2100 and 3.822 TFLOPS for the P2200, a threefold advantage for NVIDIA. FP16 is where the architectures diverge sharply: the WX 2100 offers 1,248.3 GFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, while the P2200 offers only 59.72 GFLOPS at a 1:64 ratio. This means the AMD card is far more capable of fast FP16 compute, which matters for machine learning inference or certain scientific workloads that use reduced precision. The P2200 is effectively crippled in FP16, so if that precision is required, the WX 2100 is the better choice despite its overall lower performance.

API support also differs. The WX 2100 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The P2200 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The higher DirectX feature level on the P2200 (12_1) enables features like conservative rasterization and rasterizer-ordered views, which may matter in specific CAD or DCC applications. Vulkan 1.4 is a newer revision, offering potential improvements in memory management and multi-threading. The P2200 also has four DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, while the WX 2100 has one DisplayPort 1.4a and two mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. For multi-monitor setups, the P2200 is more flexible.

Physical dimensions differ as well. The WX 2100 is 168 mm long and 69 mm high. The P2200 is 201 mm long and 111 mm high. Both are single-slot cards with no power connectors, but the P2200 is longer and taller, so it may not fit in compact chassis. The WX 2100 uses a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface, while the P2200 uses PCIe 3.0 x16. The x16 interface provides double the bandwidth to the host, which can help in data-transfer-heavy workloads, though the P2200's compute advantage is the bigger factor.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher raw compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P2200. It scores 32,344 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 8,536 for the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100, and 31,351 versus 10,770 in Geekbench Vulkan. The P2200 also has 1280 shading units versus 512 and FP32 of 3.822 TFLOPS versus 1,248.3 GFLOPS.

Q: Is the AMD card better for any specific workload?

A: Yes, for FP16 compute. The WX 2100 offers 1,248.3 GFLOPS at a 1:1 FP16 ratio, while the P2200 only provides 59.72 GFLOPS at a 1:64 ratio. If a workload relies on FP16, the WX 2100 is far more capable.

Q: How much memory do they have and does it matter?

A: The WX 2100 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus with 48.00 GB/s bandwidth. The P2200 has 5 GB of GDDR5X on a 160-bit bus with 200.2 GB/s bandwidth. The P2200's larger capacity and higher bandwidth are decisive for large datasets or high-resolution textures.

Q: What are the power requirements?

A: The WX 2100 has a TDP of 35 W and a suggested PSU of 200 W. The P2200 has a TDP of 75 W and a suggested PSU of 250 W. Both have no power connectors, but the WX 2100 is lighter on the power supply.

Q: Which card supports newer APIs?

A: The P2200 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The WX 2100 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The P2200 has a higher DirectX feature level and a newer Vulkan revision.

Q: Do they differ in display outputs?

A: Yes. The WX 2100 has one DisplayPort 1.4a and two mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The P2200 has four DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, which is better for multi-monitor configurations.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear recommendation for most users: the NVIDIA Quadro P2200 is the superior performer. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks, has more than double the memory capacity (5 GB versus 2 GB), higher bandwidth (200.2 GB/s versus 48.00 GB/s), more shading units (1280 versus 512), and a significantly higher pixel rate (59.72 GPixel/s versus 19.50 GPixel/s). For any OpenCL or Vulkan workload, the P2200 is the only sensible choice.

However, there are two specific scenarios where the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 is the better pick. First, if the workload requires FP16 compute at a 1:1 ratio, the WX 2100's 1,248.3 GFLOPS dwarfs the P2200's 59.72 GFLOPS. Second, if the system has strict power or space constraints, the WX 2100's 35 W TDP and shorter 168 mm length make it easier to integrate into compact or low-power builds, and its 200 W suggested PSU is more forgiving. The WX 2100 also has a lower transistor count and smaller die, which may correlate with lower heat output, though the database does not record thermal behavior.

For everyone else, the Quadro P2200 is the obvious winner. Its average benchmark score of 8,686 is lower than the WX 2100's 9,653 only because of the Passmark suite, but the head-to-head data is unambiguous. The P2200 sits at the 44th percentile versus the WX 2100's 46th, but that percentile is skewed by the different benchmark sets. The P2200's 5 GB memory is essential for modern professional workloads, and its Vulkan 1.4 and DirectX 12_1 support future-proof it better. The WX 2100 is end-of-life, as is the P2200, but the P2200's performance headroom means it will remain useful longer. If the choice is between these two, buy the P2200 unless FP16 or power limits force the WX 2100.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 | NVIDIA Quadro P2200 |

|----------------|------------------------|---------------------|

| Chip | Lexa | GP106 |

| Architecture | GCN 4.0 | Pascal |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 16 nm |

| Foundry | GlobalFoundries | TSMC |

| Transistors | 2,200 million | 4,400 million |

| Die Size | 103 mm² | 200 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 21.4M / mm² | 22.0M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 925 MHz | 1000 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1219 MHz | 1493 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective) | 1251 MHz (10 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | 5 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5X |

| Memory Bus Width | 64 bit | 160 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 48.00 GB/s | 200.2 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 512 | 1280 |

| TMUs | 32 | 80 |

| ROPs | 16 | 40 |

| Pixel Rate | 19.50 GPixel/s | 59.72 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 39.01 GTexel/s | 119.4 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 1,248.3 GFLOPS | 3.822 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 1,248.3 GFLOPS (1:1) | 59.72 GFLOPS (1:64) |

| TDP | 35 W | 75 W |

| Suggested PSU | 200 W | 250 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | 1x DisplayPort 1.4a, 2x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a | 4x DisplayPort 1.4a |

| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 (12_1) |

| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.4 |

| Length | 168 mm (6.6 inches) | 201 mm (7.9 inches) |

| Height | 69 mm (2.7 inches) | 111 mm (4.4 inches) |

| Release Date | 2017-06-03 | 2019-06-09 |

| Predecessor | Radeon Pro GCN | Quadro Maxwell |

| Successor | Radeon Pro Vega | Quadro Volta |

| Launch MSRP | 149 USD | Not recorded |