AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 vs NVIDIA Tesla M10 Comparison

The NVIDIA Tesla M10 and AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 are both end-of-life workstation products, but they target radically different use cases. The data shows a split decision: the Tesla M10 wins the OpenCL workload, while the Radeon Pro WX 2100 takes the Vulkan test. This page breaks down the benchmark results, architectural choices, and specification differences to clarify which card is suited for which task.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench results present a clear division of labor. In the OpenCL test, the NVIDIA Tesla M10 scores 10318, which is 20.9% higher than the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100’s 8536. This is a substantial margin, indicating that the Tesla M10 has a significant advantage in compute workloads that leverage OpenCL. The M10’s average benchmark score of 9724 puts it at the 47th percentile of all GPUs, and its nearest rival in this metric is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070, which scores 9780, a difference of only -0.6%. This places the M10 in a performance tier comparable to mainstream gaming cards of its era, despite its professional focus.

The Vulkan test flips the script. Here, the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 scores 10770, which is 15.2% higher than the Tesla M10’s 9130. This is a notable reversal, suggesting that the AMD card’s architecture is better optimized for Vulkan’s modern API features. The WX 2100’s average benchmark score is 9653, landing at the 46th percentile. Its closest rival is the NVIDIA Quadro K5000, which scores 9637, a delta of just 0.2%. The fact that these two cards have nearly identical average scores, despite trading wins in individual tests, shows they are closely matched overall, differing primarily in workload preference.

The head-to-head table confirms this split: each card wins one test. The M10’s OpenCL victory is decisive, with a 20.9% lead. The WX 2100’s Vulkan win is similarly imposing, with a 15.2% margin. When considering the average benchmark score, the M10 edges ahead at 9724 versus 9653, a difference of 0.7%. This suggests that while the Vulkan win is significant, the OpenCL win carries slightly more weight in the aggregate, giving the Tesla M10 a marginal overall lead in the data.

The Verdict

From the data alone, the choice between these two cards depends entirely on the software environment. For workloads that rely on OpenCL, the NVIDIA Tesla M10 is the clear winner, offering a 20.9% performance advantage. This makes it the superior option for general-purpose GPU compute tasks that utilize this API, such as certain scientific simulations or rendering pipelines. The M10’s 8 GB of memory also gives it a capacity advantage, which can be critical for large datasets.

For applications that leverage Vulkan, the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 is the better pick, outperforming the M10 by 15.2%. This makes it more suitable for modern graphics workloads or compute tasks that are written for Vulkan’s lower overhead and more explicit control. The WX 2100 also has a massive advantage in power consumption, with a 35 W TDP compared to the M10’s 225 W, making it a far more efficient choice for systems where thermal and power budgets are tight.

The overall average benchmark scores are nearly identical, with the M10 at 9724 and the WX 2100 at 9653. Therefore, neither card is universally superior. The verdict is straightforward: choose the Tesla M10 for OpenCL-heavy compute workloads, and choose the Radeon Pro WX 2100 for Vulkan-based tasks or for situations requiring minimal power draw and physical footprint. The M10 is a dual-slot card with no display outputs, designed for server-side compute, while the WX 2100 is a single-slot card with DisplayPort outputs, suited for workstation use with monitors.

Architecture Differences

The two cards are built on fundamentally different architectures. The NVIDIA Tesla M10 uses the GM107 chip, based on the Maxwell architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. This chip contains 1,870 million transistors on a die size of 148 mm², resulting in a transistor density of 12.6M per mm². The AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100, in contrast, uses the Lexa chip, based on GCN 4.0 architecture, built on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. This chip packs 2,200 million transistors into a smaller 103 mm² die, achieving a higher transistor density of 21.4M per mm².

These architectural differences lead to distinct feature sets. The Maxwell architecture in the M10 supports DirectX 12 (11_0), while the GCN 4.0 architecture in the WX 2100 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), indicating a more complete implementation of the DirectX 12 feature set on the AMD side. Both support OpenGL 4.6, but the Vulkan support differs: the M10 supports Vulkan 1.4, while the WX 2100 supports Vulkan 1.3. The M10 has no display outputs, as it is intended for compute-only tasks, whereas the WX 2100 includes 1x DisplayPort 1.4a and 2x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, enabling direct display connectivity.

The memory subsystems also reflect their different roles. The M10 has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, with a pixel rate of 20.90 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 52.24 GTexel/s. The WX 2100 has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, with a pixel rate of 19.50 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 39.01 GTexel/s. The M10’s higher shading unit count and texture rate give it an edge in raw compute throughput, which is reflected in its OpenCL win. The WX 2100’s architecture, however, supports FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, offering 1,248.3 GFLOPS for both, while the M10 has no listed FP16 support.

Specification Differences

The specification table reveals several key differences. The most obvious is memory: the Tesla M10 has 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 83.20 GB/s of bandwidth, while the WX 2100 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus, yielding 48.00 GB/s. This quadruples the M10’s memory capacity and nearly doubles its bandwidth, a significant advantage for large compute workloads.

Clock speeds differ as well. The M10 runs at a base clock of 1033 MHz and a boost clock of 1306 MHz, with memory clocked at 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective). The WX 2100 runs at a lower base clock of 925 MHz but a slightly lower boost clock of 1219 MHz, with memory clocked at 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective). Despite the higher memory clock on the WX 2100, its narrower bus limits overall bandwidth.

Power and physical dimensions are drastically different. The M10 has a TDP of 225 W, requires a 1x 8-pin power connector, and a suggested PSU of 550 W. It is a dual-slot card, 267 mm (10.5 inches) long. The WX 2100, by contrast, has a TDP of just 35 W, requires no power connectors, and a suggested PSU of only 200 W. It is a single-slot card, 168 mm (6.6 inches) long and 69 mm (2.7 inches) high. The bus interface also differs: the M10 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the WX 2100 uses PCIe 3.0 x8.

Release dates and market positioning also diverge. The Tesla M10 was released on 2016-05-17, as part of the Tesla Maxwell generation, with a predecessor of Tesla Kepler and a successor of Tesla Pascal. The Radeon Pro WX 2100 was released on 2017-06-03, part of the Radeon Pro Polaris generation, with a predecessor of Radeon Pro GCN and a successor of Radeon Pro Vega. The WX 2100 has a listed launch MSRP of 149 USD, while the M10 has none.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Tesla M10 has a higher average benchmark score of 9724, compared to the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100’s 9653, a difference of 0.7%.

Q: How big is the OpenCL performance gap?

A: In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Tesla M10 scores 10318, which is 20.9% higher than the WX 2100’s 8536.

Q: Does the AMD card win any benchmark?

A: Yes, the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 wins the Geekbench Vulkan test with a score of 10770, which is 15.2% higher than the Tesla M10’s 9130.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The Tesla M10 has 8 GB of GDDR5 memory, while the Radeon Pro WX 2100 has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory.

Q: Which card requires more power?

A: The Tesla M10 has a TDP of 225 W and needs a 1x 8-pin power connector, while the WX 2100 has a TDP of 35 W and requires no power connectors.

Q: Do both cards support display outputs?

A: No, the Tesla M10 has no display outputs, while the Radeon Pro WX 2100 has 1x DisplayPort 1.4a and 2x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Tesla M10 wins in scenarios that demand high compute throughput and large memory capacity. Its 20.9% lead in OpenCL makes it the preferred choice for compute-heavy applications that rely on this API. The 8 GB memory is four times the capacity of the WX 2100, allowing it to handle larger datasets without swapping. Its higher shading unit count (640 vs 512) and texture rate (52.24 GTexel/s vs 39.01 GTexel/s) contribute to its compute advantage. This card is suited for server-side compute tasks where display output is unnecessary and power consumption is a secondary concern.

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 wins in scenarios that prioritize Vulkan performance, power efficiency, and physical footprint. Its 15.2% lead in the Vulkan benchmark makes it a better choice for modern graphics workloads written for that API. The 35 W TDP is a fraction of the M10’s 225 W, making it ideal for compact workstations or systems with limited cooling. Its single-slot design and shorter length (168 mm vs 267 mm) allow it to fit in smaller chassis. The inclusion of DisplayPort outputs means it can drive displays directly, a feature the M10 lacks entirely. The WX 2100 also supports FP16 at 1:1 ratio, which can be beneficial for certain compute tasks that utilize half-precision arithmetic.