AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 vs AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records two common benchmark tests for these GPUs: Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. In both, the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 delivers a commanding performance advantage over the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the WX 5100 scores 24,217 points, while the WX 3100 achieves 7,333 points. This translates to a 230.2% delta, meaning the WX 5100 is roughly 3.3 times faster in this compute-oriented workload. The gap is not marginal; it is a fundamental tier difference.

Geekbench Vulkan shows an even larger separation. The WX 5100 posts 26,909 points versus the WX 3100's 7,827 points, a 243.8% delta. This is the single biggest proportional win recorded for the WX 5100 across the shared tests. The Vulkan API benefits from the WX 5100's larger shader array and wider memory subsystem, which amplifies the raw throughput advantage.

The WX 3100 has no recorded wins in the head-to-head comparison. Across both available benchmarks, the data shows zero victories for the smaller card. This is a one-sided matchup in terms of raw scores.

Looking at broader averages, the WX 5100 holds an average benchmark score of 8,863 across all its recorded tests, while the WX 3100 averages 7,580. The WX 5100 also sits at the 44th percentile among all GPUs in the database, compared to the 41st percentile for the WX 3100. The percentile gap is modest, but the absolute score difference in the shared tests is substantial.

For context on the WX 5100, its nearest rivals by average score include the AMD Radeon R9 M265X (8,851, a 0.1% delta), the AMD Radeon 550X (8,918, a -0.6% delta), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile (8,746, a 1.3% delta), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 v2 (8,743, a 1.4% delta). These deltas are all within 1.4%, indicating that the WX 5100 sits in a tightly packed performance cluster despite its large lead over the WX 3100.

The WX 3100's nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon R7 250 (7,557, a 0.3% delta), the Intel Arc A310 (7,550, a 0.4% delta), the AMD Radeon 540 (7,673, a -1.2% delta), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (7,472, a 1.4% delta). Again, the deltas are small, showing that the WX 3100 is competitive with its direct peers, but those peers are far below the WX 5100's class.

Architecture Differences

Both cards share the GCN 4.0 architecture and are built on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries, but they use different chips. The WX 5100 uses the Ellesmere die, while the WX 3100 uses the Lexa die. Ellesmere packs 5,700 million transistors on a 232 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 24.6 million per mm². Lexa is much smaller: 2,200 million transistors on 103 mm², with a density of 21.4 million per mm². The WX 5100's die is more than twice the area and carries more than twice the transistors.

The shader configuration reflects this disparity. The WX 5100 has 1,792 shading units, 112 texture mapping units, and 32 raster operation units. The WX 3100 has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. That is a 3.5x difference in shader count, a 3.5x difference in TMUs, and a 2x difference in ROPs. These are direct architectural multipliers that explain the benchmark gap.

Clock speeds tell a different story. The WX 3100 runs a base clock of 925 MHz and a boost clock of 1,219 MHz. The WX 5100 has a lower base of 713 MHz and a boost of 1,086 MHz. The smaller card runs faster, but the shader count advantage of the WX 5100 overwhelms the clock speed disadvantage.

Memory is another major separator. The WX 5100 has 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, with memory clocked at 1,250 MHz (5 Gbps effective) and a bandwidth of 160.0 GB/s. The WX 3100 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, with memory at 1,500 MHz (6 Gbps effective) and a bandwidth of 96.00 GB/s. The WX 5100 has double the capacity, double the bus width, and 66.7% more bandwidth. The higher effective memory speed on the WX 3100 does not compensate for the narrower bus.

Pixel and texture rates follow the hardware counts. The WX 5100 achieves 34.75 GPixel/s and 121.6 GTexel/s, while the WX 3100 reaches 19.50 GPixel/s and 39.01 GTexel/s. The FP32 compute figures are 3.892 TFLOPS for the WX 5100 versus 1,248.3 GFLOPS (1.248 TFLOPS) for the WX 3100. Both cards support FP16 at a 1:1 ratio to FP32, meaning the WX 5100's FP16 output is also 3.892 TFLOPS, while the WX 3100's is 1,248.3 GFLOPS.

The bus interface differs as well. The WX 5100 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the WX 3100 uses PCIe 3.0 x8. This halves the potential host link bandwidth for the smaller card, though its lower compute throughput may not saturate even the x8 link. The WX 5100 also has a higher TDP at 75 W versus 65 W for the WX 3100, and both have a suggested PSU of 250 W.

Display outputs vary: the WX 5100 has four DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, while the WX 3100 has one DisplayPort 1.4a and two mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. Both are single-slot cards with no power connectors. The WX 5100 is longer at 173 mm (6.8 inches) and taller at 112 mm (4.4 inches), while the WX 3100 measures 168 mm (6.6 inches) in length and 69 mm (2.7 inches) in height.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in Geekbench Vulkan?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 scores 26,909 points, versus 7,827 for the WX 3100, a 243.8% delta in favor of the WX 5100.

Q: Do both cards support the same graphics APIs?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The WX 5100 has 160.0 GB/s of bandwidth over a 256-bit bus, while the WX 3100 has 96.00 GB/s over a 128-bit bus.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The WX 5100 has 1,792 shading units, compared to 512 on the WX 3100.

Q: Are the cards the same physical size?

A: No. The WX 5100 is 173 mm long and 112 mm tall, while the WX 3100 is 168 mm long and 69 mm tall. Both are single-slot designs.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each card?

A: The WX 5100 averages 8,863 points across all recorded tests, while the WX 3100 averages 7,580 points.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two cards:

• Chip: Ellesmere (WX 5100) versus Lexa (WX 3100)
• Transistors: 5,700 million versus 2,200 million
• Die Size: 232 mm² versus 103 mm²
• Transistor Density: 24.6M / mm² versus 21.4M / mm²
• Base Clock: 713 MHz versus 925 MHz
• Boost Clock: 1,086 MHz versus 1,219 MHz
• Memory Clock: 1,250 MHz (5 Gbps effective) versus 1,500 MHz (6 Gbps effective)
• Memory Size: 8 GB versus 4 GB
• Memory Bus Width: 256 bit versus 128 bit
• Memory Bandwidth: 160.0 GB/s versus 96.00 GB/s
• Shading Units: 1,792 versus 512
• TMUs: 112 versus 32
• ROPs: 32 versus 16
• Pixel Rate: 34.75 GPixel/s versus 19.50 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 121.6 GTexel/s versus 39.01 GTexel/s
• FP32: 3.892 TFLOPS versus 1,248.3 GFLOPS
• FP16: 3.892 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 1,248.3 GFLOPS (1:1)
• TDP: 75 W versus 65 W
• Bus Interface: PCIe 3.0 x16 versus PCIe 3.0 x8
• Display Outputs: 4x DisplayPort 1.4a versus 1x DisplayPort 1.4a and 2x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a
• Dimensions: 173 mm x 112 mm versus 168 mm x 69 mm
• Release Date: November 17, 2016 versus June 11, 2017
• Launch MSRP: 499 USD versus 199 USD

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 wins decisively in every shared benchmark. Its strengths are rooted in raw compute throughput: 3.892 TFLOPS of FP32, 1792 shading units, and 160.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth. This makes it the clear choice for workloads that demand parallel processing, such as OpenCL compute tasks, Vulkan rendering, and any application that can leverage the 8 GB memory pool and 256-bit bus. The 4x DisplayPort outputs also support multi-monitor professional setups with four simultaneous displays.

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 has no recorded benchmark wins, but it has structural advantages in specific areas. Its higher clock speeds (925 MHz base, 1,219 MHz boost) and smaller die (103 mm²) mean lower power draw at 65 W. It is also physically shorter and lower-profile, making it easier to fit in compact chassis. The combination of one DisplayPort and two mini-DisplayPort outputs offers flexible cabling options for space-constrained environments. Its 96.00 GB/s bandwidth is sufficient for lighter workloads, and its PCIe 3.0 x8 interface is adequate for its compute level.

For users with single-display or dual-display professional tasks that are not heavily parallelized, the WX 3100 can handle basic CAD, 2D design, and light 3D previews. The WX 5100, by contrast, is built for heavier rendering, simulation, and multi-display data analysis where the 243.8% Vulkan lead and 230.2% OpenCL lead directly translate to faster job completion.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 outperforms the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 by margins exceeding 230% in both recorded cross-benchmarks. The WX 5100's larger die, triple the shading units, double the ROPs, and more than 1.6x the memory bandwidth place it in a different performance class. Its average benchmark score of 8,863 versus 7,580 reinforces this, as does its higher percentile ranking (44th versus 41st).

The WX 3100 is not without merit. Its lower TDP, smaller footprint, and faster clock speeds make it a more efficient, compact option. But efficiency and size do not translate to compute dominance. The WX 3100's nearest rivals include the Intel Arc A310 and the AMD Radeon R7 250, both of which sit within 0.4% of its average score. That is a crowded, low-to-mid-range segment.

The WX 5100, meanwhile, trades blows with the AMD Radeon R9 M265X and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile, all within 1.4% of each other. This indicates the WX 5100 holds its own against a different, higher-performing tier of hardware.

Who should pick which? Strictly from the database, professionals running compute-intensive OpenCL or Vulkan workloads should choose the WX 5100. The 230.2% and 243.8% deltas are too large to ignore. Users who need a low-power, single-slot card for basic display tasks, where the 65 W TDP and compact 168 mm length are priorities, can consider the WX 3100, but they must accept the significant performance trade-off. The WX 5100 is the superior GPU by every measured metric in this comparison.