AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 vs AMD Radeon R5 M240 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single head-to-head benchmark available paints a clear, if modest, picture: the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 outperforms the AMD Radeon R5 M240 in Geekbench OpenCL by 5.1%. That translates to a score of 7333 for the WX 3100 versus 6975 for the R5 M240. The victory is decisive in direction but narrow in magnitude, suggesting that while the newer card is faster, it is not a generational leap in raw compute performance for this particular workload.

Looking at the broader benchmark landscape, the WX 3100’s average score of 7580 places it in the 41st percentile of all GPUs, while the R5 M240’s average of 6975 places it in the 39th percentile. The WX 3100’s nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon R7 250 (average score 7557, only 0.3% behind) and the Intel Arc A310 (average score 7550, 0.4% behind). It also edges out the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 by 1.4% (7472 average) and trails the AMD Radeon 540 by 1.2% (7673 average). These tight margins indicate that the WX 3100 sits in a highly competitive cluster of entry-level discrete GPUs, where a few percentage points separate winners from losers.

The R5 M240, by contrast, is grouped with significantly older or lower-tier hardware. Its nearest rival, the AMD FirePro M5100, averages 6830, meaning the R5 M240 leads by 2.1%. It also narrowly beats the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M (6946, 0.4% ahead) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M (7023, 0.7% ahead), while trailing the NVIDIA T600 (7035, 0.8% behind). The picture here is of a GPU that is competitive with mobile parts from the early-to-mid 2010s but is outclassed by even the modest modern offerings in the WX 3100’s bracket.

The data does not show a single benchmark where the R5 M240 wins outright. In the one test both cards share, the WX 3100 takes the top spot. This is not a close contest; it is a consistent, albeit small, margin of superiority for the newer architecture. The 5.1% delta in OpenCL is the only head-to-head number, but it is reinforced by the average scores, which show a 605-point gap in favor of the WX 3100.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs is stark and explains the performance gap better than any single clock speed or core count. The WX 3100 uses the Lexa chip built on GCN 4.0 architecture, fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The R5 M240 uses the Jet chip built on the original GCN 1.0 architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. That is a two-generation jump in process technology and a full three-step leap in GCN iteration, from the first to the fourth.

The transistor counts tell the story of complexity. The WX 3100 packs 2,200 million transistors on a 103 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 21.4 million per square millimeter. The R5 M240 has just 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die, with a density of 12.3 million per square millimeter. The newer card has more than three times the transistor count and nearly twice the density, reflecting both the smaller process node and the more advanced architecture's ability to pack more logic into the same area.

Memory is another major differentiator. The WX 3100 comes with 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 96.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The R5 M240 has only 1024 MB (1 GB) of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus, providing a meager 14.40 GB/s. That is a 6.7x difference in raw memory bandwidth, which heavily impacts texture-heavy and compute-bound workloads. The memory clock also differs significantly: the WX 3100 runs at 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective), while the R5 M240 runs at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective).

Compute resources follow the same pattern. The WX 3100 has 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The R5 M240 has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. Pixel rate is 19.50 GPixel/s for the WX 3100 versus 8.240 GPixel/s for the R5 M240, and texture rate is 39.01 GTexel/s versus 20.60 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 1,248.3 GFLOPS for the WX 3100 versus 659.2 GFLOPS for the R5 M240—a 1.9x advantage. The WX 3100 also has FP16 capability rated at 1,248.3 GFLOPS (1:1 ratio), while the R5 M240 has no listed FP16 performance.

API support also diverges. The WX 3100 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The R5 M240 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The newer card has full DirectX 12 feature level support and a newer Vulkan revision, which matters for modern game compatibility and compute workloads.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance?

A: The WX 3100 delivers 1,248.3 GFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the R5 M240 delivers 659.2 GFLOPS. That is a 1.9x advantage for the WX 3100, consistent with its 5.1% lead in the Geekbench OpenCL head-to-head test.

Q: How do the memory subsystems compare?

A: The WX 3100 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth. The R5 M240 has 1 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus with 14.40 GB/s bandwidth. The WX 3100 offers 6.7x the memory bandwidth.

Q: What is the process technology difference?

A: The WX 3100 is built on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries, while the R5 M240 uses a 28 nm process at TSMC. The newer node allows for 2,200 million transistors versus 690 million.

Q: Which GPU has better API support?

A: The WX 3100 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The R5 M240 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The WX 3100 has a higher DirectX feature level and a newer Vulkan version.

Q: Is the R5 M240 competitive with any modern GPU?

A: Benchmark data shows the R5 M240's average score of 6975 places it close to the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M (6946, 0.4% ahead) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M (7023, 0.7% behind). These are older mobile parts, not modern discrete GPUs.

Q: What is the performance percentile ranking of each card?

A: The WX 3100 ranks in the 41st percentile of all GPUs, while the R5 M240 ranks in the 39th percentile. The WX 3100's average benchmark score is 7580 versus 6975 for the R5 M240.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 is the superior GPU in every measurable category. It wins the only head-to-head benchmark by 5.1%, has a higher average benchmark score (7580 vs 6975), and ranks higher in the overall percentile distribution (41st vs 39th). The architecture comparison reinforces this, with the WX 3100 offering more than double the FP32 compute, 6.7x the memory bandwidth, and a significantly more advanced process node.

For users choosing between these two, the WX 3100 is the clear pick for any workload that benefits from compute performance, memory bandwidth, or modern API support. Its 4 GB of GDDR5 memory is also a practical advantage over the R5 M240's 1 GB of DDR3, especially for texture-heavy applications or larger datasets. The R5 M240, by contrast, is only competitive with NVIDIA's GeForce GTX 675M and GTX 680M from several generations ago, as indicated by its 0.4% lead and 0.7% deficit against those parts respectively.

The WX 3100's nearest rival cluster includes the AMD Radeon R7 250 (0.3% behind), Intel Arc A310 (0.4% behind), and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (1.4% behind), which shows it is a viable option in the entry-level segment. The R5 M240, however, has no such modern competition; its closest rival is the AMD FirePro M5100, which it beats by 2.1%, but that is a professional mobile GPU from an earlier era.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the two cards:

• Process Node: WX 3100 is 14 nm (GlobalFoundries); R5 M240 is 28 nm (TSMC)
• Transistors: WX 3100 has 2,200 million; R5 M240 has 690 million
• Die Size: WX 3100 is 103 mm²; R5 M240 is 56 mm²
• Transistor Density: WX 3100 has 21.4M / mm²; R5 M240 has 12.3M / mm²
• Base Clock: WX 3100 runs at 925 MHz; R5 M240 runs at 1000 MHz
• Boost Clock: WX 3100 boosts to 1219 MHz; R5 M240 boosts to 1030 MHz
• Memory Clock: WX 3100 runs at 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective); R5 M240 runs at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective)
• Memory Size: WX 3100 has 4 GB; R5 M240 has 1024 MB
• Memory Type: WX 3100 uses GDDR5; R5 M240 uses DDR3
• Memory Bus Width: WX 3100 has 128 bit; R5 M240 has 64 bit
• Memory Bandwidth: WX 3100 has 96.00 GB/s; R5 M240 has 14.40 GB/s
• Shading Units: WX 3100 has 512; R5 M240 has 320
• TMUs: WX 3100 has 32; R5 M240 has 20
• ROPs: WX 3100 has 16; R5 M240 has 8
• Pixel Rate: WX 3100 is 19.50 GPixel/s; R5 M240 is 8.240 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: WX 3100 is 39.01 GTexel/s; R5 M240 is 20.60 GTexel/s
• FP32: WX 3100 is 1,248.3 GFLOPS; R5 M240 is 659.2 GFLOPS
• FP16: WX 3100 is 1,248.3 GFLOPS (1:1); R5 M240 has no listed FP16
• TDP: WX 3100 is 65 W; R5 M240 has no listed TDP
• Slot Width: WX 3100 is single-slot; R5 M240 has no listed slot width
• Power Connectors: WX 3100 has none; R5 M240 has no listed connectors
• Suggested PSU: WX 3100 is 250 W; R5 M240 has no listed PSU
• Display Outputs: WX 3100 has 1x DisplayPort 1.4a and 2x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a; R5 M240 has no listed outputs
• DirectX: WX 3100 supports 12 (12_0); R5 M240 supports 12 (11_1)
• Vulkan: WX 3100 supports 1.3; R5 M240 supports 1.2.170
• Dimensions: WX 3100 is 168 mm (6.6 inches) long and 69 mm (2.7 inches) high; R5 M240 has no listed dimensions
• Release Date: WX 3100 launched 2017-06-11; R5 M240 launched 2014-09-17
• Predecessor: WX 3100's predecessor is Radeon Pro GCN; R5 M240's is Solar System
• Successor: WX 3100's successor is Radeon Pro Vega; R5 M240's is Polaris Mobile
• Launch MSRP: WX 3100 had a launch MSRP of 199 USD; R5 M240 has no listed launch MSRP

Where Each One Wins

The WX 3100 wins decisively in compute-heavy workloads. Its 1,248.3 GFLOPS FP32 performance is nearly double the R5 M240's 659.2 GFLOPS, making it the better choice for OpenCL compute tasks, GPU-accelerated rendering, and any application that leverages general-purpose GPU processing. The 5.1% lead in the Geekbench OpenCL test confirms this advantage in practice.

The WX 3100 also wins on memory bandwidth, which is critical for texture-heavy 3D rendering and high-resolution image processing. With 96.00 GB/s versus 14.40 GB/s, the WX 3100 can feed its shading units at a much higher rate, reducing bottlenecks in complex scenes.

For modern software compatibility, the WX 3100's DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3 support gives it an edge over the R5 M240's DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170. This matters for newer games and applications that take advantage of the latest API features.

The R5 M240 has no benchmark wins in the data. However, its higher base clock (1000 MHz vs 925 MHz) and smaller die size (56 mm² vs 103 mm²) suggest it may draw less power in idle or light-load scenarios, though no TDP is listed for the R5 M240 to confirm this. Its niche would be legacy applications that do not require the WX 3100's feature set, but the performance gap makes any such advantage purely academic.

In practical terms, the WX 3100 is the only one of the two that can reasonably handle modern entry-level gaming or professional workstation tasks. The R5 M240 belongs to a previous era, as evidenced by its 2014 release date and its performance parity with NVIDIA's GTX 675M and GTX 680M mobile parts from the same period.