AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 vs AMD Radeon R7 M380 Comparison

The AMD Radeon R7 M380 and the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 occupy adjacent but distinct niches in the database: one is a mobile-class GCN 1.0 part from the Gem System generation, the other a single-slot workstation card built on Polaris-era GCN 4.0 silicon. Despite the WX 3100 being roughly two years newer and fabbed on a far denser process node, the recorded data shows the older mobile GPU winning the only direct benchmark comparison between them, a result that complicates the usual assumption that newer silicon automatically wins. This page walks through the head-to-head numbers, the specification deltas, and the architectural differences that explain why a 28 nm mobile chip outperforms a 14 nm workstation card in the measured workload.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains one direct head-to-head result between these two GPUs, and it goes decisively to the older card. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Radeon R7 M380 scores 9313 against the WX 3100's 7333, a 27 percent advantage for the M380. That is not a marginal win. It places the mobile part an entire performance tier above the workstation card in compute-oriented OpenCL workloads, despite the M380's lower boost clock, slower DDR3 memory, and older architecture.

The result is consistent with each card's standing in the database-wide percentile rankings. The R7 M380 sits at the 46th percentile against all GPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 9313. The WX 3100 sits at the 41st percentile with an average score of 7580, dragged down by its pair of recorded results: 7333 in Geekbench OpenCL and 7827 in Geekbench Vulkan. The M380's single recorded result of 9313 is therefore above the WX 3100's best individual score by a wide margin, and above the workstation card's average by an even larger one.

The nearest-rivals data reinforces the gap. The R7 M380's closest competitors by average score are the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 850M (9302, within 0.1 percent), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 465 (9294, within 0.2 percent), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 (9273, within 0.4 percent), and the AMD Radeon Vega 8 (9221, within 1 percent). That is a mixed field of mobile and desktop parts clustering tightly around the 9300 mark, and the M380 outperforms all four of them, if only narrowly in each case.

The WX 3100's rival cluster sits markedly lower. Its nearest peers include the AMD Radeon R7 250 (7557, within 0.3 percent), the Intel Arc A310 (7550, within 0.4 percent), the AMD Radeon 540 (7673, which beats the WX 3100 by 1.2 percent), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (7472, which the WX 3100 leads by 1.4 percent). Two observations stand out here. First, the WX 3100's surrounding field includes entry-level desktop parts from both vendors, confirming its position near the bottom of the discrete GPU range in these benchmark results. Second, the Radeon 540 actually outscores it, meaning the WX 3100 is not even the strongest card in its immediate neighborhood.

The head-to-head tally therefore reads one win for the R7 M380 and zero for the WX 3100, with a 27 percent delta on the sole shared test. The Geekbench Vulkan result of 7827 exists only for the WX 3100, so no cross-comparison is possible there; the M380 has no recorded Vulkan score in the database. For buyers comparing the two strictly on measured performance, the OpenCL result is the only direct evidence available, and it favors the mobile part emphatically.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear split by use case. For raw compute throughput as measured by Geekbench OpenCL, the Radeon R7 M380 is the stronger choice, delivering 27 percent more performance than the WX 3100 in the only shared test. Its 46th percentile standing against all GPUs in the database, versus the WX 3100's 41st, matches this conclusion at the aggregate level.

The WX 3100's case rests on its platform characteristics rather than its benchmark scores. It is a single-slot, slot-powered card requiring no external power connectors, with a modest 65 W TDP and a suggested PSU of 250 W, in a compact 168 mm by 69 mm footprint. It carries a full set of professional display outputs, one DisplayPort 1.4a and two mini-DisplayPort 1.4a ports, and supports a more modern API baseline: DirectX 12 at feature level 12_0 versus the M380's 11_1, and Vulkan 1.3 versus the M380's Vulkan 1.2.170. Both support OpenGL 4.6. It also exposes FP16 throughput at full 1:1 rate with FP32, a capability the M380's recorded specifications do not list.

The M380, by contrast, records no TDP, no slot width, no power connectors, and no display outputs, consistent with its nature as an OEM mobile part. It records a launch MSRP of nothing; the WX 3100 carries a launch MSRP of 199 USD, which can be stated once for reference. Neither product remains in production: both are flagged as end-of-life in the database. The practical summary is simple. Choose the R7 M380 if OpenCL compute score is the deciding metric. Choose the WX 3100 if a compact, single-slot workstation card with modern API support and multiple professional display outputs is the requirement, accepting the lower benchmark results that come with it.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins in benchmarks?

A: The Radeon R7 M380. It scores 9313 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 7333 for the WX 3100, a 27 percent advantage, and holds the higher database-wide percentile at 46 versus 41.

Q: How does the R7 M380 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: It edges out the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 850M by 0.1 percent, the GTX 465 by 0.2 percent, the GTX 960 by 0.4 percent, and the AMD Radeon Vega 8 by 1 percent, all by average benchmark score.

Q: How does the WX 3100 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: It leads the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 by 1.4 percent and the Intel Arc A310 by 0.4 percent, but trails the AMD Radeon 540 by 1.2 percent. The AMD Radeon R7 250 sits within 0.3 percent.

Q: Are both GPUs still in production?

A: No. Both the R7 M380 and the WX 3100 are listed as end-of-life in the database. The M380 was released in May 2015; the WX 3100 followed in June 2017.

Q: Which card has better API support?

A: The WX 3100. It supports DirectX 12 at feature level 12_0 and Vulkan 1.3, while the M380 supports DirectX 12 at feature level 11_1 and Vulkan 1.2.170. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Q: What power and physical requirements does the WX 3100 have?

A: It is a single-slot card with a 65 W TDP, no external power connectors, a suggested PSU of 250 W, and dimensions of 168 mm long by 69 mm tall. The M380 has no recorded TDP, slot width, or connector data.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ on nearly every recorded specification beyond memory capacity and bus width, which are identical at 4 GB on a 128-bit bus.

The memory subsystem is where the WX 3100's hardware advantage is largest on paper. It uses GDDR5 running at 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective) for 96.00 GB/s of bandwidth, triple the M380's 32.00 GB/s from DDR3 at 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective). That the WX 3100 still loses the OpenCL comparison despite 64.00 GB/s of additional memory bandwidth is one of the more notable findings in this pairing.

Clocks also favor the newer card. The WX 3100 runs a 925 MHz base and 1219 MHz boost, against the M380's 900 MHz base and 915 MHz boost. The M380's clock range is effectively flat, a 15 MHz spread, while the WX 3100 gains nearly 300 MHz under boost.

The M380 counters with a larger core count: 640 shading units and 40 TMUs, versus 512 shading units and 32 TMUs on the WX 3100. Both have 16 ROPs. The resulting theoretical rates split in interesting ways. The WX 3100's higher clocks push its pixel rate to 19.50 GPixel/s against the M380's 14.64 GPixel/s, and its texture rate to 39.01 GTexel/s versus 36.60 GTexel/s. The M380's larger shader array, however, cannot fully offset its low clocks, and its FP32 throughput of 1171.2 GFLOPS trails the WX 3100's 1248.3 GFLOPS. The M380 records no FP16 figure; the WX 3100 matches its FP16 rate to FP32 at 1:1.

The bus interface differs: PCIe 3.0 x16 for the M380, PCIe 3.0 x8 for the WX 3100. The WX 3100 lists one DisplayPort 1.4a and two mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs; the M380 lists none. Neither card has RT cores or tensor cores.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two parts spans three GCN generations and two process eras. The R7 M380 is built on the Tropo chip, GCN 1.0 architecture, part of the Gem System generation (R7 M300). It was fabbed by TSMC on a 28 nm process, packing 1,500 million transistors into a 123 mm² die, a density of 12.2M transistors per mm². Its recorded lineage runs from the Solar System predecessor to the Polaris Mobile successor.

The WX 3100 uses the Lexa chip on GCN 4.0, classified under the Radeon Pro Polaris generation (WX x100). GlobalFoundries manufactured it on a 14 nm process, fitting 2,200 million transistors into a smaller 103 mm² die. The density improvement is substantial, 21.4M transistors per mm², roughly 75 percent denser than the M380's 28 nm silicon, and the WX 3100 carries about 47 percent more transistors overall on a die that is 20 mm² smaller.

The irony in the data is that this generational leap in fabrication and density did not translate into a benchmark win. The GCN 4.0 card with triple the memory bandwidth and a much higher boost clock still trails the older GCN 1.0 mobile part by 27 percent in Geekbench OpenCL. The WX 3100's smaller shader count (512 versus 640 units) and its positioning as an entry-level professional card, optimized for certified drivers, compact single-slot deployment, and multi-display output rather than peak throughput, help explain the recorded gap. Its successor line points to Radeon Pro Vega, while the M380's lineage continues into Polaris Mobile, and both branches of AMD's product tree have since moved past these end-of-life parts entirely.