AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 vs AMD Radeon R9 M265X Comparison

Architecture Differences - node, core counts, architecture, process technology, core counts, process technology, in this comparison, a node counts for the AMD Radeon with the Radeon Radeon with a core counts, we will look a core counts, the Radeon Radeon Radeon for the R, the Radeon Rade, the process of the AMD Radeon, the AMD Radeon, the Radeon Radeon from AMD, the AMD R, on the AMD Radeon R9 M265X, the Radeon R9 M265X uses the Venus chip on GCN 1.0 architecture, built on a 28 nm process at TSMC, with 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100, in contrast, uses the Lexa chip on GCN 4.0 architecture, built on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries, with 2,200 million transistors on a 103 mm² die. The transistor density reflects this shift: the R9 M265X packs 12.2M transistors per mm², while the Pro WX 3100 reaches 21.4M per mm².

The two GPUs diverge significantly in their compute resources. The R9 M265X has 640 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 16 raster output pipelines. The Pro WX 3100 has fewer shading units at 512, fewer texture units at 32, but the same 16 ROPs. Clock speeds heavily favor the newer part: the R9 M265X runs at a base of 575 MHz with a boost of 625 MHz, while the Pro WX 3100 starts at 925 MHz and boosts to 1219 MHz. This clock advantage translates into raw throughput metrics, the Pro WX 3100 delivers a pixel rate of 19.50 GPixel/s versus 10.00 GPixel/s for the R9 M265X, and a texture rate of 39.01 GTexel/s versus 25.00 GTexel/s.

Memory configurations also differ. The R9 M265X comes with 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, running at 1000 MHz with 4 Gbps effective speed, yielding 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The Pro WX 3100 doubles capacity to 4 GB of GDDR5, keeps the 128-bit bus, but runs at 1500 MHz with 6 Gbps effective speed, producing 96.00 GB/s of bandwidth. FP32 compute is substantially higher on the Pro WX 3100 at 1,248.3 GFLOPS, versus 800.0 GFLOPS on the R9 M265X. Additionally, the Pro WX 3100 supports FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with the same 1,248.3 GFLOPS, a feature absent on the older part.

Feature support and platform integration show further separation. The R9 M265X uses a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, while the Pro WX 3100 uses PCIe 3.0 x8. The Pro WX 3100 offers DisplayPort 1.4a outputs (1x DisplayPort and 2x mini-DisplayPort), while the R9 M265X has no listed display outputs. In terms of APIs, the R9 M265X supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The Pro WX 3100 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and the newer Vulkan 1.3. The R9 M265X has no listed TDP, while the Pro WX 3100 is listed at 65 W with a suggested PSU of 250 W, no power connectors, and a single-slot form factor measuring 168 mm in length and 69 mm in height.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only recorded head-to-head benchmark in the database is Geekbench OpenCL, and the result favors the older GPU. The AMD Radeon R9 M265X scores 8,851 points in Geekbench OpenCL, while the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 scores 7,333 points. This gives the R9 M265X a 20.7% lead over the Pro WX 3100 in this specific test. The win count in the head-to-head comparison is 1 for the R9 M265X and 0 for the Pro WX 3100.

This result is notable because the Pro WX 3100 has significantly higher clock speeds, more memory, and higher FP32 throughput, yet it trails in this OpenCL workload. The R9 M265X's higher shading unit count (640 vs. 512) and its wider PCIe interface (x16 vs. x8) may contribute to the advantage, though the database does not isolate the cause. The delta of 20.7% is substantial, placing the older part clearly ahead in the one metric that directly compares them.

The Pro WX 3100 does have an additional Vulkan benchmark score of 7,827, which is higher than its OpenCL score of 7,333, but there is no corresponding Vulkan score for the R9 M265X in the database, so no cross-GPU Vulkan comparison can be made. The average benchmark score for the R9 M265X is 8,851, while the Pro WX 3100's average is 7,580, reflecting the single OpenCL result for the former and the two results for the latter.

Looking at the nearest rivals from the database provides context. The R9 M265X sits at the 44th percentile of all GPUs, with its nearest rival being the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 at an average score of 8,863, a negligible 0.1% difference. The AMD Radeon 550X scores 8,918, which is 0.8% higher, while the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile scores 8,746, 1.2% lower, and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 v2 also scores 8,743, 1.2% lower. The Pro WX 3100, at the 41st percentile, is closely matched with the AMD Radeon R7 250 at 7,557 (0.3% higher), the Intel Arc A310 at 7,550 (0.4% higher), the AMD Radeon 540 at 7,673 (1.2% lower), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 at 7,472 (1.4% lower).

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins in the direct Geekbench OpenCL comparison?

A: The AMD Radeon R9 M265X wins, scoring 8,851 against the Pro WX 3100's 7,333, a lead of 20.7%.

Q: How much more memory bandwidth does the Pro WX 3100 have?

A: The Pro WX 3100 offers 96.00 GB/s of bandwidth, which is 50% higher than the R9 M265X's 64.00 GB/s.

Q: What is the FP32 compute difference between the two cards?

A: The Pro WX 3100 delivers 1,248.3 GFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the R9 M265X delivers 800.0 GFLOPS, meaning the Pro WX 3100 is roughly 56% higher in raw FP32 throughput.

Q: Does the Pro WX 3100 support newer API versions?

A: Yes, the Pro WX 3100 supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3, while the R9 M265X supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Q: How do the two cards compare in terms of memory capacity?

A: The Pro WX 3100 has 4 GB of GDDR5, double the 2 GB found on the R9 M265X, with both using a 128-bit bus.

Q: What are the percentile rankings for each GPU?

A: The R9 M265X ranks at the 44th percentile of all GPUs, while the Pro WX 3100 ranks at the 41st percentile, indicating the R9 M265X sits slightly higher in the overall distribution despite its older architecture.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear split between the two GPUs. In the single direct benchmark available, Geekbench OpenCL, the AMD Radeon R9 M265X is the winner by a decisive 20.7%. Its score of 8,851 places it at the 44th percentile, ahead of the Pro WX 3100's 7,333 and 41st percentile. For any workload that mirrors this OpenCL test, the older R9 M265X appears to be the stronger performer, likely due to its higher shading unit count and x16 bus interface.

However, the Pro WX 3100 dominates on paper specifications that matter for other types of workloads. It has twice the memory (4 GB vs. 2 GB), 50% more bandwidth (96.00 GB/s vs. 64.00 GB/s), and 56% more FP32 compute (1,248.3 GFLOPS vs. 800.0 GFLOPS). Its clock speeds are dramatically higher, 1219 MHz boost versus 625 MHz, and it supports newer API versions including DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3. These advantages suggest that in compute-heavy or modern-API scenarios, the Pro WX 3100 could outperform the R9 M265X, despite losing the specific OpenCL test.

The Pro WX 3100 also brings professional display features, with DisplayPort 1.4a outputs and a single-slot design, whereas the R9 M265X lacks listed display outputs. Its power efficiency is better on a modern node (14 nm vs. 28 nm), and it has a defined TDP of 65 W, while the R9 M265X has no TDP listed. For a user prioritizing raw OpenCL performance in legacy applications, the R9 M265X is the choice. For a user needing more memory, higher compute throughput, modern API support, or professional display connectivity, the Pro WX 3100 is the better fit based on the recorded specifications.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon R9 M265X | AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 |

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

| Chip | Venus | Lexa |

| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | GCN 4.0 |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 14 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | GlobalFoundries |

| Transistors | 1,500 million | 2,200 million |

| Die Size | 123 mm² | 103 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.2M / mm² | 21.4M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 575 MHz | 925 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 625 MHz | 1219 MHz |

| Memory Speed | 1000 MHz, 4 Gbps effective | 1500 MHz, 6 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus | 128 bit | 128 bit |

| Bandwidth | 64.00 GB/s | 96.00 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 640 | 512 |

| TMUs | 40 | 32 |

| ROPs | 16 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 10.00 GPixel/s | 19.50 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 25.00 GTexel/s | 39.01 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 800.0 GFLOPS | 1,248.3 GFLOPS |

| FP16 | Not listed | 1,248.3 GFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | Not listed | 65 W |

| Slot Width | Not listed | Single-slot |

| Power Connectors | Not listed | None |

| Suggested PSU | Not listed | 250 W |

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

| Display Outputs | Not listed | 1x DisplayPort 1.4a, 2x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a |

| DirectX Support | 12 (11_1) | 12 (12_0) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.2.170 | 1.3 |

| Release Date | 2014-03-20 | 2017-06-11 |

| Production Status | End-of-life | End-of-life |

| Launch MSRP | Not listed | 199 USD |

| Geekbench OpenCL Score | 8,851 | 7,333 |

| Geekbench Vulkan Score | Not listed | 7,827 |

| Average Benchmark Score | 8,851 | 7,580 |

| Percentile vs. All GPUs | 44 | 41 |