AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 vs AMD Radeon R9 M360 Comparison

AMD Radeon R9 M360 and AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 are two end-of-life AMD mobile/workstation GPUs separated by two full architecture generations, and the benchmark data shows a surprisingly consistent, if modest, edge for the older card. The R9 M360, built on GCN 1.0 with a 28 nm process, posts an average benchmark score of 8129, placing it in the 42nd percentile of all GPUs. The Pro WX 3100, built on GCN 4.0 with a 14 nm process, averages 7580, sitting in the 41st percentile. Despite its newer architecture, higher clocks, and greater memory bandwidth, the Pro WX 3100 trails the R9 M360 in both recorded head-to-head tests, making the R9 M360 the performance leader in this specific matchup.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark results favor the AMD Radeon R9 M360 in both recorded tests. In Geekbench OpenCL, the R9 M360 scores 8211 against the Pro WX 3100’s 7333, a decisive 12% advantage. This is the largest margin between the two cards and indicates that the older GCN 1.0 architecture holds a significant lead in compute-heavy OpenCL workloads. The R9 M360’s texture rate of 29.60 GTexel/s and pixel rate of 14.80 GPixel/s, while lower than the Pro WX 3100’s figures, do not translate into a disadvantage here; the raw compute throughput of 947.2 GFLOPS FP32 appears to be utilized more effectively in this test.

The second test, Geekbench Vulkan, is much closer. The R9 M360 scores 8047, while the Pro WX 3100 scores 7827, giving the R9 M360 a 2.8% win. This narrower margin suggests that the Pro WX 3100’s newer GCN 4.0 architecture, with its support for Vulkan 1.3 (versus Vulkan 1.2.170 on the R9 M360), narrows the gap in API-specific workloads. However, the R9 M360 still comes out ahead, meaning its fundamental compute resources—512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, identical to the Pro WX 3100—are not the limiting factor. Instead, the difference likely stems from clock behavior: the R9 M360’s boost clock of 925 MHz is far below the Pro WX 3100’s 1219 MHz, yet the older card still wins, implying architectural efficiency gains in the newer part are not sufficient to overcome other bottlenecks.

Looking at the broader context, both cards are tightly clustered with their nearest rivals. The R9 M360’s average score of 8129 is within 0.5% of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M (8135, deltaPct -0.1) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 (8167, deltaPct -0.5), meaning the R9 M360 is effectively performance-equivalent to those desktop-class parts. The Pro WX 3100’s average of 7580 is within 1.4% of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (7472, deltaPct 1.4) and within 0.4% of the Intel Arc A310 (7550, deltaPct 0.4). The data shows that while the Pro WX 3100 is newer, it competes in a lower performance tier than the R9 M360, which sits alongside mid-range GTX 900-series parts.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon R9 M360 wins both recorded benchmarks, so its case is straightforward: it is the faster card in OpenCL and Vulkan compute workloads. The 12% OpenCL margin is substantial and indicates that applications leveraging OpenCL for general-purpose compute will see a meaningful performance benefit on the R9 M360. The Vulkan margin, while smaller at 2.8%, still favors the R9 M360, suggesting that even in modern graphics APIs, the older card holds a slight edge. The R9 M360’s higher average benchmark score of 8129 versus 7580 reinforces this, showing a consistent 7.2% overall advantage.

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 has no benchmark wins in this comparison, but the data highlights where it is competitive. Its Vulkan score of 7827 is within 2.8% of the R9 M360, which is a narrow gap given the architectural differences. The Pro WX 3100’s newer GCN 4.0 architecture supports a higher DirectX version (12_0 versus 11_1) and a more recent Vulkan version (1.3 versus 1.2.170), which could make it more future-proof for software that relies on newer API features, even if raw scores are lower. Additionally, the Pro WX 3100’s memory bandwidth of 96.00 GB/s is 33% higher than the R9 M360’s 72.00 GB/s, and its pixel rate of 19.50 GPixel/s and texture rate of 39.01 GTexel/s are both higher, suggesting it could win in memory-bound or fill-rate-bound scenarios that are not captured by these two compute tests.

For use-case splits, the R9 M360 is the pick for pure compute performance, especially in OpenCL-heavy environments where its 12% lead is decisive. The Pro WX 3100, despite losing both tests, offers higher memory bandwidth and faster pixel/texture throughput, which could benefit graphics rendering tasks that are less dependent on raw FP32 compute. The Pro WX 3100 also supports DisplayPort 1.4a outputs (1x DisplayPort and 2x mini-DisplayPort), whereas the R9 M360 has no listed display outputs, making the Pro WX 3100 the only choice for multi-monitor professional setups.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are separated by a major architectural leap. The R9 M360 uses the Tropo chip based on GCN 1.0, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC, with 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die. The Pro WX 3100 uses the Lexa chip based on GCN 4.0, fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries, with 2,200 million transistors on a 103 mm² die. The transistor density tells the story: the Pro WX 3100 packs 21.4M transistors per mm² versus the R9 M360’s 12.2M, a 75% increase in density, which explains how the newer part fits 46% more transistors into a smaller die.

The core configurations are identical: both have 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. However, the clocks differ significantly. The R9 M360 runs at a base of 900 MHz and a boost of 925 MHz, while the Pro WX 3100 runs at a base of 925 MHz and a boost of 1219 MHz. This gives the Pro WX 3100 a 31.8% higher boost clock, which should theoretically translate to higher performance. The FP32 compute figures reflect this: the Pro WX 3100 delivers 1,248.3 GFLOPS versus the R9 M360’s 947.2 GFLOPS, a 31.8% advantage. The Pro WX 3100 also offers FP16 performance at 1,248.3 GFLOPS (1:1 ratio), while the R9 M360 has no listed FP16 capability.

Memory is another differentiator. Both cards have 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, but the Pro WX 3100 runs its memory at 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective) versus the R9 M360’s 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective), yielding 96.00 GB/s versus 72.00 GB/s bandwidth. The Pro WX 3100 is rated at 65 W TDP with no power connectors and a suggested 250 W PSU, while the R9 M360 has no TDP listed. The Pro WX 3100 is a single-slot card measuring 168 mm in length and 69 mm in height, and it uses a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface, whereas the R9 M360 uses PCIe 3.0 x16. The Pro WX 3100’s API support is newer: DirectX 12 (12_0) versus DirectX 12 (11_1), and Vulkan 1.3 versus Vulkan 1.2.170, with both offering OpenGL 4.6.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R9 M360 has an average benchmark score of 8129, which is 7.2% higher than the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100’s 7580.

Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two in head-to-head tests?

A: In Geekbench OpenCL, the R9 M360 scores 8211 versus the Pro WX 3100’s 7333, a 12% difference in favor of the R9 M360.

Q: Does the Pro WX 3100 have any advantages in memory bandwidth?

A: Yes, the Pro WX 3100 offers 96.00 GB/s memory bandwidth versus the R9 M360’s 72.00 GB/s, a 33% higher figure, due to its faster 6 Gbps effective memory clock.

Q: How do the core counts compare?

A: Both GPUs have identical core configurations: 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs.

Q: Which GPU supports newer graphics APIs?

A: The Pro WX 3100 supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3, while the R9 M360 supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170.

Q: What is the transistor density difference?

A: The Pro WX 3100 has a transistor density of 21.4M per mm², compared to the R9 M360’s 12.2M per mm², reflecting the newer 14 nm process node.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD Radeon R9 M360 is the faster GPU in this matchup, winning both head-to-head benchmarks and posting a higher average score. Its 12% OpenCL lead is substantial, and its 2.8% Vulkan lead, while smaller, still demonstrates superiority in modern compute APIs. Users or systems that prioritize raw compute performance should choose the R9 M360, as it delivers more GFLOPS-efficient results despite a lower peak FP32 rating of 947.2 GFLOPS versus the Pro WX 3100’s 1,248.3 GFLOPS. The R9 M360’s average score of 8129 places it alongside the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M (8135) and GTX 980 (8167), while the Pro WX 3100’s 7580 sits near the AMD Radeon R7 250 (7557) and Intel Arc A310 (7550).

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100, however, is not without merit. It offers higher pixel and texture rates (19.50 GPixel/s and 39.01 GTexel/s versus 14.80 and 29.60), greater memory bandwidth (96.00 GB/s versus 72.00 GB/s), and a significantly higher boost clock (1219 MHz versus 925 MHz). These specs suggest it could outperform the R9 M360 in fill-rate-bound or memory-bandwidth-bound workloads that are not captured by the Geekbench compute tests. Its newer GCN 4.0 architecture supports DirectX 12_0 and Vulkan 1.3, making it more compatible with high-end software. The Pro WX 3100 is also the only one with a listed TDP (65 W), a single-slot form factor, and DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, making it the practical choice for professional workstation builds requiring multi-monitor support or low power consumption, despite its lower benchmark scores.

For a pure performance-per-dollar or performance-per-watt analysis, the data favors the R9 M360 in absolute compute, but the Pro WX 3100’s higher memory bandwidth and newer feature set could make it the better long-term investment for specific professional workloads. The R9 M360’s end-of-life status and lack of listed display outputs limit its applicability, while the Pro WX 3100, also end-of-life, at least provides a complete package with modern connectivity. Ultimately, users who need maximum compute performance from these two options should pick the R9 M360; users who need a balanced workstation card with modern API support and display outputs should pick the Pro WX 3100. The benchmark data does not support the Pro WX 3100 as a performance upgrade over the R9 M360, but it does support it as a more feature-complete and bandwidth-rich alternative.