AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 vs AMD Radeon R7 250 Comparison

FAQ

Q: How does the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 compare to the AMD Radeon R7 250 in raw compute performance?

A: The database records a single direct head-to-head benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL. The WX 5100 scores 24217, while the R7 250 scores 7557, giving the WX 5100 a 220.5% advantage. This is a massive gap, indicating the WX 5100 is in a completely different performance class.

Q: What is the architectural generation gap between these two cards?

A: The WX 5100 uses GCN 4.0 architecture on a 14 nm process, while the R7 250 uses the older GCN 1.0 architecture on a 28 nm process. The WX 5100 belongs to the Radeon Pro Polaris (WX x100) generation, whereas the R7 250 is part of the Volcanic Islands (R7 200) generation, released over three years earlier.

Q: How do their memory subsystems differ?

A: The WX 5100 has 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 160.0 GB/s bandwidth. The R7 250 has only 1 GB of DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing 28.80 GB/s bandwidth. The WX 5100 offers more than five times the memory bandwidth.

Q: Which card has a higher transistor count and die size?

A: The WX 5100 integrates 5,700 million transistors on a 232 mm² die, while the R7 250 has 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die. This reflects the WX 5100's more complex compute architecture and larger memory interface.

Q: Are both cards still in production?

A: No, both are end-of-life products. The WX 5100 was released in November 2016, and the R7 250 was released in October 2013. The WX 5100 succeeded the Radeon Pro GCN line and was later replaced by Radeon Pro Vega. The R7 250 succeeded Sea Islands and was later replaced by Pirate Islands.

Q: What APIs do they support for modern workloads?

A: The WX 5100 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The R7 250 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. Both handle modern APIs, but the WX 5100 has a higher-level DirectX feature set and a newer Vulkan version.

The Verdict

The data points to one clear conclusion for most workloads: the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 is the dominant performer. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 24217 versus 7557 for the R7 250 is not a close contest, it is a 220.5% lead. In the database's average benchmark score, the WX 5100 sits at 8863 with a 44th percentile ranking among all GPUs, while the R7 250 averages 7557 and sits at the 41st percentile. The WX 5100 lands near rivals like the AMD Radeon R9 M265X (8851, +0.1%), the AMD Radeon 550X (8918, -0.6%), and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile (8746, +1.3%). The R7 250, by contrast, is grouped with the Intel Arc A310 (7550, +0.1%), the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 (7580, -0.3%), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (7472, +1.1%).

Who should pick which? The WX 5100 is for anyone who needs serious compute throughput, large frame buffers, and modern feature support. Its 8 GB GDDR5 memory, 1792 shading units, and 3.892 TFLOPS FP32 performance make it suitable for content creation, GPU-accelerated rendering, and multi-monitor productivity. The R7 250 is a legacy entry-level part. It is suited only for basic desktop use, older games, or as a placeholder card in a system where the workload is light. Its 947.2 GFLOPS FP32 and 1 GB DDR3 memory are limiting factors. If the choice is between these two for any compute-heavy task, the WX 5100 wins by a wide margin. If the task is simple 2D output or very light 3D, the R7 250 may suffice, but the performance gap is so large that the WX 5100 is the more future-proof option.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct head-to-head benchmark recorded in the database is Geekbench OpenCL. Here, the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 scores 24217, and the AMD Radeon R7 250 scores 7557. The delta is 220.5% in favor of the WX 5100. To put that in context, the R7 250 would need to nearly triple its score to match the WX 5100. This single result encapsulates the entire performance relationship: the WX 5100 is not just faster, it is in a different tier.

Looking at the broader benchmark suite for the WX 5100, its other recorded scores reinforce its positioning. It posts 29003 in Geekbench Metal and 26909 in Geekbench Vulkan. In Passmark tests, it scores 88 in DirectX 9, 36 in DirectX 11, 29 in DirectX 10, and 26 in DirectX 12. Its Passmark G2D score is 777, G3D is 5496, and GPU Compute is 2053. The R7 250 has no additional benchmark entries beyond the single OpenCL result, so the comparison across the full suite is limited. Still, the OpenCL result alone is decisive: the WX 5100's 24217 dwarfs the R7 250's 7557, and no other metric in the database suggests the R7 250 could close that gap.

The nearest rival data further contextualizes the WX 5100. Its average score of 8863 places it within 1.4% of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 v2 (8743, +1.4%) and within 1.3% of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile (8746, +1.3%). The R7 250's average of 7557 similarly aligns with the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 (7580, -0.3%) and the Intel Arc A310 (7550, +0.1%). These groupings show that the WX 5100 operates in a mid-range performance band, while the R7 250 sits at the lower edge of the same overall distribution, but the head-to-head result is the clearest signal: one card is decisively ahead.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every major specification. The WX 5100 has a base clock of 713 MHz and a boost clock of 1086 MHz, while the R7 250 has no recorded base or boost clocks in the database. Memory clock differs too: the WX 5100 runs at 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective), while the R7 250 runs at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective). Memory size is 8 GB GDDR5 versus 1 GB DDR3. Bus width is 256-bit versus 128-bit. Bandwidth is 160.0 GB/s versus 28.80 GB/s.

Compute resources favor the WX 5100 heavily. It has 1792 shading units, 112 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The R7 250 has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Pixel rate is 34.75 GPixel/s versus 14.80 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 121.6 GTexel/s versus 29.60 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 3.892 TFLOPS versus 947.2 GFLOPS. The WX 5100 also records FP16 performance at 3.892 TFLOPS (1:1), while the R7 250 has no FP16 entry.

Power and physical specs also differ. The WX 5100 has a TDP of 75 W, the R7 250 has 55 W. Both are single-slot with no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 250 W. Both use PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs differ: the WX 5100 has 4x DisplayPort 1.4a, while the R7 250 has 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x DisplayPort 1.2. The WX 5100 is 173 mm (6.8 inches) long and 112 mm (4.4 inches) high; the R7 250 is 168 mm (6.6 inches) long with no recorded height. The WX 5100's launch MSRP was 499 USD.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap is wide. The WX 5100 uses GCN 4.0 on a 14 nm process from GlobalFoundries, with 5,700 million transistors on a 232 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 24.6M per mm². The R7 250 uses GCN 1.0 on a 28 nm process from TSMC, with 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, for a density of 12.2M per mm². The process node advantage alone explains much of the efficiency and performance gap.

The chip designs reflect their respective generations. The WX 5100 uses the Ellesmere chip, while the R7 250 uses Cape Verde. The WX 5100 belongs to the Radeon Pro Polaris (WX x100) generation and succeeded the Radeon Pro GCN line. The R7 250 belongs to the Volcanic Islands (R7 200) generation, succeeding Sea Islands and preceding Pirate Islands. These are not iterative updates; they are separated by a full architectural overhaul and a node shrink.

Memory architecture is another major difference. The WX 5100's 256-bit GDDR5 interface with 160.0 GB/s bandwidth is a professional-grade memory subsystem, while the R7 250's 128-bit DDR3 at 28.80 GB/s is a basic consumer design. The WX 5100's FP16 support at 1:1 ratio indicates compute versatility for mixed-precision workloads, a feature absent from the R7 250's specification sheet. API support also reflects the newer design: the WX 5100 offers DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3, while the R7 250 offers DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 wins in every measurable compute category. Its OpenCL score is 220.5% higher. Its FP32 throughput is 3.892 TFLOPS versus 947.2 GFLOPS. Its texture rate is 121.6 GTexel/s versus 29.60 GTexel/s. Its pixel rate is 34.75 GPixel/s versus 14.80 GPixel/s. Its memory bandwidth is 160.0 GB/s versus 28.80 GB/s. For any workload that scales with shading units, memory bandwidth, or raw FP32, the WX 5100 is the clear choice. That includes GPU rendering, OpenCL compute, machine learning inference (within the limits of its FP32 and FP16 capabilities), and multi-display professional setups with its 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs.

The R7 250 wins only in the narrowest sense: it has a lower TDP at 55 W versus 75 W, which could matter in a system with minimal cooling or a very constrained power budget. It is also a smaller card physically, though the difference is minor (168 mm versus 173 mm). For a legacy system that only needs basic video output, the R7 250 can fill that role, but there is no benchmark in the database where it outperforms the WX 5100. Its only recorded score, 7557 in OpenCL, is less than a third of the WX 5100's 24217.

For a builder choosing between these two, the decision is straightforward. The WX 5100 is for compute-centric tasks, professional applications, and any scenario where performance matters. The R7 250 is for basic display output in a low-power system, nothing more. The data does not support any other conclusion.