AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 vs AMD Radeon R9 M265X Comparison

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 and the AMD Radeon R9 M265X sit at nearly identical average benchmark scores, with the WX 5100 posting 8863 and the R9 M265X posting 8851, a negligible 0.1% difference. Yet beneath that surface-level parity lies a dramatic technological divide, as the data shows these two GPUs were built for entirely different eras and purposes. The WX 5100 is a professional workstation card from the Polaris generation, while the R9 M265X is a mobile chip from the earlier GCN 1.0 era, and their architectural differences produce starkly divergent capabilities that the average scores obscure.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data paints a clear picture of specialization. In the only head-to-head comparison available, the Geekbench OpenCL test, the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 dominates with a score of 24217 against the R9 M265X’s 8851, a 173.6% advantage. This is not a marginal victory but a massive generational leap, indicating the WX 5100 is dramatically more capable in compute-oriented workloads that leverage OpenCL. For professional applications like CAD, scientific simulation, and GPU-accelerated rendering that rely heavily on such compute paths, the WX 5100 is the unequivocal choice.

The R9 M265X, however, wins in the context of its own design goals. As a mobile GPU from 2014, it was engineered for laptops where power efficiency and compactness matter more than raw throughput. Its single benchmark score of 8851 in Geekbench OpenCL is respectable for its class, and its 44th percentile ranking among all GPUs matches the WX 5100’s percentile, suggesting that within its intended mobile segment, it performs competitively. The data does not include a direct comparison where the R9 M265X wins outright, so its “win” is contextual—it represents a capable mobile solution where the WX 5100, with its 75 W TDP and 173 mm length, would be physically impractical.

Architecture Differences

The architectural chasm between these two GPUs is immense. The WX 5100 uses the Ellesmere chip built on GCN 4.0 architecture, manufactured on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries, whereas the R9 M265X uses the Venus chip based on the original GCN 1.0 architecture, produced on a 28 nm process at TSMC. This process shrink from 28 nm to 14 nm is fundamental, enabling the WX 5100 to pack 5,700 million transistors into a 232 mm² die, while the R9 M265X manages only 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die. The transistor density tells the story: the WX 5100 achieves 24.6M transistors per mm² versus the R9 M265X’s 12.2M per mm², a doubling of density that directly translates into compute capability.

The compute resources differ by similar magnitudes. The WX 5100 fields 1,792 shading units, 112 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs, while the R9 M265X offers just 640 shaders, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Clock speeds also favor the newer card: the WX 5100 runs at a 713 MHz base and 1086 MHz boost, compared to 575 MHz base and 625 MHz boost on the R9 M265X. Memory configurations are equally divergent—the WX 5100 has 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus delivering 160.0 GB/s of bandwidth, versus 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus for 64.00 GB/s on the R9 M265X. The R9 M265X also lacks display outputs in the data, while the WX 5100 provides four DisplayPort 1.4a connections, reinforcing its professional workstation positioning.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The sole direct benchmark comparison is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and it is overwhelmingly one-sided. The WX 5100 produces a score of 24217, while the R9 M265X produces 8851, resulting in a delta of 173.6% in favor of the WX 5100. This means the WX 5100 delivers more than 2.7 times the raw compute performance in this workload. Such a margin is not incremental—it reflects the combined effect of more than double the shading units, higher clock speeds, and significantly more memory bandwidth.

Looking at the broader benchmark suite for the WX 5100, its other scores reinforce its compute-heavy profile. It achieves 29003 in Geekbench Metal and 26909 in Geekbench Vulkan, both strong showings that suggest well-rounded API support. In Passmark tests, it scores 5496 in G3D, 2053 in GPU compute, and lower scores in legacy DirectX tests: 88 in DirectX 9, 36 in DirectX 11, 29 in DirectX 10, and 26 in DirectX 12. These numbers indicate that while the card excels at modern compute tasks, its older DirectX performance is less impressive, possibly reflecting driver optimization priorities for professional workloads rather than gaming. The R9 M265X has no other benchmark data, so its performance profile outside OpenCL remains opaque, but the single data point is sufficient to establish the WX 5100’s clear superiority in compute.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 has an average benchmark score of 8863, which is just 0.1% higher than the AMD Radeon R9 M265X’s 8851, making them statistically equivalent in overall average performance.

Q: How much faster is the WX 5100 in OpenCL compute?

A: The WX 5100 scores 24217 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 8851 for the R9 M265X, representing a 173.6% advantage for the WX 5100.

Q: What are the memory capacities of these two GPUs?

A: The WX 5100 features 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus with 160.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the R9 M265X has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What architecture does each GPU use?

A: The WX 5100 is based on GCN 4.0 architecture with the Ellesmere chip on a 14 nm process, while the R9 M265X uses GCN 1.0 architecture with the Venus chip on a 28 nm process.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The WX 5100 has 1,792 shading units, compared to 640 on the R9 M265X, a difference of 1,152 units in favor of the WX 5100.

Q: What is the WX 5100’s launch MSRP?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 had a launch MSRP of 499 USD.

The Verdict

The data directs different buyers to each card based on workload requirements. For anyone needing professional-grade compute performance—whether for 3D modeling, scientific computation, or video rendering—the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 is the definitive pick. Its 173.6% lead in OpenCL over the R9 M265X is decisive, and its 8 GB of memory, four DisplayPort outputs, and 75 W power envelope make it suitable for workstation environments. The 44th percentile ranking among all GPUs indicates it sits in the mid-range of overall performance, but its architecture is optimized for the compute tasks that matter in professional settings.

The AMD Radeon R9 M265X, by contrast, is a product of its era. As a 2014 mobile GPU with 2 GB of memory and a 28 nm process, it is not designed to compete with modern workstation cards. Its single benchmark score of 8851 places it in the same percentile as the WX 5100, but this parity in average scores is misleading—it reflects the R9 M265X’s role in laptops where the WX 5100’s size and power requirements would be prohibitive. The data does not show the R9 M265X winning any direct comparison, so its suitability is limited to legacy mobile systems or light workloads where its 640 shaders and 64.00 GB/s bandwidth are adequate. For users with such systems, the card remains functional, but for any new purchase, the WX 5100’s architectural advantages are overwhelming.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 | AMD Radeon R9 M265X |

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

| Architecture | GCN 4.0 | GCN 1.0 |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 28 nm |

| Foundry | GlobalFoundries | TSMC |

| Transistors | 5,700 million | 1,500 million |

| Die Size | 232 mm² | 123 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 24.6M / mm² | 12.2M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 713 MHz | 575 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1086 MHz | 625 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective) | 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 8 GB | 2 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 160.0 GB/s | 64.00 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1792 | 640 |

| TMUs | 112 | 40 |

| ROPs | 32 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 34.75 GPixel/s | 10.00 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 121.6 GTexel/s | 25.00 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 3.892 TFLOPS | 800.0 GFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 3.892 TFLOPS (1:1) | Not specified |

| TDP | 75 W | Not specified |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | Not specified |

| Power Connectors | None | Not specified |

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | Not specified |

| Display Outputs | 4x DisplayPort 1.4a | Not specified |

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

| OpenGL Support | 4.6 | 4.6 |

| Vulkan Support | 1.3 | 1.2.170 |

| Dimensions (Length) | 173 mm (6.8 inches) | Not specified |

| Dimensions (Height) | 112 mm (4.4 inches) | Not specified |

| Release Date | 2016-11-17 | 2014-03-20 |

| Predecessor | Radeon Pro GCN | Solar System |

| Successor | Radeon Pro Vega | Polaris Mobile |

| Launch MSRP | 499 USD | Not specified |