AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 vs AMD Radeon R9 M360 Comparison

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 and the AMD Radeon R9 M360 occupy different corners of the GPU landscape, separated by two full generations of architecture and a wide performance gulf. The data shows a decisive victory for the Pro WX 5100 in every shared benchmark, with the older R9 M360 trailing by triple-digit percentage points. This analysis quantifies that gap, examines the architectural chasm between the two, and provides a detailed specification comparison based strictly on the available benchmark data.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head comparison is brief but conclusive, with only two shared benchmark tests recorded for both GPUs. In Geekbench OpenCL, the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 scores 24,217 points against the R9 M360’s 8,211 points, yielding a delta of 194.9% in favor of the newer card. That is nearly three times the raw score, a margin that dwarfs typical generational improvements. The Vulkan test is even more lopsided: the Pro WX 5100 produces 26,909 points versus 8,047 for the R9 M360, a 234.4% advantage. The Pro WX 5100 wins both head-to-head tests, while the R9 M360 records zero wins.

These deltas are not incremental. A 194.9% lead in OpenCL indicates the Pro WX 5100 is processing compute workloads at nearly three times the rate of the R9 M360, while the 234.4% Vulkan margin suggests the architectural differences are even more pronounced under modern graphics APIs. The R9 M360’s scores hover near those of its own nearest rivals — the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M (8,135 average, -0.1% delta) and the NVIDIA GeForce 945M (8,099 average, +0.4% delta) — meaning it is competitive within its own generation. But the Pro WX 5100 sits in a different tier entirely, with an average benchmark score of 8,863 compared to the R9 M360’s 8,129.

It is worth remembering the Pro WX 5100’s average benchmark score (8,863) is remarkably close to its head-to-head Geekbench OpenCL score (24,217) when scaled across the full benchmark suite, but the average is pulled down by its weaker Passmark results. The R9 M360 lacks those additional Passmark entries, so its average reflects only the two Geekbench tests. Even so, the direct comparisons tell a clear story: the Pro WX 5100 is the dominant part in every measurable way.

Where Each One Wins

The Pro WX 5100 wins outright in both shared benchmarks, making the use-case split straightforward. For compute-heavy workloads that rely on OpenCL — such as rendering, scientific simulation, or machine learning inference — the Pro WX 5100’s 194.9% advantage over the R9 M360 means tasks that take an hour on the older card would complete in roughly 20 minutes on the newer one. The Vulkan gap is even larger, so any application leveraging Vulkan for graphics or compute will see a 234.4% performance improvement.

The R9 M360 has no benchmark wins to claim. However, its data does show it remains functional within its own peer group. Its average benchmark score of 8,129 places it within 0.1% of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M (8,135) and 0.4% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce 945M (8,099). For legacy applications built around DirectX 11 or OpenGL 4.6, the R9 M360 may still provide acceptable performance, but the data does not include any tests where it outperforms the Pro WX 5100. The R9 M360’s percentile rank of 42 versus the Pro WX 5100’s 44 confirms that both cards sit in the lower half of all GPUs, but the Pro WX 5100 is meaningfully higher within that range.

For professional workloads, the Pro WX 5100’s 8 GB memory and 160.0 GB/s bandwidth provide a clear advantage over the R9 M360’s 4 GB and 72.00 GB/s. The larger frame buffer supports higher-resolution textures and larger datasets, while the doubled bandwidth reduces bottlenecks in memory-intensive tasks. The R9 M360’s strengths, if any, would lie in its lower power footprint — though the data does not list a TDP for the R9 M360, the Pro WX 5100’s 75 W TDP with no power connectors suggests both are modest consumers.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs is vast, spanning multiple generations of AMD’s Graphics Core Next (GCN) design. The Pro WX 5100 uses the Ellesmere chip built on GCN 4.0 architecture, fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The R9 M360 uses the Tropo chip on the original GCN 1.0 architecture, built on a 28 nm process at TSMC. This process shrink from 28 nm to 14 nm is a primary driver of the performance gap, allowing the Pro WX 5100 to pack 5,700 million transistors into a 232 mm² die, versus 1,500 million transistors in 123 mm² for the R9 M360. The transistor density tells the story: 24.6 million transistors per square millimeter for the Pro WX 5100 versus 12.2 million for the R9 M360.

The compute resources scale accordingly. The Pro WX 5100 features 1,792 shading units, 112 texture mapping units, and 32 render output units. The R9 M360 has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. That is 3.5 times the shader count, 3.5 times the TMUs, and twice the ROPs — a structural advantage that explains the benchmark deltas. The Pro WX 5100’s pixel rate of 34.75 GPixel/s is more than double the R9 M360’s 14.80 GPixel/s, and its texture rate of 121.6 GTexel/s is over four times the R9 M360’s 29.60 GTexel/s.

Clock speeds show a different pattern. The R9 M360 runs at a base clock of 900 MHz and a boost of 925 MHz, while the Pro WX 5100 starts lower at 713 MHz base but boosts to 1086 MHz. The Pro WX 5100’s higher boost clock, combined with its vastly larger shader count, produces a FP32 throughput of 3.892 TFLOPS — more than four times the R9 M360’s 947.2 GFLOPS. The Pro WX 5100 also supports FP16 at a 1:1 ratio (3.892 TFLOPS), while the R9 M360 has no listed FP16 capability. Memory clocks differ similarly: the Pro WX 5100 runs at 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective) versus the R9 M360’s 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective), though the bus width difference (256-bit versus 128-bit) is the dominant factor in the bandwidth gap.

API support reflects the generational leap. The Pro WX 5100 supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3, while the R9 M360 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The Pro WX 5100’s display outputs include 4x DisplayPort 1.4a, while the R9 M360 has no display outputs listed, consistent with its mobile-oriented design. The Pro WX 5100 is a single-slot card with no power connectors and a suggested 250 W PSU, while the R9 M360 lacks dimension and power data entirely.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 than the R9 M360 in OpenCL?

A: The Pro WX 5100 scores 24,217 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 8,211 for the R9 M360, a 194.9% advantage. This means the Pro WX 5100 delivers nearly three times the compute throughput in OpenCL workloads.

Q: What is the performance difference in Vulkan benchmarks?

A: The Pro WX 5100 achieves 26,909 in Geekbench Vulkan compared to 8,047 for the R9 M360, representing a 234.4% lead. This is the largest margin between the two cards across any benchmark.

Q: Which GPU has better memory bandwidth, and by how much?

A: The Pro WX 5100 has 160.0 GB/s bandwidth across a 256-bit bus, while the R9 M360 has 72.00 GB/s across a 128-bit bus. The Pro WX 5100 offers more than double the bandwidth, which directly benefits memory-intensive workloads.

Q: How do the two cards compare in terms of shading units?

A: The Pro WX 5100 has 1,792 shading units, while the R9 M360 has 512. This 3.5x difference in shader count is a primary reason for the Pro WX 5100’s superior FP32 performance of 3.892 TFLOPS versus 947.2 GFLOPS.

Q: What are the architecture generations of each GPU?

A: The Pro WX 5100 uses GCN 4.0 architecture on a 14 nm process, while the R9 M360 uses the original GCN 1.0 architecture on a 28 nm process. This spans two full architecture generations and a process node shrink.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same DirectX version?

A: No. The Pro WX 5100 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the R9 M360 only supports DirectX 12 (11_1). The Pro WX 5100 also supports Vulkan 1.3 versus the R9 M360’s Vulkan 1.2.170.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 | AMD Radeon R9 M360 |

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

| Architecture | GCN 4.0 | GCN 1.0 |

| Chip | Ellesmere | Tropo |

| 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 | 900 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1086 MHz | 925 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective) | 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 8 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 160.0 GB/s | 72.00 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1792 | 512 |

| TMUs | 112 | 32 |

| ROPs | 32 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 34.75 GPixel/s | 14.80 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 121.6 GTexel/s | 29.60 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Throughput | 3.892 TFLOPS | 947.2 GFLOPS |

| FP16 Throughput | 3.892 TFLOPS (1:1) | null |

| TDP | 75 W | null |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | null |

| Power Connectors | None | null |

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | null |

| Display Outputs | 4x DisplayPort 1.4a | null |

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

| Vulkan Support | 1.3 | 1.2.170 |

| Release Date | 2016-11-17 | 2015-05-04 |

| Launch MSRP | 499 USD | null |

| Generation | Radeon Pro Polaris (WX x100) | Gem System (R9 M300) |

| Predecessor | Radeon Pro GCN | Solar System |

| Successor | Radeon Pro Vega | Polaris Mobile |

| Percentile (All GPUs) | 44 | 42 |

| Average Benchmark Score | 8863 | 8129 |