AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 vs AMD Radeon R9 M375 Comparison

The AMD Radeon R9 M375 and the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 represent two distinct generations of graphics technology, and the benchmark data reflects a significant performance gulf. The R9 M375 is an older, mobile-oriented chip based on the Graphics Core Next (GCN) 1.0 architecture, while the Pro WX 5100 is a professional workstation card built on the more modern GCN 4.0 architecture. Comparing the recorded measurements shows that the Pro WX 5100 is overwhelmingly faster, but the two cards also differ substantially in their feature sets, memory configurations, and target use cases. The data from the database provides a clear picture of how these two pieces of hardware stack up against each other and their respective rivals.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark data is unequivocal. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 outperforms the AMD Radeon R9 M375 in every recorded test. In the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark, the Pro WX 5100 scores 24,217, while the R9 M375 manages only 10,457. This represents a delta of -56.8% for the R9 M375, meaning the Pro WX 5100 is more than twice as fast in this compute-heavy workload. The margin is even larger in the Geekbench Vulkan test, where the Pro WX 5100 scores 26,909 compared to the R9 M375’s 9,682, a delta of -64%. This indicates that the newer architecture of the Pro WX 5100 provides a substantial advantage in modern, low-level API scenarios.

The overall average benchmark score reinforces this dominance. The R9 M375 has an average benchmark score of 10,070, while the Pro WX 5100’s average is 8,863. Interestingly, the Pro WX 5100’s average score is lower than its individual Geekbench results because the database includes a broader set of tests, including the PassMark suite, where its DirectX 9 score is 88, DirectX 10 is 29, DirectX 11 is 36, and DirectX 12 is 26. These lower scores pull its average down, but the raw compute and Vulkan results clearly show its superior processing power.

When examining the nearest rivals, the data provides additional context. The R9 M375’s average score of 10,070 puts it just 0.3% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro K5100M, which scores 10,043, and 0.6% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro 5300M, which scores 10,013. However, it trails the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A, which scores 10,273, a -2% delta. This places the R9 M375 in a competitive position within its own generation of mobile GPUs, but that generation is clearly older. The Pro WX 5100, with its average score of 8,863, is only 0.1% ahead of the AMD Radeon R9 M265X (8,851) and 1.3% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile (8,746). The Pro WX 5100 trails the AMD Radeon 550X, which scores 8,918, a -0.6% delta. This suggests that the Pro WX 5100, despite being a professional card, is positioned in a similar performance tier to some mid-range consumer and mobile options from its era.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between the two cards is significant and explains the benchmark results. The R9 M375 is built on GCN 1.0, a first-generation design, while the Pro WX 5100 uses GCN 4.0, a mature and much-improved iteration. This generational leap is reflected in the manufacturing process. The R9 M375 uses a 28 nm node at TSMC, while the Pro WX 5100 uses a 14 nm node at GlobalFoundries. The smaller process node allows for a much larger chip. The R9 M375 has 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, while the Pro WX 5100 packs 5,700 million transistors into a 232 mm² die. This results in a transistor density of 12.2M per mm² for the R9 M375 and 24.6M per mm² for the Pro WX 5100, showcasing the efficiency gains of the newer process.

The core configuration is also vastly different. The R9 M375 has 640 shading units, 40 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 16 raster operations pipelines (ROPs). The Pro WX 5100, in contrast, has 1,792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. This nearly tripling of shading units and TMUs, along with a doubling of ROPs, directly contributes to its higher compute and fill rates. The recorded pixel rate for the R9 M375 is 16.24 GPixel/s, and its texture rate is 40.60 GTexel/s. The Pro WX 5100 achieves 34.75 GPixel/s and 121.6 GTexel/s, respectively. In terms of raw floating-point performance, the R9 M375 delivers 1,299.2 GFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the Pro WX 5100 delivers 3.892 TFLOPS (or 3,892 GFLOPS). The Pro WX 5100 also has a 1:1 FP16 rate, meaning it can perform half-precision math at the same pace as full-precision, a feature not listed for the R9 M375.

Memory architecture is another major divider. The R9 M375 is equipped with 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus, yielding a bandwidth of 28.80 GB/s. The Pro WX 5100 features 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, providing a much larger 160.0 GB/s of bandwidth. This 5.5x increase in memory bandwidth is critical for modern workloads, especially at higher resolutions and with larger textures. The R9 M375 has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 1015 MHz, with memory clocked at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective). The Pro WX 5100 has a lower base clock of 713 MHz but a higher boost clock of 1086 MHz, with memory at 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective). The boost clock behavior of the Pro WX 5100 demonstrates the ability of the newer architecture to ramp up under load.

The Verdict

From the data, the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 is the clear winner for any task that requires compute performance, modern API support, or substantial memory resources. Its 64% advantage in Vulkan and 56.8% advantage in OpenCL over the R9 M375 are decisive. The Pro WX 5100 is designed for professional workloads, as evidenced by its 8 GB frame buffer and support for DirectX 12 (12_0), which is a full implementation of the feature level. The R9 M375, with its DirectX 12 (11_1) support, is limited to an older feature set. The Pro WX 5100 also has a 75 W TDP, which is a reasonable power envelope for the performance it delivers, and it comes with four DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, making it suitable for multi-display professional environments.

The AMD Radeon R9 M375, however, is not without its place. Its smaller die size and lower power requirements (though TDP is not listed) make it a candidate for older, thinner laptops where space and cooling are at a premium. Its performance, while far behind the Pro WX 5100, is competitive with its direct peers, sitting just 0.3% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro K5100M and 1.1% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 870M. For a user on a legacy platform that does not require the latest APIs or massive frame buffers, the R9 M375 can still handle basic graphical tasks and older games. Its average benchmark score of 10,070 is higher than the Pro WX 5100’s 8,863, which is a quirk of the differing test suites, but it does not translate to real-world superiority in modern applications.

The verdict is straightforward. For professionals, the Pro WX 5100 is the only choice. The R9 M375 is a relic of a bygone era, suitable only for basic, legacy use cases where its lower performance is acceptable. The database’s percentile rankings place the R9 M375 at the 48th percentile of all GPUs, while the Pro WX 5100 sits at the 44th percentile, but this is a reflection of the broader range of tests included in the average, not a measure of their relative capabilities in compute-heavy tasks. The Pro WX 5100 is the superior hardware.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the two cards, based on the recorded data:

• Architecture: GCN 1.0 (R9 M375) vs. GCN 4.0 (Pro WX 5100)
• Process Node: 28 nm (R9 M375) vs. 14 nm (Pro WX 5100)
• Foundry: TSMC (R9 M375) vs. GlobalFoundries (Pro WX 5100)
• Transistors: 1,500 million (R9 M375) vs. 5,700 million (Pro WX 5100)
• Die Size: 123 mm² (R9 M375) vs. 232 mm² (Pro WX 5100)
• Transistor Density: 12.2M / mm² (R9 M375) vs. 24.6M / mm² (Pro WX 5100)
• Base Clock: 1000 MHz (R9 M375) vs. 713 MHz (Pro WX 5100)
• Boost Clock: 1015 MHz (R9 M375) vs. 1086 MHz (Pro WX 5100)
• Memory Clock: 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) (R9 M375) vs. 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective) (Pro WX 5100)
• Memory Size: 2 GB (R9 M375) vs. 8 GB (Pro WX 5100)
• Memory Type: DDR3 (R9 M375) vs. GDDR5 (Pro WX 5100)
• Memory Bus Width: 128 bit (R9 M375) vs. 256 bit (Pro WX 5100)
• Memory Bandwidth: 28.80 GB/s (R9 M375) vs. 160.0 GB/s (Pro WX 5100)
• Shading Units: 640 (R9 M375) vs. 1,792 (Pro WX 5100)
• TMUs: 40 (R9 M375) vs. 112 (Pro WX 5100)
• ROPs: 16 (R9 M375) vs. 32 (Pro WX 5100)
• Pixel Rate: 16.24 GPixel/s (R9 M375) vs. 34.75 GPixel/s (Pro WX 5100)
• Texture Rate: 40.60 GTexel/s (R9 M375) vs. 121.6 GTexel/s (Pro WX 5100)
• FP32 Performance: 1,299.2 GFLOPS (R9 M375) vs. 3.892 TFLOPS (Pro WX 5100)
• FP16 Performance: Not listed (R9 M375) vs. 3.892 TFLOPS (1:1) (Pro WX 5100)
• TDP: Not listed (R9 M375) vs. 75 W (Pro WX 5100)
• Slot Width: Not listed (R9 M375) vs. Single-slot (Pro WX 5100)
• Power Connectors: Not listed (R9 M375) vs. None (Pro WX 5100)
• Suggested PSU: Not listed (R9 M375) vs. 250 W (Pro WX 5100)
• Display Outputs: Not listed (R9 M375) vs. 4x DisplayPort 1.4a (Pro WX 5100)
• DirectX Support: 12 (11_1) (R9 M375) vs. 12 (12_0) (Pro WX 5100)
• Vulkan Support: 1.2.170 (R9 M375) vs. 1.3 (Pro WX 5100)
• Dimensions: Not listed (R9 M375) vs. 173 mm (6.8 inches) length, 112 mm (4.4 inches) height (Pro WX 5100)
• Release Date: 2015-05-04 (R9 M375) vs. 2016-11-17 (Pro WX 5100)
• Predecessor: Solar System (R9 M375) vs. Radeon Pro GCN (Pro WX 5100)
• Successor: Polaris Mobile (R9 M375) vs. Radeon Pro Vega (Pro WX 5100)

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R9 M375 has a higher average benchmark score of 10,070, compared to the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100’s 8,863. However, this average includes a different mix of tests, and the Pro WX 5100 is significantly faster in the individual Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan tests.

Q: Is the Pro WX 5100 faster in raw compute performance?

A: Yes, the data shows a massive gap. The Pro WX 5100 scores 24,217 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 56.8% higher than the R9 M375’s score of 10,457. Its FP32 performance is 3.892 TFLOPS, while the R9 M375 delivers 1,299.2 GFLOPS.

Q: How do their memory configurations compare?

A: The R9 M375 has 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing 28.80 GB/s of bandwidth. The Pro WX 5100 has 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, providing 160.0 GB/s of bandwidth, a more than fivefold increase.

Q: What are the architectural differences?

A: The R9 M375 is based on the older GCN 1.0 architecture on a 28 nm process, while the Pro WX 5100 uses the newer GCN 4.0 architecture on a 14 nm process. The Pro WX 5100 has significantly more shading units (1,792 vs. 640) and a larger die (232 mm² vs. 123 mm²).

Q: Which card supports a newer version of DirectX?

A: The Pro WX 5100 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), which is a more complete implementation of the DirectX 12 feature set. The R9 M375 only supports DirectX 12 (11_1), which is a more limited version.

Q: Is the Pro WX 5100 a desktop card?

A: While the R9 M375 is a mobile chip, the Pro WX 5100 is a single-slot desktop card. It has dimensions of 173 mm (6.8 inches) in length and 112 mm (4.4 inches) in height, a 75 W TDP, and four DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. Its launch MSRP was 499 USD.