AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 vs AMD Radeon RX 550X Comparison

The Verdict

The data presents a clear hierarchy. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 is decisively faster in every recorded head-to-head benchmark, posting scores that are roughly 2.5 times higher than the RX 550X. Any workload that stresses compute or graphics will favor the Pro WX 5100 by a wide margin.

The RX 550X, however, is not without its place. It is a compact, low-power card with a 50 W TDP and no power connectors, making it a candidate for slim builds or systems with limited power delivery. Its 49th percentile ranking versus all GPUs is actually higher than the Pro WX 5100's 44th percentile, despite the Pro card's massive lead in raw compute tests. This suggests the average benchmark score of 10481 for the RX 550X is more representative of its overall standing than its two Geekbench results might imply, while the Pro WX 5100's average of 8863 is dragged down by its poor Passmark scores in older DX10, DX11, and DX12 tests.

Pick the Pro WX 5100 if you need serious compute throughput, 8 GB of VRAM, and a wide 256-bit memory bus. Pick the RX 550X if your priority is a low-profile, low-power card that still supports modern APIs like Vulkan 1.3 and DirectX 12 (12_0), and you accept a large performance compromise.

Architecture Differences

Both cards are built on AMD's GCN 4.0 architecture and use a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The similarities end there. The RX 550X uses the Lexa chip, a small die measuring 103 mm² with 2,200 million transistors. The Pro WX 5100 uses the Ellesmere chip, which is more than twice the physical size at 232 mm² and packs 5,700 million transistors. This translates to a transistor density of 21.4M / mm² for the RX 550X and 24.6M / mm² for the Pro WX 5100, meaning the larger chip is also denser.

The compute configuration diverges sharply. The RX 550X has 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 16 raster output units (ROPs). The Pro WX 5100 more than triples the shading units to 1,792, more than triples TMUs to 112, and doubles ROPs to 32. Neither card has dedicated ray tracing cores or tensor cores, so both rely on traditional GCN shader hardware.

Memory architecture is another major split. The RX 550X uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 96.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The Pro WX 5100 doubles the VRAM to 8 GB, doubles the bus width to 256-bit, and achieves 160.0 GB/s. Clock behavior also differs: the RX 550X runs a base clock of 1100 MHz and boost of 1183 MHz, while the Pro WX 5100 has a lower base of 713 MHz but boosts to 1086 MHz. The Pro card compensates for its lower clocks with far more execution units.

Both cards support DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. Display output differs: the RX 550X offers 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0b, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a, while the Pro WX 5100 provides four DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The Pro card is single-slot and 173 mm long; the RX 550X is dual-slot and 145 mm long.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded head-to-head data contains only two Geekbench tests, and the Pro WX 5100 wins both by a massive margin.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the Pro WX 5100 scores 24,217 against the RX 550X's 9,662. That is a 60.1% lead for the Pro card. This is the most direct measure of general compute performance, and the gap is enormous. The RX 550X's 1,211.4 GFLOPS of FP32 throughput simply cannot compete with the Pro WX 5100's 3.892 TFLOPS, which is roughly 3.2 times higher.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the Pro WX 5100 scores 26,909 versus 11,299 for the RX 550X, a 58% advantage. This confirms that the Pro card's advantage extends beyond raw compute into graphics API workloads.

The RX 550X has zero wins in the head-to-head table. Its only consolation is that its average benchmark score across all recorded tests (10,481) is higher than the Pro WX 5100's (8,863). That is because the Pro WX 5100's Passmark results are weak: 29 in DirectX 10, 36 in DirectX 11, 26 in DirectX 12, 88 in DirectX 9, 777 in G2D, 5,496 in G3D, and 2,053 in GPU Compute. These legacy or synthetic tests do not reflect the Pro card's strength in modern compute workloads, but they do lower its average.

The nearest rivals listed in the database underscore the RX 550X's mid-pack position. Its average score of 10,481 sits just 0.8% above the NVIDIA Tesla C2075 (10,400), 1.2% above the AMD Radeon RX 6500M (10,362), and 1.4% above the AMD Radeon RX 6600S (10,629). It is 1% below the AMD Radeon R9 M275X (10,582). These are all close margins, indicating the RX 550X is squarely in the middle of a dense cluster of similar-performance GPUs.

The Pro WX 5100's nearest rivals tell a different story. Its average of 8,863 is 0.1% above the AMD Radeon R9 M265X (8,851), 1.3% above the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile (8,746), and 1.4% above the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 v2 (8,743). It sits 0.6% below the AMD Radeon 550X (8,918). These are all older or lower-tier parts, confirming that the Pro WX 5100's average is held back by its Passmark sub-scores rather than its actual compute capability.

Specification Differences

The table below lists only fields where the two cards differ. Shared traits, such as GCN 4.0 architecture, 14 nm process, GlobalFoundries foundry, DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.3, no power connectors, 250 W suggested PSU, and end-of-life production status, are omitted.

• Chip: Lexa (RX 550X) vs Ellesmere (Pro WX 5100)
• Generation: Polaris (RX 500X) vs Radeon Pro Polaris (WX x100)
• Transistors: 2,200 million vs 5,700 million
• Die Size: 103 mm² vs 232 mm²
• Transistor Density: 21.4M / mm² vs 24.6M / mm²
• Base Clock: 1100 MHz vs 713 MHz
• Boost Clock: 1183 MHz vs 1086 MHz
• Memory Clock: 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective) vs 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective)
• Memory Size: 4 GB vs 8 GB
• Memory Bus Width: 128 bit vs 256 bit
• Memory Bandwidth: 96.00 GB/s vs 160.0 GB/s
• Shading Units: 512 vs 1,792
• TMUs: 32 vs 112
• ROPs: 16 vs 32
• Pixel Rate: 18.93 GPixel/s vs 34.75 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 37.86 GTexel/s vs 121.6 GTexel/s
• FP32: 1,211.4 GFLOPS vs 3.892 TFLOPS
• FP16: 1,211.4 GFLOPS (1:1) vs 3.892 TFLOPS (1:1)
• TDP: 50 W vs 75 W
• Slot Width: Dual-slot vs Single-slot
• Bus Interface: PCIe 3.0 x8 vs PCIe 3.0 x16
• Display Outputs: 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0b, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a vs 4x DisplayPort 1.4a
• Length: 145 mm (5.7 inches) vs 173 mm (6.8 inches)
• Height: Not listed vs 112 mm (4.4 inches)
• Release Date: 2018-12-15 vs 2016-11-17
• Predecessor: Polaris vs Radeon Pro GCN
• Successor: Vega vs Radeon Pro Vega
• Launch MSRP: Not listed vs 499 USD (state once as launch MSRP)

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 scores 24,217 versus 9,662 for the RX 550X, a 60.1% lead.

Q: Does the RX 550X win any benchmark in the head-to-head data?

A: No. The Pro WX 5100 wins both recorded tests (Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan). The RX 550X has zero wins in the head-to-head table.

Q: Which card has more video memory?

A: The Pro WX 5100 has 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, while the RX 550X has 4 GB on a 128-bit bus. Memory bandwidth is 160.0 GB/s versus 96.00 GB/s.

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The RX 550X has an average benchmark score of 10,481, which is higher than the Pro WX 5100's 8,863. This is because the Pro card's Passmark sub-scores are very low.

Q: Are both cards the same architecture?

A: Yes, both use GCN 4.0 on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. However, the Pro WX 5100 uses the Ellesmere chip with 5,700 million transistors, while the RX 550X uses Lexa with 2,200 million.

Q: Which card supports more display outputs?

A: The Pro WX 5100 has four DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The RX 550X has one DVI, one HDMI 2.0b, and one DisplayPort 1.4a.

Where Each One Wins

The Pro WX 5100 wins every compute and graphics workload in the recorded head-to-head data. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 24,217 is 60.1% higher than the RX 550X's 9,662, and its Vulkan score of 26,909 is 58% higher. The Pro card's 3.892 TFLOPS FP32 throughput, 160.0 GB/s memory bandwidth, and 8 GB VRAM make it the clear choice for compute-heavy tasks, large textures, multi-display professional setups, or any workload that scales with shading units and memory bandwidth. Its single-slot design and four DisplayPort outputs also suit dense workstation environments.

The RX 550X wins on efficiency and physical footprint. At 50 W TDP versus 75 W, it draws less power. It is shorter at 145 mm versus 173 mm, and its dual-slot cooler is a minor tradeoff. Its PCIe 3.0 x8 interface is narrower than the Pro card's x16, but that matters less for its intended role. Its base clock of 1100 MHz is higher than the Pro card's 713 MHz, which helps in lightly threaded or latency-sensitive tasks, though the Pro card's boost clock of 1086 MHz nearly closes that gap. The RX 550X also has a higher percentile ranking (49th versus 44th) and a higher average benchmark score (10,481 versus 8,863), driven by its more consistent results across the full test suite.

In practical terms, the Pro WX 5100 is for users who need maximum compute per dollar of power budget, while the RX 550X is for users who need a minimal-power card that still supports modern graphics APIs. The data does not support any scenario where the RX 550X outperforms the Pro WX 5100 in raw throughput; its advantages are purely in power draw, physical size, and average score consistency.