AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 vs AMD Radeon RX 6500M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a decisive overall victory for the AMD Radeon RX 6500M, which wins 8 of the 9 recorded head-to-head comparisons. The most dramatic margin appears in the DirectX 11 test, where the RX 6500M scores 70 against the Pro WX 5100's 36, a 94.4% advantage. This is the largest delta in the entire dataset and indicates a fundamental difference in how the two architectures handle legacy DirectX workloads. The RX 6500M also delivers a 79.3% lead in DirectX 10, scoring 52 versus 29, reinforcing a pattern of strong performance in older API paths.

In compute-oriented benchmarks, the RX 6500M maintains substantial leads. The Geekbench OpenCL test shows 38586 for the RX 6500M against 24217 for the Pro WX 5100, a 59.3% difference. The Vulkan gap is even wider at 62.9%, with scores of 43837 and 26909 respectively. These results are notable because the Pro WX 5100 carries a larger memory bus and more shading units, yet the newer RDNA 2.0 architecture in the RX 6500M overcomes that hardware disadvantage in raw compute throughput.

The PassMark G3D suite tells a similar story, with the RX 6500M scoring 7531 versus 5496, a 37% advantage. The GPU compute test narrows the gap somewhat, showing 2669 for the RX 6500M against 2053 for the Pro WX 5100, a 30% lead. Even in DirectX 12, where the Pro WX 5100's GCN 4.0 architecture was designed with modern API support in mind, the RX 6500M wins by 30.8% (34 versus 26). The closest margin of victory is in DirectX 9, where the RX 6500M edges ahead with 92 against 88, a slim 4.5% lead.

The single benchmark where the Pro WX 5100 emerges victorious is the PassMark G2D test, which measures 2D graphics and desktop compositing performance. Here the Pro WX 5100 scores 777 against the RX 6500M's 385, a 50.5% advantage in favor of the older card. This is a curious result, as it likely reflects the Pro WX 5100's workstation-oriented display pipeline and its dedicated DisplayPort outputs, which may handle 2D presentation tasks more efficiently than the mobile-focused RX 6500M.

Looking at aggregate performance, the RX 6500M sits at the 48th percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the Pro WX 5100 ranks at the 44th percentile. The average benchmark score reinforces the gap, with the RX 6500M averaging 10362 points against 8863 for the Pro WX 5100. In context, the RX 6500M's nearest rivals are the NVIDIA Tesla C2075 (average score 10400, just 0.4% lower) and the GeForce GTX 950A (10273, 0.9% lower), placing it in firmly mid-range territory. The Pro WX 5100, by contrast, sits alongside the Radeon R9 M265X (8851, 0.1% lower) and the Radeon 550X (8918, 0.6% higher), with the GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile trailing by 1.3%.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent entirely different generations and design philosophies. The RX 6500M is built on the Navi 24 chip using RDNA 2.0 architecture, fabricated on a TSMC 6 nm process. It packs 5,400 million transistors into a 107 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 50.5 million per square millimeter. The Pro WX 5100, in contrast, uses the Ellesmere chip with GCN 4.0 architecture, built by GlobalFoundries on a 14 nm process. It contains 5,700 million transistors spread across a much larger 232 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of just 24.6 million per square millimeter. The density difference of more than double highlights how far process technology advanced between 2016 and 2022.

Clock speeds reflect this generational shift. The RX 6500M runs at a 2000 MHz base clock and boosts to 2400 MHz, with a game clock of 2191 MHz. The Pro WX 5100 operates at a 713 MHz base clock with a 1086 MHz boost, dramatically lower frequencies. Despite having 1792 shading units against the RX 6500M's 1024, the Pro WX 5100 manages only 3.892 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the RX 6500M reaches 4.915 TFLOPS. The texture units tell a similar story, with 112 TMUs on the Pro WX 5100 producing 121.6 GTexel/s versus 64 TMUs on the RX 6500M generating 153.6 GTexel/s. The RX 6500M's higher clocks and architectural efficiency overcome the raw unit count disadvantage.

Memory subsystems diverge sharply. The RX 6500M uses 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 144.0 GB/s of bandwidth, while the Pro WX 5100 offers 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 160.0 GB/s. The Pro WX 5100's wider bus and larger capacity serve workstation workloads, but the RX 6500M's faster GDDR6 memory operates at 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective speed, compared to 1250 MHz and 5 Gbps effective on the older card. The RX 6500M also supports 16 ray tracing cores, a feature entirely absent from the Pro WX 5100, and delivers FP16 performance of 9.830 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio, whereas the Pro WX 5100 offers FP16 at only 3.892 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio.

API support reflects the architectural evolution. The RX 6500M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the Pro WX 5100 is limited to DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The newer card's support for the 12_2 feature level and higher Vulkan revision enables modern rendering techniques that the older architecture cannot handle. Power requirements also differ, with the RX 6500M drawing 50 W as an integrated GPU (IGP) solution with no power connectors, while the Pro WX 5100 consumes 75 W in a single-slot form factor with a suggested PSU of 250 W.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 6500M is the clear choice for compute-heavy and modern gaming workloads. Its 59.3% lead in OpenCL and 62.9% lead in Vulkan make it substantially faster for general-purpose GPU compute, while the 37% advantage in PassMark G3D indicates better overall 3D rendering performance. The 30% lead in GPU compute and 30.8% lead in DirectX 12 further cement its position for contemporary applications. The DirectX 10 and DirectX 11 margins of 79.3% and 94.4% respectively show that even older API paths run significantly faster on the newer architecture, making it a more versatile option for legacy software compatibility.

The Pro WX 5100's lone victory in PassMark G2D, with a 50.5% advantage, suggests it retains an edge in 2D desktop and presentation workloads. This could matter for professional environments that prioritize crisp text rendering, multi-display setups, or CAD-style applications with heavy 2D interface elements. The Pro WX 5100 also offers 8 GB of memory versus 4 GB, which may be relevant for large datasets that exceed the RX 6500M's capacity, even though the bandwidth figures are comparable at 160.0 GB/s versus 144.0 GB/s. Its four DisplayPort 1.4a outputs provide a fixed, professional-grade display configuration, while the RX 6500M's outputs are portable device dependent.

For users prioritizing raw compute throughput, modern API support, and ray tracing capability, the RX 6500M is the superior option. For workstation environments that value 2D performance, higher memory capacity, and established display output flexibility, the Pro WX 5100 retains relevance despite its age. The data shows the RX 6500M winning 8 of 9 benchmarks, but the Pro WX 5100's specific strengths should not be dismissed for narrow professional use cases.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every major specification category. The process node is 6 nm on the RX 6500M versus 14 nm on the Pro WX 5100, with the RX 6500M using TSMC as foundry while the Pro WX 5100 relies on GlobalFoundries. Transistor counts are close at 5,400 million versus 5,700 million, but die size differs dramatically at 107 mm² versus 232 mm². Clock speeds show a 2000 MHz base and 2400 MHz boost on the RX 6500M against 713 MHz base and 1086 MHz boost on the Pro WX 5100. Memory type shifts from GDDR6 to GDDR5, with capacities of 4 GB versus 8 GB, bus widths of 64-bit versus 256-bit, and bandwidth of 144.0 GB/s versus 160.0 GB/s. Shading units number 1024 versus 1792, TMUs 64 versus 112, and ROPs are equal at 32. The RX 6500M includes 16 ray tracing cores, while the Pro WX 5100 has none. Pixel rate is 76.80 GPixel/s versus 34.75 GPixel/s, texture rate 153.6 GTexel/s versus 121.6 GTexel/s, and FP32 compute 4.915 TFLOPS versus 3.892 TFLOPS. FP16 performance is 9.830 TFLOPS (2:1) versus 3.892 TFLOPS (1:1). Power draw is 50 W versus 75 W, with the RX 6500M being an IGP solution and the Pro WX 5100 a single-slot card measuring 173 mm in length and 112 mm in height. The bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x4 versus PCIe 3.0 x16. DirectX support is 12 Ultimate (12_2) versus 12 (12_0), and Vulkan is 1.4 versus 1.3. Release dates are January 2022 versus November 2016.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in Geekbench Vulkan?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6500M scores 43837 in Geekbench Vulkan, which is 62.9% higher than the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100's score of 26909.

Q: Does the RX 6500M support ray tracing?

A: Yes, the RX 6500M has 16 ray tracing cores as part of its RDNA 2.0 architecture. The Pro WX 5100 has no ray tracing cores at all.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference between the two cards?

A: The Pro WX 5100 offers 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, while the RX 6500M provides 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus. Despite the capacity gap, the RX 6500M's bandwidth is 144.0 GB/s versus 160.0 GB/s for the Pro WX 5100.

Q: In which benchmark does the Pro WX 5100 beat the RX 6500M?

A: The Pro WX 5100 wins the PassMark G2D test with a score of 777 against 385 for the RX 6500M, a 50.5% advantage in 2D graphics performance.

Q: What are the power consumption figures for each card?

A: The RX 6500M has a TDP of 50 W and uses no power connectors, while the Pro WX 5100 has a TDP of 75 W, also with no power connectors, but a suggested PSU of 250 W is recommended.

Q: How does the DirectX 11 performance compare?

A: The RX 6500M scores 70 in PassMark DirectX 11, which is 94.4% higher than the Pro WX 5100's score of 36. This is the largest performance gap between the two cards in any benchmark test.