AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 vs Intel Arc A380 Comparison

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 and Intel Arc A380 are both end-of-life 75 W graphics cards that land at the 44th percentile of all GPUs, yet they achieve that standing through opposite design philosophies. The data shows the Arc A380 wins 7 of 9 head-to-head benchmarks, including decisive victories in modern compute and DirectX 12 workloads, while the WX 5100 retains superiority in legacy DirectX 9 and 2D tasks. This split creates a clear fork: the Intel card is the stronger all-around performer for current software, while the AMD card holds a niche for older applications and high-resolution 2D desktop work.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc A380 is the clear winner in compute-heavy and modern API workloads. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 38224 crushes the WX 5100's 24217, a 36.6% margin that reflects the Arc's higher FP32 throughput of 4.198 TFLOPS versus 3.892 TFLOPS. The Vulkan gap is similarly large: 36736 versus 26909, a 26.8% advantage. These are not marginal differences; they represent a generational leap in raw shader efficiency. The A380 also wins in PassMark's DirectX 12 test with 35 points versus 26, and in DirectX 10 with 37 versus 29, showing that its advantage extends across the modern DirectX feature set.

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 wins exactly two benchmarks, but both are telling. Its PassMark DirectX 9 score of 88 is 20.5% higher than the A380's 73, indicating that older, less parallel workloads still favor the GCN 4.0 architecture. The other win is PassMark G2D at 777 versus 610, a 27.4% margin that suggests the WX 5100 is the better choice for 2D desktop environments, multi-monitor setups, or CAD-style applications that stress 2D rendering. The WX 5100 also has 8 GB of GDDR5 memory versus 6 GB of GDDR6, which could matter for large frame buffers even if the A380's 186.0 GB/s bandwidth exceeds the AMD's 160.0 GB/s.

The PassMark G3D score tells the overall story: the A380's 6252 beats the WX 5100's 5496 by 12.1%. This is the aggregate gaming and 3D performance metric, and it confirms that the Intel card is simply faster in modern 3D workloads. The A380 also wins GPU compute with 2762 versus 2053, a 25.7% edge that aligns with its OpenCL dominance.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher raw compute performance?

A: The Intel Arc A380. Its FP32 rating is 4.198 TFLOPS versus 3.892 TFLOPS for the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100, and its FP16 throughput is 8.397 TFLOPS versus 3.892 TFLOPS. This translates to a 36.6% lead in Geekbench OpenCL.

Q: Does the AMD card win any benchmark?

A: Yes, it wins two: PassMark DirectX 9 with 88 points versus 73, and PassMark G2D with 777 versus 610. The DirectX 9 lead is 20.5%, and the G2D lead is 27.4%.

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 has an average benchmark score of 8863, while the Intel Arc A380 scores 8558. Both cards sit at the 44th percentile of all GPUs, and their nearest rivals are similarly matched — the WX 5100's closest rival is the AMD Radeon R9 M265X at 8851 (0.1% delta), while the A380's closest is the AMD FirePro W5170M at 8595 (-0.4% delta).

Q: Which card is better for DirectX 12 gaming?

A: The Intel Arc A380. It scores 35 in PassMark DirectX 12 versus 26 for the WX 5100, a 25.7% advantage. The A380 also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the WX 5100 is limited to DirectX 12 (12_0).

Q: Is the memory bandwidth difference significant?

A: Yes, but not in the way the bus width suggests. The A380 has a narrower 96-bit bus but uses faster GDDR6 at 15.5 Gbps effective, achieving 186.0 GB/s. The WX 5100 has a 256-bit bus with GDDR5 at 5 Gbps effective, yielding 160.0 GB/s. The A380's 26.0 GB/s bandwidth advantage helps its modern workload performance.

Q: What about legacy API support?

A: The AMD card is stronger in DirectX 9 (88 versus 73) but weaker in DirectX 10 and 11. The A380 wins DirectX 10 with 37 versus 29 and DirectX 11 with 38 versus 36. Both cards support OpenGL 4.6, but the A380 supports Vulkan 1.4 while the WX 5100 is at Vulkan 1.3.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest margin in the entire comparison is Geekbench OpenCL, where the Intel Arc A380 scores 38224 against the AMD's 24217. That 36.6% delta is the single most important number in this matchup because OpenCL is a proxy for general-purpose GPU compute, a workload that benefits from the A380's higher clock speeds (2000 MHz base versus 713 MHz) and doubled FP16 rate. The A380's FP16 throughput of 8.397 TFLOPS is more than double the WX 5100's 3.892 TFLOPS, which explains why the compute gap is so wide.

Geekbench Vulkan follows a similar pattern: 36736 for the A380 versus 26909 for the WX 5100, a 26.8% delta. This is noteworthy because the WX 5100's Vulkan score is actually higher than its OpenCL score, suggesting the GCN architecture handles Vulkan reasonably well — but not well enough to close the gap with the newer Xe-HPG design.

In DirectX 12, the A380 wins 35 to 26, a 25.7% delta. This is consistent with the A380's DirectX 12 Ultimate support and its 8 dedicated ray tracing cores, which the WX 5100 lacks entirely. The DirectX 11 margin is much closer at 5.3% (38 versus 36), indicating that the older API neutralizes some of the Intel card's architectural advantages.

The AMD card's two wins are both substantial. The DirectX 9 score of 88 versus 73 is a 20.5% margin, and the G2D score of 777 versus 610 is a 27.4% margin. The G2D result is particularly interesting because it suggests the WX 5100's 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs and mature drivers deliver better 2D compositing performance than the A380's 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 2.0 configuration.

The PassMark G3D score of 6252 for the A380 versus 5496 for the WX 5100 (12.1% delta) is the best overall 3D indicator. The GPU compute score of 2762 versus 2053 (25.7% delta) reinforces the compute narrative. In every benchmark except DirectX 9 and G2D, the A380 wins, and it wins by double digits in 5 of those 7 victories.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every fundamental specification. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 uses the Ellesmere chip on a 14 nm GlobalFoundries process, while the Intel Arc A380 uses the DG2-128 chip on a 6 nm TSMC process. The A380 packs 7,200 million transistors into a 157 mm² die for a density of 45.9M / mm², whereas the WX 5100 has 5,700 million transistors on a larger 232 mm² die at 24.6M / mm².

Clock speeds diverge sharply: the WX 5100 runs at a 713 MHz base and 1086 MHz boost, while the A380 runs at 2000 MHz base and 2050 MHz boost. This clock advantage, combined with the newer architecture, gives the A380 higher pixel rate (65.60 GPixel/s versus 34.75 GPixel/s) and texture rate (131.2 GTexel/s versus 121.6 GTexel/s) despite having fewer shading units (1024 versus 1792) and TMUs (64 versus 112).

Memory configurations are opposite in strategy. The WX 5100 has 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus at 5 Gbps effective, achieving 160.0 GB/s. The A380 has 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 96-bit bus at 15.5 Gbps effective, achieving 186.0 GB/s. The A380 also adds 8 ray tracing cores; the WX 5100 has none.

Physical differences are substantial. The WX 5100 is a single-slot card at 173 mm long (6.8 inches), 112 mm tall (4.4 inches), with no power connectors. The A380 is a dual-slot card at 222 mm long (8.7 inches), 114 mm tall (4.5 inches), 42 mm wide (1.7 inches), requiring a single 8-pin power connector. Both have a 75 W TDP and 250 W suggested PSU.

Interface and output differences matter for system integration. The WX 5100 uses PCIe 3.0 x16 and offers 4x DisplayPort 1.4a. The A380 uses PCIe 4.0 x8 and offers 1x HDMI 2.1 plus 3x DisplayPort 2.0. The A380 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4; the WX 5100 is limited to DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap is generational. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 is built on GCN 4.0, a 2016-era design that uses a unified shader array with 1792 shading units. It has no dedicated ray tracing hardware and no tensor cores. Its FP16 rate equals its FP32 rate at 3.892 TFLOPS, meaning it processes half-precision data at the same speed as single-precision — a limitation for modern AI and compute workloads that exploit FP16 acceleration.

The Intel Arc A380 uses Xe-HPG, the architecture that powers Intel's Alchemist generation. It has 1024 shading units but achieves higher throughput through much higher clocks (2000 MHz versus 713 MHz base) and a more efficient design. Its FP16 rate is 8.397 TFLOPS, exactly double its FP32 rate of 4.198 TFLOPS, enabling 2:1 FP16 processing. The A380 also includes 8 ray tracing cores, a feature entirely absent from the WX 5100.

Transistor density tells the efficiency story: the A380 crams 45.9M transistors per mm² versus 24.6M for the WX 5100. This 6 nm TSMC process advantage over 14 nm GlobalFoundries allows the A380 to deliver higher performance in a smaller die (157 mm² versus 232 mm²) while maintaining the same 75 W TDP. The A380's 8.397 TFLOPS FP16 capability is particularly relevant for AI inference workloads, where the WX 5100 cannot compete.

The DirectX feature level difference is stark: the A380 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), which includes ray tracing and mesh shaders, while the WX 5100 is capped at DirectX 12 (12_0). This means the A380 can run modern games with ray-traced effects, while the WX 5100 cannot. Vulkan support also differs, with the A380 at 1.4 versus 1.3 for the WX 5100.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the Intel Arc A380 is the superior card for virtually all modern workloads. It wins 7 of 9 benchmarks, with decisive margins in compute (36.6% OpenCL, 25.7% GPU compute), Vulkan (26.8%), DirectX 12 (25.7%), and overall 3D performance (12.1% G3D). Its higher clock speeds, doubled FP16 throughput, and 8 ray tracing cores make it the logical choice for anyone running contemporary games, compute tasks, or DirectX 12 applications.

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 should only be selected for two specific scenarios. First, if the workload is dominated by DirectX 9 legacy software, where it leads by 20.5%. Second, if 2D desktop performance is critical, where its 27.4% G2D advantage and 8 GB frame buffer provide a clear benefit. Its larger memory capacity (8 GB versus 6 GB) could also matter for multi-monitor 4K setups, though the A380's higher bandwidth partially offsets this.

For every other use case — OpenCL compute, Vulkan, DirectX 10/11/12, GPU compute, or general 3D rendering — the Arc A380 is the pick. The average benchmark scores are close (8863 versus 8558), but the distribution of wins is not. The A380's 36.6% OpenCL lead alone is sufficient to recommend it over the WX 5100 for any compute-oriented task. The WX 5100's two wins are narrow in scope and legacy-bound, while the A380's seven wins span the modern API landscape. Choose the Arc A380 unless the workload explicitly requires DirectX 9 or exceptional 2D performance.