AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 vs Intel UHD Graphics 750 Comparison

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 and the Intel UHD Graphics 750 occupy opposite ends of the hardware spectrum: one is a discrete workstation card built for sustained rendering workloads, while the other is an integrated graphics solution embedded in a desktop processor. The benchmark data in the database shows a decisive performance gap between them, but the comparison is more nuanced than a simple score difference. The Radeon Pro WX 5100 leads in every recorded head-to-head test, yet the Intel part brings architectural and platform advantages that matter in specific system configurations. This analysis walks through the recorded numbers, the underlying silicon differences, and the practical use cases where each component holds an edge.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records two direct comparisons between these GPUs, and both are decisive wins for the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100. In Geekbench OpenCL, the AMD part scores 24,217 points against 6,743 points for the Intel UHD Graphics 750, a delta of 259.1%. That is more than triple the raw compute throughput in a cross-platform compute workload. In Geekbench Vulkan, the AMD card scores 26,909 points versus 8,138 points for the Intel integrated graphics, a delta of 230.7%. The Vulkan gap is slightly narrower in percentage terms but still represents a massive advantage for the discrete card.

These two results define the entire head-to-head record: the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 wins both recorded tests, giving it a 2-0 record in the database. The Intel UHD Graphics 750 has no wins in any recorded comparison. The scale of the margin is worth emphasizing. A 259.1% lead in OpenCL means the AMD card delivers more than 3.5 times the performance of the Intel part in that workload. The 230.7% Vulkan lead is similar in magnitude, showing that the gap is not specific to one API but reflects a fundamental difference in compute resources.

Looking at the broader benchmark context, the AMD card's average benchmark score is 8,863 points, which places it at the 44th percentile among all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon R9 M265X (average score 8,851, delta 0.1%) and the AMD Radeon 550X (average score 8,918, delta -0.6%). The Intel UHD Graphics 750, by contrast, has an average benchmark score of 7,441 points, placing it at the 40th percentile. Its nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon HD 8850M (average score 7,447, delta -0.1%) and the AMD Radeon R7 350 (average score 7,425, delta 0.2%). While the head-to-head deltas are enormous, the percentile rankings are closer than the raw score gap suggests, because the Intel part is compared against a different tier of integrated and low-end discrete GPUs.

The individual benchmark results reinforce the pattern. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 achieves 29,003 in Geekbench Metal, 24,217 in Geekbench OpenCL, and 26,909 in Geekbench Vulkan. In Passmark tests, it scores 88 in DirectX 9, 36 in DirectX 11, 29 in DirectX 10, and 26 in DirectX 12, along with 777 in G2D, 5,496 in G3D, and 2,053 in GPU compute. The Intel UHD Graphics 750 only has two recorded benchmarks: 6,743 in Geekbench OpenCL and 8,138 in Geekbench Vulkan. The absence of DirectX and compute scores for the Intel part limits direct comparison, but the two overlapping tests show the AMD card's dominance.

Architecture Differences

The silicon behind these two GPUs could hardly be more different. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 uses the Ellesmere chip built on GCN 4.0 architecture, manufactured on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The die contains 5,700 million transistors on a 232 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 24.6 million per square millimeter. The Intel UHD Graphics 750 uses the Rocket Lake chip with Generation 12.1 architecture, manufactured on a 14 nm+++ process at Intel. The Intel part has no recorded transistor count, die size, or density figures in the database, reflecting its status as an integrated component rather than a standalone GPU.

The compute resource disparity is stark. The AMD card has 1,792 shading units, 112 texture mapping units, and 32 raster operation pipelines. The Intel integrated GPU has 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. That gives the AMD card exactly 7 times the shading units, 7 times the TMUs, and 4 times the ROPs of the Intel part. These are the structural reasons for the benchmark gap; more parallel execution units translate directly into higher throughput in both compute and graphics workloads.

Clock speeds tell a different story. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 runs at a base clock of 713 MHz and a boost clock of 1,086 MHz, while the Intel UHD Graphics 750 runs at a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 1,300 MHz. The Intel part has a higher boost clock by 214 MHz, but this advantage is overwhelmed by the AMD card's massive lead in parallel resources. The AMD card also has a dedicated memory subsystem with 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 160.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel part uses system shared memory, with bandwidth listed as system dependent. That means the Intel GPU shares the main system memory bus, which is a structural bottleneck for memory-intensive workloads.

The AMD card's memory clock is listed as 1,250 MHz with 5 Gbps effective data rate. The Intel part's memory clock is listed simply as system shared, with no effective rate recorded. The pixel rate for the AMD card is 34.75 GPixel/s versus 10.40 GPixel/s for the Intel part, a 3.3x advantage. The texture rate is 121.6 GTexel/s versus 20.80 GTexel/s, a 5.8x advantage. Floating-point performance shows the same pattern: the AMD card delivers 3.892 TFLOPS FP32 and 3.892 TFLOPS FP16 (1:1 ratio), while the Intel part delivers 665.6 GFLOPS FP32 and 1,331.2 GFLOPS FP16 (2:1 ratio). The AMD part leads FP32 by a factor of roughly 5.8x and FP16 by a factor of roughly 2.9x, though the Intel part's 2:1 FP16 ratio means it is relatively more capable in half-precision work than in full precision.

Power and physical design are also fundamentally different. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 has a TDP of 75 W, is a single-slot card, requires no additional power connectors, and suggests a 250 W power supply. It connects via PCIe 3.0 x16 and offers four DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The Intel UHD Graphics 750 has a TDP of 15 W, is classified as an IGP (integrated graphics processor), uses a Ring Bus interface, and its display outputs are motherboard dependent. The AMD card is 173 mm long and 112 mm tall, while the Intel part has no physical dimensions recorded because it has no standalone card form factor.

API support shows a notable difference in DirectX version. The AMD card supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the Intel part supports DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6. The AMD card supports Vulkan 1.3, while the Intel part supports Vulkan 1.4. The higher DirectX feature level on the Intel part (12_1 versus 12_0) is a minor advantage for certain modern games, but the AMD card's raw performance advantage dwarfs this feature-level difference. The Intel part's Vulkan 1.4 support is one generation ahead of the AMD card's Vulkan 1.3.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 wins in every recorded benchmark category. It is the clear choice for compute-heavy workloads such as OpenCL and Vulkan compute tasks, where its 259.1% and 230.7% leads respectively leave no room for competition. Its 3.892 TFLOPS FP32 performance and 160.0 GB/s memory bandwidth make it suitable for professional rendering, 3D modeling, and GPU-accelerated computation. The 8 GB GDDR5 frame buffer is another advantage for large textures and datasets, as the Intel part's shared memory allocation can be a limiting factor.

The Intel UHD Graphics 750 wins in platform integration and power efficiency. At 15 W TDP, it consumes one-fifth the power of the AMD card's 75 W TDP. It requires no expansion slot, no power connectors, and no dedicated cooling solution. For systems where a discrete GPU is impractical, such as compact desktops or office machines, the Intel part provides a baseline graphics capability with zero additional hardware cost. Its higher boost clock of 1,300 MHz suggests it can scale well when thermal headroom is available, and its DirectX 12 (12_1) support is a feature-level advantage over the AMD card's 12_0.

The release dates highlight the generational difference. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 launched on November 17, 2016, with a launch MSRP of 499 USD. The Intel UHD Graphics 750 launched on March 29, 2021, nearly four and a half years later. Both are now listed as end-of-life products. The AMD card's predecessor is the Radeon Pro GCN series and its successor is the Radeon Pro Vega series, while the Intel part has no recorded predecessor or successor in the database.

In practical terms, the AMD card is the correct choice for any workload where graphics performance or GPGPU compute is the primary requirement. The Intel integrated GPU is the correct choice for low-power systems where the GPU is a secondary consideration and the primary goal is keeping the platform simple, quiet, and efficient.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 than the Intel UHD Graphics 750 in OpenCL?

A: The AMD card scores 24,217 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 6,743 for the Intel part, a 259.1% advantage.

Q: What is the performance gap in Vulkan between these two GPUs?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 scores 26,909 in Geekbench Vulkan against 8,138 for the Intel UHD Graphics 750, a 230.7% lead.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 has 1,792 shading units, while the Intel UHD Graphics 750 has 256, a 7x difference.

Q: What memory configurations do these GPUs use?

A: The AMD card has 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus with 160.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel part uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU supports a higher DirectX feature level?

A: The Intel UHD Graphics 750 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 supports DirectX 12 (12_0).

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 has a 75 W TDP, while the Intel UHD Graphics 750 has a 15 W TDP.

Specification Differences

The specification table below highlights only the fields where the two GPUs differ, based on the recorded data.

| Specification | AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 | Intel UHD Graphics 750 |

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

| Architecture | GCN 4.0 | Generation 12.1 |

| Generation | Radeon Pro Polaris (WX x100) | HD Graphics (Rocket Lake) |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 14 nm+++ |

| Foundry | GlobalFoundries | Intel |

| Transistors | 5,700 million | Not recorded |

| Die Size | 232 mm² | Not recorded |

| Transistor Density | 24.6M / mm² | Not recorded |

| Base Clock | 713 MHz | 300 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1,086 MHz | 1,300 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1250 MHz, 5 Gbps effective | System Shared |

| Memory Size | 8 GB | System Shared |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | System Shared |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | System Shared |

| Memory Bandwidth | 160.0 GB/s | System Dependent |

| Shading Units | 1,792 | 256 |

| TMUs | 112 | 16 |

| ROPs | 32 | 8 |

| Pixel Rate | 34.75 GPixel/s | 10.40 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 121.6 GTexel/s | 20.80 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 3.892 TFLOPS | 665.6 GFLOPS |

| FP16 | 3.892 TFLOPS (1:1) | 1,331.2 GFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 75 W | 15 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | IGP |

| Power Connectors | None | Not applicable |

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | Not recorded |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | Ring Bus |

| Display Outputs | 4x DisplayPort 1.4a | Motherboard Dependent |

| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 (12_1) |

| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.4 |

| Dimensions | 173 mm (6.8 inches) long, 112 mm (4.4 inches) high | Not recorded |

| Release Date | 2016-11-17 | 2021-03-29 |

| Launch MSRP | 499 USD | Not recorded |

The data is unambiguous: the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 is the dominant performer, with massive leads in every recorded benchmark and a 2-0 head-to-head record. The Intel UHD Graphics 750 counters with lower power consumption, a smaller physical footprint as an integrated solution, and a higher DirectX feature level. The choice between them depends entirely on whether the priority is raw graphics and compute performance or platform simplicity and power efficiency.