AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 vs NVIDIA GeForce MX330 Comparison

AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 vs NVIDIA GeForce MX330: the data shows a decisive gap, with the AMD workstation card winning both head-to-head tests by margins exceeding 198%. The WX 5100’s average benchmark score of 8863 places it at the 44th percentile of all GPUs, while the MX330’s 8458 average sits at the 43rd percentile, but those composite figures hide the scale of the performance delta in compute workloads.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two directly comparable tests are Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan, and the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 dominates both. In Geekbench OpenCL, the WX 5100 scores 24217 against the MX330’s 7896, a 206.7% advantage. That is not a marginal lead; it is a threefold performance gap. The Vulkan result tells a similar story: 26909 for the AMD card versus 9019 for the NVIDIA part, a 198.4% difference. In both cases, the AMD card’s raw compute resources simply overwhelm the MX330’s smaller configuration.

Looking at the AMD card’s own benchmark suite, its Passmark G3D score of 5496 and GPU compute score of 2053 reinforce the picture. The Geekbench Metal score, 29003, is notably higher than its OpenCL and Vulkan results, suggesting particular strength in Apple’s compute API—though the MX330 has no Metal result in this dataset for comparison. The MX330’s only other listed benchmarks are its OpenCL and Vulkan scores, both of which fall far short of the WX 5100’s numbers.

The nearest rival data for each card provides context. The WX 5100’s closest competitor is the AMD Radeon R9 M265X, with an average score of 8851—just 0.1% behind. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile trails by 1.3% at 8746, and the AMD Radeon 550X is 0.6% ahead at 8918. For the MX330, its nearest rival is the AMD Radeon HD 8870M at 8462 (0% delta), with the AMD Radeon 880M at 8436 (0.3% ahead) and the Intel Arc A380 at 8558 (1.2% behind). The MX330’s average of 8458 is only 405 points below the WX 5100’s 8863, but that average includes scores from different test suites; in the shared tests, the gap is enormous.

Interpreting the percentages: a 206.7% delta means the AMD card delivers roughly three times the OpenCL performance of the NVIDIA part. In Vulkan, the 198.4% delta means nearly three times the performance as well. These are not workload-specific outliers—they are consistent across two different GPU compute APIs, indicating a fundamental throughput difference.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100, with an average benchmark score of 8863 versus 8458 for the NVIDIA GeForce MX330. The difference is 405 points, or roughly 4.8%.

Q: How much faster is the AMD card in OpenCL compute?

A: The WX 5100 scores 24217 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 7896 for the MX330, a 206.7% advantage. This means the AMD card achieves more than triple the OpenCL performance.

Q: Does the NVIDIA card win any benchmark in the head-to-head comparison?

A: No. The head-to-head data lists two tests (Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan), and the AMD card wins both. The wins tally is 2 for the AMD card and 0 for the NVIDIA card.

Q: What is the percentile ranking for each card?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 sits at the 44th percentile of all GPUs, while the NVIDIA GeForce MX330 sits at the 43rd percentile. Despite the large compute gap, both cards rank similarly in the overall distribution.

Q: Which card has the higher transistor density?

A: The AMD card has a transistor density of 24.6 million transistors per square millimeter, while the NVIDIA card has 24.3 million per square millimeter. The difference is negligible—0.3M per mm².

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The WX 5100 provides 160.0 GB/s of bandwidth, while the MX330 provides 56.06 GB/s. The AMD card offers nearly three times the memory bandwidth, which aligns with its compute performance advantage.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different architectural generations and design philosophies. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 uses the Ellesmere chip built on the GCN 4.0 architecture, part of the Radeon Pro Polaris (WX x100) generation. The NVIDIA GeForce MX330 uses the GP108B chip on the Pascal architecture, part of the GeForce MX (3xx) generation. Both are fabricated on a 14 nm process, but AMD uses GlobalFoundries as its foundry while NVIDIA uses Samsung.

The transistor counts differ sharply: the AMD chip integrates 5,700 million transistors on a 232 mm² die, while the NVIDIA chip has 1,800 million transistors on a 74 mm² die. Transistor density is nearly identical—24.6M per mm² for AMD versus 24.3M per mm² for NVIDIA—but the AMD die is more than three times larger in physical area. This size difference translates directly into compute resources: the WX 5100 has 1792 shading units, 112 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs, versus the MX330’s 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 16 ROPs.

The memory subsystems also diverge. The AMD card uses 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, achieving 160.0 GB/s bandwidth. The NVIDIA card uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus, achieving 56.06 GB/s. The AMD card’s FP32 throughput is 3.892 TFLOPS, while the NVIDIA card is rated at 1,224.2 GFLOPS (approximately 1.22 TFLOPS). FP16 performance shows the architectural split: the AMD card delivers 3.892 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio to FP32, while the NVIDIA card delivers only 19.13 GFLOPS with a 1:64 ratio, indicating Pascal’s minimal FP16 support.

API support also differs. The AMD card supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The NVIDIA card supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The higher DirectX feature level on the NVIDIA part (12_1 vs 12_0) is notable, but it does not translate into a compute advantage in the benchmark data.

Specification Differences

The specification table shows clear divergences across nearly every major field. The AMD card’s base clock is 713 MHz with a boost of 1086 MHz, while the NVIDIA card runs at 1531 MHz base and 1594 MHz boost—the MX330 has substantially higher clock speeds, but far fewer execution units. Memory clocks differ as well: the AMD card runs its GDDR5 at 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective), while the NVIDIA card runs at 1752 MHz (7 Gbps effective).

Pixel and texture rates reflect the resource imbalance. The AMD card achieves 34.75 GPixel/s and 121.6 GTexel/s, while the NVIDIA card achieves 25.50 GPixel/s and 38.26 GTexel/s. The pixel rate gap is modest (about 36%), but the texture rate gap is over 3x in favor of AMD. The TDP figures are stark: the AMD card draws 75 W with a suggested PSU of 250 W, while the NVIDIA card draws only 10 W and lists no suggested PSU. The AMD card is a single-slot design measuring 173 mm (6.8 inches) in length and 112 mm (4.4 inches) in height, while the NVIDIA card is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no listed dimensions.

The bus interface differs: the AMD card uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the NVIDIA card uses PCIe 3.0 x4. Display outputs also diverge—the AMD card offers 4x DisplayPort 1.4a, while the NVIDIA card’s outputs are listed as “Portable Device Dependent.” The AMD card has a launch MSRP of 499 USD and was released on 2016-11-17, with a predecessor of Radeon Pro GCN and a successor of Radeon Pro Vega. The NVIDIA card has no launch MSRP, was released on 2020-02-09, and lists no predecessor or successor.

The Verdict

The benchmark data points to a single conclusion: the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 is the superior compute performer by a wide margin. In the only two tests where both cards appear, the AMD card wins by 206.7% (OpenCL) and 198.4% (Vulkan). The wins tally is 2-0 in favor of AMD. The average benchmark score confirms the direction—8863 for AMD versus 8458 for NVIDIA—though the gap in shared tests is far larger than the average suggests.

However, the TDP figures tell an equally important story. The AMD card consumes 75 W and requires a 250 W PSU, while the NVIDIA card consumes just 10 W with no PSU requirement. This makes the MX330 suitable for ultra-portable, low-power systems, whereas the WX 5100 demands a desktop or larger chassis with adequate cooling and power delivery. The NVIDIA card’s IGP form factor and portable-device-dependent outputs position it for laptops, while the AMD card’s 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs and single-slot design target professional workstations.

The percentile rankings are close (44th for AMD, 43rd for NVIDIA), but this reflects the full GPU market, not the head-to-head comparison. In direct competition, the AMD card is decisively ahead. The MX330’s advantages are power efficiency and clock speed (1531 MHz base versus 713 MHz), but these do not overcome the AMD card’s 4.7x advantage in shading units and 2.9x advantage in memory bandwidth.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 wins in every measured compute benchmark. Its 3.892 TFLOPS FP32 throughput, 160.0 GB/s memory bandwidth, and 8 GB VRAM make it suitable for GPU-accelerated workloads, professional rendering, and compute tasks that demand large memory footprints. The 206.7% OpenCL lead and 198.4% Vulkan lead indicate that any API-agnostic compute workload will favor the AMD card. Its 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs suggest multi-display professional setups, and the 75 W TDP allows it to run without external power connectors.

The NVIDIA GeForce MX330 wins in power efficiency and physical footprint. Its 10 W TDP is one-eighth of the AMD card’s 75 W, and its IGP form factor means it can be integrated into compact portable devices where the AMD card’s 173 mm length and single-slot profile would not fit. Its higher clock speeds (1531 MHz base, 1594 MHz boost) do not compensate for fewer execution units, but they do suggest it can handle lighter loads with minimal power draw. The MX330’s DirectX 12_1 support and Vulkan 1.4 API compliance are technically newer than the AMD card’s 12_0 and 1.3, which may matter for specific application compatibility.

For users prioritizing raw compute performance, the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 is the clear choice. For users prioritizing portability, power consumption, and integration into thin-and-light devices, the NVIDIA GeForce MX330 holds the advantage. The data does not show any benchmark where the MX330 outperforms the WX 5100, so the decision rests entirely on form factor and power constraints rather than performance.