AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 vs NVIDIA GeForce MX350 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark split between the NVIDIA GeForce MX350 and the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 is one-sided. Across the two shared tests recorded in the database, the AMD part takes every victory. The GeForce MX350 records zero wins, while the Radeon Pro WX 5100 claims both. This is not a close contest; it is a clear hierarchy in raw compute and graphics throughput.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 scores 24,217 against the MX350's 8,689. That is a delta of -64.1% from the perspective of the NVIDIA part, meaning the AMD card is roughly 2.8 times faster in this workload. The margin is substantial enough that the MX350 cannot be considered a competitor in OpenCL compute tasks. The gap narrows somewhat in Geekbench Vulkan, but the result is still decisive: the Radeon Pro WX 5100 posts 26,909 versus 13,077 for the MX350, a delta of -51.4%. Even in the better case for NVIDIA, the AMD card more than doubles the score.

The MX350 does hold a position in the overall percentile ranking that is slightly higher than the WX 5100. The NVIDIA part sits at the 49th percentile against all GPUs, while the AMD part sits at the 44th percentile. However, the average benchmark score tells a different story: the MX350 averages 10,883 across its two recorded tests, while the WX 5100 averages 8,863 across ten tests. The lower average for the AMD card is heavily influenced by its Passmark DirectX results, which are extremely low (29 in DirectX 10, 36 in DirectX 11, 26 in DirectX 12, and 88 in DirectX 9). These scores suggest the WX 5100 suffers in legacy or specific API paths, but in the modern compute and cross-platform tests where both cards are measured head-to-head, the AMD part dominates.

The use-case split is therefore straightforward. The MX350 is a low-power mobile part designed for portable devices, and its data reflects a modest capability ceiling. The WX 5100 is a workstation card with far higher raw throughput, and the recorded benchmarks confirm its strength in OpenCL and Vulkan workloads. Users who need compute density will choose the AMD card; users constrained by power or physical footprint may still consider the MX350, but not because of benchmark superiority.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and are built by different foundries. The NVIDIA GeForce MX350 uses the GP107S chip based on the Pascal architecture, manufactured on a 14 nm process by Samsung. The die size is 132 mm², housing 3,300 million transistors, which yields a transistor density of 25.0 million per mm². The AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 uses the Ellesmere chip based on GCN 4.0, manufactured on a 14 nm process by GlobalFoundries. The die is significantly larger at 232 mm², containing 5,700 million transistors, resulting in a slightly lower density of 24.6 million per mm². Both parts are end-of-life products, but the architectural philosophies diverge sharply.

The computing resources are heavily skewed toward the AMD card. The WX 5100 has 1,792 shading units, 112 texture mapping units, and 32 render output units. The MX350 has 640 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This translates into a large throughput gap: the AMD card delivers 3.892 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the NVIDIA part delivers 1.879 TFLOPS. The texture rate is similarly lopsided: 121.6 GTexel/s for the WX 5100 versus 46.98 GTexel/s for the MX350. Pixel rate favors the AMD card as well, at 34.75 GPixel/s versus 23.49 GPixel/s.

Memory configuration reinforces the divide. The Radeon Pro WX 5100 uses 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, providing 160.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The GeForce MX350 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus, providing only 56.06 GB/s. The memory clock for the AMD card is 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective), while the NVIDIA card runs at 1752 MHz (7 Gbps effective), but the narrow bus on the MX350 cannot compensate for the width advantage of the WX 5100. The bus interface also differs: the AMD card uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the NVIDIA card uses PCIe 3.0 x4, which further limits data transfer for the mobile part.

Clock speeds tell a contrasting story. The MX350 has a base clock of 1354 MHz and a boost clock of 1468 MHz, far higher than the WX 5100's base of 713 MHz and boost of 1086 MHz. The NVIDIA part achieves its performance with higher clocks and far fewer cores, while the AMD part relies on massive parallelism at lower frequencies. The FP16 capability is also asymmetric: the WX 5100 delivers 3.892 TFLOPS at 1:1 ratio, while the MX350 delivers only 29.36 GFLOPS at a 1:64 ratio, a negligible amount.

The feature sets differ in display connectivity and API support. The WX 5100 offers four DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, while the MX350's outputs are portable-device dependent. Both support DirectX 12, but the MX350 supports 12_1 while the WX 5100 supports 12_0. Both support OpenGL 4.6. Vulkan support differs slightly: the MX350 lists Vulkan 1.4, while the WX 5100 lists Vulkan 1.3.

Power requirements diverge dramatically. The MX350 has a TDP of 20 W and no power connectors, while the WX 5100 has a TDP of 75 W, no power connectors, but a suggested PSU of 250 W. The physical dimensions also differ: the WX 5100 is a single-slot card measuring 173 mm in length and 112 mm in height, while the MX350 has no recorded dimensions, consistent with its mobile integration.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear division of roles. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 is the superior performer in every shared benchmark, winning both head-to-head tests with massive margins. It offers more than double the FP32 throughput, nearly three times the memory bandwidth, and four times the VRAM capacity. For any workload that stresses compute, memory bandwidth, or modern graphics APIs, the WX 5100 is the correct choice.

The NVIDIA GeForce MX350 is not without a niche. Its 20 W TDP makes it suitable for thin and light portable devices where power draw is the primary constraint. Its higher clock speeds and smaller die size indicate a design goal of efficiency over absolute performance. The MX350 also holds a higher percentile ranking (49th versus 44th), which reflects its position relative to all GPUs in the database. But within the context of these two specific parts, the MX350 cannot match the WX 5100 in any recorded metric.

Users who need a workstation GPU with broad memory capacity for large datasets, or who rely on OpenCL and Vulkan compute, should select the Radeon Pro WX 5100. Users who are constrained by a laptop chassis, require minimal power draw, or only need modest graphics acceleration for light tasks may consider the MX350, but they should not expect competitive performance. The WX 5100 also offers a launch MSRP of 499 USD, which is a relevant data point for those comparing workstation-class hardware.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL compute?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 is significantly faster, scoring 24,217 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 8,689 for the NVIDIA GeForce MX350, a delta of -64.1% for the NVIDIA part.

Q: How do the two cards compare in Vulkan performance?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 again wins, posting 26,909 in Geekbench Vulkan versus 13,077 for the MX350, a delta of -51.4%.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The Radeon Pro WX 5100 has 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, while the GeForce MX350 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus. Memory bandwidth is 160.0 GB/s for the AMD card and 56.06 GB/s for the NVIDIA card.

Q: Which card has higher clock speeds?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX350 has a base clock of 1354 MHz and a boost clock of 1468 MHz. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 has a base clock of 713 MHz and a boost clock of 1086 MHz.

Q: What is the power draw of each card?

A: The GeForce MX350 has a TDP of 20 W, while the Radeon Pro WX 5100 has a TDP of 75 W and a suggested PSU of 250 W.

Q: Which card supports more display outputs?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 offers four DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The NVIDIA GeForce MX350's display outputs are portable-device dependent.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench OpenCL test provides the clearest picture of the performance gap. The Radeon Pro WX 5100 scores 24,217, while the GeForce MX350 scores 8,689. The delta of -64.1% means the NVIDIA card achieves less than 36% of the AMD card's score. This is not a marginal difference; it is a fundamental mismatch in compute capability. The WX 5100's 1,792 shading units and 3.892 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput overwhelm the MX350's 640 shading units and 1.879 TFLOPS. The memory bandwidth advantage of 160.0 GB/s versus 56.06 GB/s further widens the gap in memory-intensive OpenCL workloads.

The Geekbench Vulkan test is closer in relative terms but still decisive. The AMD card scores 26,909, and the NVIDIA card scores 13,077, a delta of -51.4%. The WX 5100's advantage is slightly smaller than in OpenCL, but it still more than doubles the MX350's result. The MX350's higher boost clock of 1468 MHz helps it close some ground, but the core count and memory subsystem differences are too large to overcome. The Vulkan API benefits from the WX 5100's wider memory bus and higher texture rate of 121.6 GTexel/s versus 46.98 GTexel/s for the NVIDIA part.

Beyond the two head-to-head tests, the WX 5100 has additional recorded benchmarks that provide context. Its Passmark G3D score is 5,496, and its Passmark GPU Compute score is 2,053. The DirectX scores are anomalously low (29 in DirectX 10, 36 in DirectX 11, 26 in DirectX 12, 88 in DirectX 9), which suggests the card's driver or hardware path for those specific legacy tests is not optimized. The MX350 has no recorded Passmark scores, so a direct comparison in those workloads is not possible from the database. The average benchmark scores reflect this asymmetry: the MX350 averages 10,883 across its two tests, while the WX 5100 averages 8,863 across ten tests, dragged down by the weak DirectX results.

The nearest rivals for each card further contextualize their standings. The MX350's closest competitor is the AMD Radeon Pro 450 at a delta of 0.7%, followed by the NVIDIA Quadro K2200 at 1.1%. The GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER is 1.5% faster, and the Radeon RX 550 is 1.7% faster. This places the MX350 in a tight cluster of mid-to-low-range GPUs. The WX 5100's nearest rival is the AMD Radeon R9 M265X at a delta of 0.1%, with the AMD Radeon 550X at -0.6%, the GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile at 1.3%, and the GeForce GTX 460 v2 at 1.4%. The WX 5100 sits in a similar performance cluster, but its raw capability is clearly higher than the MX350's when measured on identical workloads.

In summary, the head-to-head data leaves no ambiguity: the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 wins both shared benchmarks by overwhelming margins, and its architectural advantages in core count, memory bandwidth, and compute throughput are the reasons why.