AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 vs NVIDIA Quadro K2200 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 dominates the NVIDIA Quadro K2200 in every recorded head-to-head comparison. In Geekbench OpenCL, the WX 5100 scores 24,217 against the K2200's 11,431, a 52.8% advantage. The gap widens further in Geekbench Vulkan, where the WX 5100 posts 26,909 versus 10,090, a 62.5% lead. These are not marginal victories; they represent a generational performance gulf that the older NVIDIA part cannot bridge.

The average benchmark score tells a similar story, though with a twist. The K2200's average across its two recorded tests is 10,761, while the WX 5100's average across ten tests is 8,863. This apparent contradiction stems from the WX 5100's broader test suite, which includes several Passmark tests where professional workstation cards typically score modestly. The Passmark DirectX 9 score of 88 and DirectX 10 score of 29 drag down the aggregate, even as the WX 5100 crushes the K2200 in compute-oriented workloads. The percentile rankings reflect this: the K2200 sits at the 49th percentile of all GPUs, while the WX 5100 sits at the 44th.

When placed against their nearest rivals, both cards occupy similar competitive territory. The K2200's closest competitor is the AMD Radeon Pro 450, which averages 10,804, a mere 0.4% behind. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti trails by 0.7%, the MX350 leads by 1.1%, and the RX 6600S trails by 1.2%. The WX 5100's nearest rival is the AMD Radeon R9 M265X at 8,851, a 0.1% margin. The Radeon 550X leads by 0.6%, while the RTX 3050 A Mobile trails by 1.3% and the GTX 460 v2 by 1.4%. Both cards are clustered tightly among peers, but the WX 5100's head-to-head wins against the K2200 are decisive.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different eras and different design philosophies. The NVIDIA Quadro K2200 uses the GM107 chip built on Maxwell architecture, fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process. It packs 1,870 million transistors into a 148 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.6 million per square millimeter. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 uses the Ellesmere chip with GCN 4.0 architecture, built by GlobalFoundries on a 14 nm process. It contains 5,700 million transistors on a 232 mm² die, achieving 24.6 million transistors per square millimeter. The newer process node gives AMD nearly double the transistor density, which translates directly into a much larger compute resource pool.

The shading resources differ enormously. The K2200 has 640 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 16 raster operation pipelines. The WX 5100 has 1,792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. That is 2.8 times the shader count, 2.8 times the texture units, and double the ROPs. The arithmetic rates confirm the scale of the difference: the K2200 delivers 1,438.7 GFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the WX 5100 delivers 3.892 TFLOPS, more than 2.7 times as much. The WX 5100 also offers FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, a capability the K2200 does not expose in the recorded data.

Memory architecture is another major divergence. The K2200 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128 bit bus, delivering 80.19 GB/s of bandwidth. The WX 5100 has 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256 bit bus, delivering exactly 160.0 GB/s. The WX 5100 doubles both capacity and bandwidth. The memory clocks are nearly identical (1253 MHz effective 5 Gbps for NVIDIA, 1250 MHz effective 5 Gbps for AMD), so the bandwidth advantage comes entirely from the wider bus. Pixel and texture rates follow the same pattern: the K2200 manages 17.98 GPixel/s and 44.96 GTexel/s, while the WX 5100 reaches 34.75 GPixel/s and 121.6 GTexel/s.

Connectivity and API support also differ. The K2200 uses PCIe 2.0 x16 and outputs 1x DVI plus 2x DisplayPort 1.2. The WX 5100 uses PCIe 3.0 x16 and outputs 4x DisplayPort 1.4a, a significant upgrade for multi-display professional setups. The K2200 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.4, while the WX 5100 supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3. Both offer OpenGL 4.6. Power draw is close: the K2200 is rated at 68 W and the WX 5100 at 75 W, both single-slot cards that require no external power connectors and carry a 250 W suggested PSU. The NVIDIA card is longer at 202 mm versus 173 mm, while both are 111 mm and 112 mm tall respectively.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 wins in every direct comparison recorded. Compute workloads are its clear strength. In Geekbench OpenCL, the WX 5100's 24,217 score is more than double the K2200's 11,431. The WX 5100's 3.892 TFLOPS of FP32 and matching FP16 throughput make it the obvious choice for GPU compute tasks, rendering, and any workload that scales with shader count. Its 8 GB frame buffer and 160.0 GB/s bandwidth also give it a decisive edge for large datasets and high-resolution textures.

The K2200 has no benchmark wins in the recorded data, but it does have structural advantages worth noting. Its older Maxwell architecture still supports Vulkan 1.4, a newer API version than the WX 5100's Vulkan 1.3. The K2200 also draws slightly less power at 68 W versus 75 W, though both cards are effectively equal in this regard. For users constrained by legacy software, the K2200's DirectX 12 (11_0) feature level may matter for compatibility with older applications, though the WX 5100's DirectX 12 (12_0) is the more modern implementation.

The Passmark suite, only recorded for the WX 5100, shows a mixed profile: DirectX 9 scores 88, DirectX 11 scores 36, DirectX 12 scores 26, and DirectX 10 scores 29. The 2D score is 777, the 3D score is 5,496, and GPU compute scores 2,053. These numbers suggest the WX 5100 is strongest in legacy DirectX 9 workloads and 2D acceleration, while its modern API performance is comparatively modest. The K2200 simply has no recorded Passmark data, so no direct comparison is possible there.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 scores 24,217 versus 11,431 for the NVIDIA Quadro K2200, a 52.8% advantage.

Q: How much memory does each card have?

A: The K2200 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128 bit bus with 80.19 GB/s bandwidth. The WX 5100 has 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256 bit bus with 160.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What is the transistor count difference?

A: The K2200 has 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die at 28 nm. The WX 5100 has 5,700 million transistors on a 232 mm² die at 14 nm.

Q: Which card supports newer DisplayPort outputs?

A: The WX 5100 supports 4x DisplayPort 1.4a, while the K2200 supports 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2.

Q: What are the average benchmark scores?

A: The K2200 averages 10,761 across its two recorded tests. The WX 5100 averages 8,863 across ten tests, including several Passmark results that lower its aggregate.

Q: Do both cards require external power connectors?

A: No. Both the K2200 and the WX 5100 are single-slot cards with no power connectors and a 250 W suggested PSU.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro K2200 | AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 |

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

| Architecture | Maxwell | GCN 4.0 |

| Process node | 28 nm | 14 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | GlobalFoundries |

| Transistors | 1,870 million | 5,700 million |

| Die size | 148 mm² | 232 mm² |

| Transistor density | 12.6M / mm² | 24.6M / mm² |

| Base clock | 1046 MHz | 713 MHz |

| Boost clock | 1124 MHz | 1086 MHz |

| Memory size | 4 GB | 8 GB |

| Memory bus | 128 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory bandwidth | 80.19 GB/s | 160.0 GB/s |

| Shading units | 640 | 1,792 |

| TMUs | 40 | 112 |

| ROPs | 16 | 32 |

| Pixel rate | 17.98 GPixel/s | 34.75 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 44.96 GTexel/s | 121.6 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 1,438.7 GFLOPS | 3.892 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | Not recorded | 3.892 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 68 W | 75 W |

| Bus interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| Display outputs | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort 1.2 | 4x DisplayPort 1.4a |

| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (12_0) |

| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.3 |

| Length | 202 mm | 173 mm |

| Release date | 2014-07-21 | 2016-11-17 |

| Launch MSRP | Not recorded | 499 USD |

The Verdict

The data points to a single conclusion: the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 is the superior card for almost any professional workload. Its 52.8% lead in OpenCL and 62.5% lead in Vulkan are decisive. The WX 5100 also offers double the memory capacity, double the bandwidth, more than 2.7 times the FP32 compute, and a modern 14 nm process with far higher transistor density. The only recorded advantages for the NVIDIA Quadro K2200 are its slightly lower power draw (68 W versus 75 W), its newer Vulkan API version (1.4 versus 1.3), and its shorter length. None of these offset the performance gap.

The K2200's percentile ranking of 49 versus the WX 5100's 44 might suggest the older card is more competitive, but that ranking is based on different test suites. The K2200's average of 10,761 comes from just two compute-heavy tests, while the WX 5100's 8,863 average includes ten tests with several low Passmark scores. In the only tests where both cards were measured head-to-head, the WX 5100 won both by overwhelming margins.

Users who need maximum compute throughput, large frame buffers, or multiple DisplayPort 1.4a outputs should choose the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100. Its 8 GB memory and 160.0 GB/s bandwidth make it suitable for high-resolution rendering and large dataset processing. The 499 USD launch MSRP reflects its positioning as a professional workstation card. Users who prioritize legacy API compatibility, particularly Vulkan 1.4 support, or who need the slightly lower power draw of the K2200, may find the NVIDIA card acceptable. But the benchmark record is clear: the WX 5100 is the faster, more capable professional GPU.