AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 vs NVIDIA Quadro K4100M Comparison

AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 vs NVIDIA Quadro K4100M

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 and the NVIDIA Quadro K4100M represent two very different eras of professional mobile and workstation graphics. The WX 5100 is a Polaris-generation card built on a modern 14 nm process, while the K4100M is a Kepler-generation mobile module from 2013. The recorded data shows a decisive performance gap in favor of the AMD card, with the WX 5100 winning both head-to-head benchmark comparisons by margins of 335.3% and 164.7%. The database places the WX 5100 at the 44th percentile of all GPUs, while the K4100M sits at the 41st percentile, and their average benchmark scores of 8863 and 7906 respectively underline a substantial generational leap in raw capability.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 wins every recorded benchmark category in this comparison. In the two direct head-to-head tests, the Geekbench Metal and Geekbench OpenCL workloads, the WX 5100 takes both victories. The Metal test shows a score of 29003 against 6662, a delta of 335.3%, while the OpenCL test shows 24217 against 9149, a delta of 164.7%. This is not a narrow or situational win; the AMD card is faster across both API families, indicating a fundamental compute advantage rather than an optimization quirk in a single workload.

The NVIDIA Quadro K4100M records no benchmark wins in this dataset. Its strongest recorded result is the Geekbench OpenCL score of 9149, which is still less than 38% of the WX 5100's OpenCL result. The K4100M's other recorded benchmark, Geekbench Metal, produces 6662 points, a figure that the WX 5100 more than quadruples. For users working in Metal-accelerated applications or OpenCL compute tasks, the data consistently favors the AMD part. The WX 5100 also holds a higher percentile ranking at 44 versus 41, and its average benchmark score of 8863 is 12.1% above the K4100M's 7906 average.

The use-case split is therefore straightforward: the WX 5100 is the superior choice for modern compute-heavy professional workloads, especially those leveraging Metal or OpenCL. The K4100M, while it was a capable mobile workstation GPU in its generation, cannot match the newer architecture's throughput in these tests. There is no workload in the recorded data where the K4100M takes the lead, so any professional relying on the measured performance metrics would choose the AMD card.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from entirely different architectural lineages. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 uses the Ellesmere chip based on GCN 4.0 architecture, fabricated by GlobalFoundries on a 14 nm process. The NVIDIA Quadro K4100M uses the GK104 chip based on Kepler architecture, fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process. This process gap is significant: the WX 5100 packs 5,700 million transistors into a 232 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 24.6M per mm². The K4100M contains 3,540 million transistors on a larger 294 mm² die, giving it a density of just 12.0M per mm². The newer node allows the AMD card to nearly double the transistor density while consuming less power.

The compute resources differ dramatically. The WX 5100 features 1792 shading units, 112 texture mapping units, and 32 raster operations pipelines. The K4100M has 1152 shading units, 96 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The AMD card thus has 55.6% more shading units and 16.7% more TMUs, while matching the ROP count. This translates directly into higher theoretical throughput: the WX 5100 delivers 3.892 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and an equal 3.892 TFLOPS of FP16 performance at a 1:1 ratio, whereas the K4100M delivers 1.627 TFLOPS of FP32 and no recorded FP16 capability. The pixel rate of the WX 5100 is 34.75 GPixel/s versus 16.94 GPixel/s for the K4100M, and the texture rate is 121.6 GTexel/s versus 67.78 GTexel/s.

Memory architecture also diverges. The WX 5100 carries 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, providing 160.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The K4100M has 4 GB of GDDR5 on the same 256-bit bus, but only achieves 102.4 GB/s due to a lower memory clock of 800 MHz (3.2 Gbps effective) versus 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective) on the AMD card. The WX 5100 doubles the memory capacity and delivers 56.3% more bandwidth. API support shows the newer part ahead: the WX 5100 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3, while the K4100M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The WX 5100 also consumes less power at 75 W TDP versus 100 W for the K4100M, despite being substantially faster.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two direct comparisons recorded in the database are both Geekbench tests, and both produce lopsided results. In Geekbench Metal, the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 scores 29003 against the NVIDIA Quadro K4100M's 6662. The delta of 335.3% means the AMD card achieves more than four times the Metal score of the NVIDIA part. This is the larger of the two margins and reflects the WX 5100's modern architecture and higher shading unit count working effectively within Apple's Metal framework.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the WX 5100 scores 24217 against 9149 for the K4100M, a delta of 164.7%. While the percentage gap is smaller than in Metal, the absolute difference of 15068 points is still enormous. The K4100M's OpenCL result is its better showing, but it remains far behind. The WX 5100's FP32 throughput of 3.892 TFLOPS, more than double the K4100M's 1.627 TFLOPS, provides the raw compute headroom that explains this outcome. The WX 5100 also has double the memory capacity and 56.3% more bandwidth, which helps in OpenCL workloads that stream data through the GPU.

Context from the nearest rivals reinforces the AMD card's standing. The WX 5100's average benchmark score of 8863 places it just ahead of the AMD Radeon R9 M265X (8851, a 0.1% delta) and the AMD Radeon 550X (8918, a -0.6% delta), and ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile (8746, a 1.3% delta) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 v2 (8743, a 1.4% delta). These are all close competitors in average score, meaning the WX 5100 sits in a competitive mid-range cluster. The K4100M's average of 7906 places it near the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 (7925, a -0.2% delta), the NVIDIA Quadro P5000 (8039, a -1.7% delta), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 880M (8040, a -1.7% delta), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 Ti (8053, a -1.8% delta). The K4100M is slightly below all of these rivals in average score, confirming its position at the lower end of its comparison group.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every major specification. The process node is 14 nm for the WX 5100 versus 28 nm for the K4100M, and the foundries differ: GlobalFoundries for AMD, TSMC for NVIDIA. Transistor counts are 5,700 million versus 3,540 million, with die sizes of 232 mm² versus 294 mm². The base clock of the WX 5100 is 713 MHz with a boost of 1086 MHz, while the K4100M runs at a flat 706 MHz with no boost above that figure. Memory clocks differ substantially: 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective) for the WX 5100 versus 800 MHz (3.2 Gbps effective) for the K4100M.

Memory capacity is 8 GB versus 4 GB, though both use GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus. Bandwidth is 160.0 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s. Shading units number 1792 versus 1152, TMUs number 112 versus 96, and ROPs are equal at 32. Pixel rate is 34.75 GPixel/s versus 16.94 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 121.6 GTexel/s versus 67.78 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 3.892 TFLOPS versus 1.627 TFLOPS, with the WX 5100 also offering FP16 at 3.892 TFLOPS (1:1) while the K4100M has no recorded FP16. TDP is 75 W for the WX 5100 versus 100 W for the K4100M.

Physical form factors diverge completely: the WX 5100 is a single-slot card measuring 173 mm in length and 112 mm in height, with no power connectors required and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The K4100M is an MXM module with an MXM-B (3.0) bus interface and no recorded dimensions. Display outputs are 4x DisplayPort 1.4a on the AMD card versus "Portable Device Dependent" on the NVIDIA module. The bus interface is PCIe 3.0 x16 for the WX 5100. API support differs in DirectX and Vulkan versions as noted above. Release dates are 2016-11-17 for the WX 5100 versus 2013-07-22 for the K4100M. The launch MSRP of the WX 5100 is 499 USD, while the K4100M launched at 1,499 USD. The WX 5100's predecessor is Radeon Pro GCN and its successor is Radeon Pro Vega; the K4100M's predecessor is Quadro Fermi-M and its successor is Quadro Maxwell-M. Both are end-of-life products.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 has an average benchmark score of 8863, while the NVIDIA Quadro K4100M has an average score of 7906. The WX 5100 also ranks at the 44th percentile of all GPUs, versus the 41st percentile for the K4100M.

Q: How large is the performance gap in the Geekbench Metal test?

A: The WX 5100 scores 29003 in Geekbench Metal, while the K4100M scores 6662. This gives the AMD card a 335.3% advantage, meaning it achieves more than four times the Metal score of the NVIDIA part.

Q: Does the NVIDIA Quadro K4100M win any benchmark in this comparison?

A: No. The K4100M records zero wins in the head-to-head benchmarks. The WX 5100 wins both the Geekbench Metal and Geekbench OpenCL tests, with winsA equal to 2 and winsB equal to 0.

Q: How do the memory configurations compare?

A: The WX 5100 has 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 160.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The K4100M has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The AMD card doubles the capacity and provides 56.3% more bandwidth.

Q: What are the power consumption figures for each card?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 has a TDP of 75 W and requires a suggested PSU of 250 W. The NVIDIA Quadro K4100M has a TDP of 100 W, with no suggested PSU listed in the database.

Q: How close is each card to its nearest rivals in average score?

A: The WX 5100's score of 8863 is within 1.4% of its closest rivals, including the AMD Radeon 550X (8918, -0.6% delta) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 v2 (8743, 1.4% delta). The K4100M's score of 7906 is within 1.8% of its closest rivals, including the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 (7925, -0.2% delta) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 Ti (8053, -1.8% delta).