AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 vs NVIDIA Quadro M2000M Comparison

The Verdict

The database comparison between the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M and the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 is decisively one-sided in raw compute performance. Across the two shared benchmark tests, the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 wins both, with margins of 58.5% in Geekbench OpenCL and 64.3% in Geekbench Vulkan. The average benchmark score tells a similar story: the Quadro M2000M averages 9832, while the Radeon Pro WX 5100 averages 8863, though this aggregate figure is pulled down by the AMD card’s inclusion of Passmark tests in which it scores relatively low (for example, 29 in DirectX 10, 36 in DirectX 11, and 26 in DirectX 12). The Quadro M2000M has no Passmark records in the database, so its average reflects only the two Geekbench tests.

From the recorded data, the Radeon Pro WX 5100 is the clear choice for compute-heavy workloads such as OpenCL and Vulkan rendering, particularly where 8 GB of VRAM and a 256-bit memory bus are advantageous. The Quadro M2000M, with its Maxwell architecture, 4 GB of VRAM, and 128-bit bus, is better suited for legacy DirectX 11 workflows or for systems where the 55 W TDP and MXM module form factor are required. The Quadro sits at the 47th percentile among all GPUs, while the Radeon sits at the 44th percentile; the percentile difference is small, but the head-to-head deltas are not.

For a professional user choosing between these two, the Radeon Pro WX 5100 offers roughly two and a half times the OpenCL compute score and nearly three times the Vulkan score. The Quadro M2000M, however, has a higher average score than several of its nearest rivals, including the NVIDIA Quadro 6000 (9846, delta -0.1%) and the AMD FirePro W5000 (9803, delta 0.3%). In contrast, the Radeon Pro WX 5100’s nearest rivals are lower-tier cards like the AMD Radeon R9 M265X (8851, delta 0.1%) and the AMD Radeon 550X (8918, delta -0.6%). This suggests the Radeon’s average is depressed by its Passmark results, whereas its Geekbench scores are far ahead of the Quadro.

Where Each One Wins

The Radeon Pro WX 5100 wins decisively in every shared benchmark test. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 24217 versus the Quadro’s 10057, a delta of -58.5% from the Quadro’s perspective. In Geekbench Vulkan, the Radeon scores 26909 versus the Quadro’s 9606, a delta of -64.3%. These are not marginal victories; they represent a fundamental performance gap in modern compute APIs. The Radeon also has a native Metal benchmark score of 29003, which the Quadro lacks entirely, indicating a significant advantage in Apple ecosystem or Metal-based applications.

The Quadro M2000M has no benchmark wins in the head-to-head data. However, it does have a higher average benchmark score (9832) than the Radeon’s average (8863), a quirk driven by the Radeon’s Passmark results. The Quadro’s strength lies in its consistency across its two Geekbench tests, both of which land within 5% of each other (10057 and 9606). The Radeon’s Geekbench scores range from 24217 to 29003, but its Passmark scores are dramatically lower, with DirectX 9 at 88, G2D at 777, and G3D at 5496. For users who prioritize raw compute in OpenCL or Vulkan, the Radeon wins. For users who need a low-power, MXM-based solution with a modest thermal envelope, the Quadro is the only option with the specified form factor.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and foundries. The NVIDIA Quadro M2000M uses the GM107 chip built on Maxwell architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 1,870 million transistors into a die size of 148 mm², resulting in a transistor density of 12.6 million per square millimeter. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 uses the Ellesmere chip built on GCN 4.0, fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It contains 5,700 million transistors on a die size of 232 mm², for a density of 24.6 million per square millimeter. The Radeon’s process node is more advanced, enabling nearly triple the transistor count on a die that is only 57% larger.

Core configuration differences are substantial. The Quadro M2000M has 640 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The Radeon Pro WX 5100 has 1,792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. This translates to a pixel rate of 18.19 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 45.48 GTexel/s for the Quadro, versus 34.75 GPixel/s and 121.6 GTexel/s for the Radeon. In FP32 compute, the Radeon delivers 3.892 TFLOPS, while the Quadro delivers 1,455.4 GFLOPS (approximately 1.46 TFLOPS). The Radeon also offers FP16 at the same rate (3.892 TFLOPS, 1:1), while the Quadro has no recorded FP16 capability.

Memory architecture differs sharply. The Quadro M2000M has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 80.19 GB/s of bandwidth. The Radeon Pro WX 5100 doubles both capacity and bus width: 8 GB on a 256-bit bus, yielding 160.0 GB/s. Clock speeds are closer than the compute gap suggests: the Quadro runs at 1098 MHz base and 1137 MHz boost, while the Radeon runs at 713 MHz base and 1086 MHz boost. The Radeon’s higher core count compensates for its lower base clock. Memory clocks are nearly identical at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) for the Quadro and 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective) for the Radeon.

Power and physical specifications diverge. The Quadro is rated at 55 W TDP and uses an MXM module (MXM-A 3.0) with no power connectors and portable-device-dependent display outputs. The Radeon is rated at 75 W TDP, is a single-slot card measuring 173 mm in length and 112 mm in height, uses PCIe 3.0 x16, has four DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, and a suggested PSU of 250 W. API support differs: the Quadro supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4; the Radeon supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The Radeon also has a native Metal benchmark, indicating Metal support, which the Quadro lacks.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher OpenCL performance?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 scores 24217 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M scores 10057. The Radeon leads by 58.5% in this test.

Q: How do the two compare in Vulkan compute?

A: The Radeon Pro WX 5100 scores 26909 in Geekbench Vulkan versus 9606 for the Quadro M2000M, a 64.3% advantage for the Radeon.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The Quadro M2000M has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus (80.19 GB/s), while the Radeon Pro WX 5100 has 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus (160.0 GB/s). The Radeon doubles both capacity and bandwidth.

Q: Which card has higher average benchmark score?

A: The Quadro M2000M has an average score of 9832, while the Radeon Pro WX 5100 averages 8863. However, the Radeon’s average includes low Passmark scores (e.g., 29 in DirectX 10, 36 in DirectX 11), which the Quadro does not have in the database.

Q: Are there any tests where the Quadro wins?

A: No. In the head-to-head benchmark data, the Radeon Pro WX 5100 wins both recorded tests (Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan). The Quadro has zero wins.

Q: What are the power requirements?

A: The Quadro M2000M has a 55 W TDP and no power connectors, using an MXM module. The Radeon Pro WX 5100 has a 75 W TDP, no power connectors, and a suggested PSU of 250 W.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only two shared benchmark tests in the database are Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan, and the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 wins both by wide margins.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the Radeon Pro WX 5100 scores 24217 against the Quadro M2000M’s 10057. The delta is -58.5% from the Quadro’s perspective, meaning the Radeon is approximately 141% faster in this test. This result aligns with the architectural gap: the Radeon has 1,792 shading units versus 640, and FP32 throughput of 3.892 TFLOPS versus 1,455.4 GFLOPS. The Radeon also has 8 GB of VRAM at 160.0 GB/s, which provides more headroom for large OpenCL buffers. The Quadro’s 4 GB at 80.19 GB/s is half the bandwidth, a likely bottleneck in memory-intensive compute workloads.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the Radeon extends its lead. It scores 26909 versus the Quadro’s 9606, a delta of -64.3%. This is the largest relative gap in the head-to-head data. The Radeon’s Vulkan 1.3 API support, combined with its higher core count and memory bandwidth, explains the advantage. The Quadro supports Vulkan 1.4, which is a newer API version, but that does not compensate for the raw compute deficit. The Radeon’s Vulkan score is actually higher than its OpenCL score (26909 versus 24217), while the Quadro’s Vulkan score is lower than its OpenCL score (9606 versus 10057). This suggests the Radeon’s GCN 4.0 architecture handles Vulkan compute more efficiently than the Quadro’s Maxwell architecture.

Beyond the shared tests, the Radeon Pro WX 5100 has additional benchmark records that further illustrate its compute orientation. It scores 29003 in Geekbench Metal, a test the Quadro does not appear in. Its Passmark results are mixed: G3D at 5496, GPU Compute at 2053, G2D at 777, DirectX 9 at 88, DirectX 11 at 36, DirectX 12 at 26, and DirectX 10 at 29. These low DirectX scores are unusual for a card with 3.892 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, but they may reflect driver maturity or test conditions. The Quadro has no Passmark records at all, so its average benchmark score of 9832 is computed solely from its two Geekbench results. The Radeon’s average of 8863 includes all ten benchmark records, which drags its aggregate below the Quadro despite winning every head-to-head test.

The nearest rival data puts the Quadro in a different competitive tier. The Quadro M2000M’s average score of 9832 is within 0.5% of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 (9780) and 1.1% of the NVIDIA Tesla M10 (9724). The Radeon Pro WX 5100’s average of 8863 is closest to the AMD Radeon R9 M265X (8851, 0.1% delta) and the AMD Radeon 550X (8918, -0.6% delta). This means that in aggregate terms, the Quadro competes with higher-tier NVIDIA cards, while the Radeon’s average is closer to lower-tier cards. However, the head-to-head Geekbench results contradict this aggregate picture: the Radeon crushes the Quadro in both OpenCL and Vulkan. The discrepancy is entirely due to the Radeon’s Passmark scores, which are not reflected in the Quadro’s average.

For users relying on Geekbench as the primary metric, the Radeon Pro WX 5100 is the superior card. For users who weight Passmark or need a low-power MXM solution, the Quadro M2000M may be more appropriate. The data does not support the Quadro winning any compute test, but its 55 W TDP and MXM form factor are unique advantages in thermally constrained or proprietary systems. The Radeon’s 75 W TDP and single-slot design with four DisplayPort 1.4a outputs make it more suited to standard desktop workstations.