AMD Radeon Pro WX 7100 vs AMD Radeon RX 6550M Comparison

AMD Radeon RX 6550M and AMD Radeon Pro WX 7100 represent two very different eras of AMD graphics, and the benchmark data reflects a clear generational shift. The RX 6550M, a mobile RDNA 2.0 part, takes both head-to-head benchmark wins, while the older Pro WX 7100, a workstation card based on GCN 4.0, counters with a larger memory pool and a substantially different feature set. The data shows a 5.9% lead for the RX 6550M in OpenCL and a decisive 28.2% advantage in Vulkan.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon RX 6550M is the clear winner in raw compute performance across the benchmarks provided. It wins both head-to-head tests: Geekbench OpenCL with a score of 42,536 against 40,148, and Geekbench Vulkan with a score of 50,867 against 39,683. The Vulkan result is particularly dominant, showing a 28.2% delta, which indicates a strong architectural advantage in modern, low-level graphics APIs. The RX 6550M also holds a higher percentile ranking at 85% of all GPUs, compared to 82% for the Pro WX 7100.

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 7100, despite losing both benchmarks, has its own area of superiority: memory capacity and bandwidth. It offers 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, yielding 224.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The RX 6550M, by contrast, has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, providing 144.0 GB/s. For workloads that are memory-bound rather than compute-bound, the Pro WX 7100’s larger frame buffer and higher bandwidth could be a deciding factor. It also features a single-slot form factor with 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, making it a more flexible option for multi-display professional setups, whereas the RX 6550M’s display outputs are dependent on the portable device it is integrated into.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures and process nodes. The RX 6550M uses the Navi 24 chip based on RDNA 2.0, manufactured on a 6 nm process at TSMC. It integrates 5,400 million transistors on a 107 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 50.5M per mm². The Pro WX 7100 uses the Ellesmere chip based on GCN 4.0, built on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It packs 5,700 million transistors on a much larger 232 mm² die, with a lower density of 24.6M per mm². The RX 6550M is the newer part, released in 2023, while the Pro WX 7100 dates back to 2016 and is now end-of-life.

Core configuration differs significantly. The RX 6550M has 1,024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs, along with 16 dedicated ray tracing cores. The Pro WX 7100 has more shading units at 2,304, and 144 TMUs, but the same 32 ROPs, and no ray tracing cores. Clock speeds heavily favor the RX 6550M, with a base of 2000 MHz and a boost of 2840 MHz, compared to the Pro WX 7100’s 1188 MHz base and 1243 MHz boost. The RX 6550M also supports newer API features, including DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, whereas the Pro WX 7100 tops out at DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Memory technology is another stark contrast. The RX 6550M uses 4 GB of GDDR6 with 18 Gbps effective speed and 144.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Pro WX 7100 uses 8 GB of GDDR5 with 7 Gbps effective speed and 224.0 GB/s bandwidth. The interface also differs: the RX 6550M uses PCIe 4.0 x4, while the Pro WX 7100 uses PCIe 3.0 x16. Power requirements are lower for the RX 6550M at 80 W TDP with no power connectors, versus the Pro WX 7100’s 130 W TDP requiring a single 6-pin connector and a 300 W suggested PSU.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench OpenCL test shows a moderate win for the RX 6550M. It scores 42,536 against the Pro WX 7100’s 40,148, a 5.9% delta. This is a relatively narrow margin, suggesting that in compute-heavy OpenCL workloads, the older GCN architecture can still hold its own despite its lower clock speeds. The RX 6550M’s higher FP32 throughput of 5.816 TFLOPS versus 5.728 TFLOPS for the Pro WX 7100 is nearly identical, which explains the closeness of this result. The Pro WX 7100’s FP16 performance is also 5.728 TFLOPS (1:1), while the RX 6550M achieves 11.63 TFLOPS (2:1), but that does not appear to translate into a significant OpenCL advantage.

The Geekbench Vulkan test is where the RX 6550M decisively separates itself. It scores 50,867 against the Pro WX 7100’s 39,683, a massive 28.2% delta. This large gap highlights the architectural improvements in RDNA 2.0 over GCN 4.0 for modern graphics APIs. The RX 6550M’s boost clock of 2840 MHz, combined with 16 ray tracing cores and DirectX 12 Ultimate support, gives it a substantial edge in Vulkan workloads that leverage newer features. The Pro WX 7100’s higher bandwidth and larger memory do not compensate for its older architecture in this test.

Looking at the average benchmark scores, the RX 6550M averages 46,702, placing it just ahead of its nearest rivals: Intel Arc A530M at 46,614 (0.2% delta) and AMD Radeon RX 5600M at 46,601 (0.2% delta). The Pro WX 7100 averages 40,063, which is 1.6% behind the RX 6550M’s average. Its nearest rival is the AMD Radeon Pro 580 at 40,318, which is 0.6% ahead, and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 at 40,377, which is 0.8% ahead. The data indicates the RX 6550M sits in a competitive mid-range segment, while the Pro WX 7100 is at the lower end of its peer group.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has better raw compute performance?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6550M is ahead in both benchmark tests. It leads by 5.9% in Geekbench OpenCL and by 28.2% in Geekbench Vulkan.

Q: Does the Pro WX 7100 have any advantages?

A: Yes, it offers 8 GB of GDDR5 memory with 224.0 GB/s bandwidth, compared to the RX 6550M’s 4 GB GDDR6 with 144.0 GB/s. It also has a 256-bit memory bus versus 64-bit, and a single-slot design with 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs.

Q: How do their architectures differ?

A: The RX 6550M uses the RDNA 2.0 architecture on a 6 nm TSMC process with 5,400 million transistors. The Pro WX 7100 uses the GCN 4.0 architecture on a 14 nm GlobalFoundries process with 5,700 million transistors. The RX 6550M is newer and includes 16 ray tracing cores.

Q: What are their FP32 performance levels?

A: The RX 6550M delivers 5.816 TFLOPS, while the Pro WX 7100 delivers 5.728 TFLOPS. They are nearly identical in this metric.

Q: What is the difference in their memory speeds?

A: The RX 6550M has memory clocked at 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective, while the Pro WX 7100 has memory at 1750 MHz with 7 Gbps effective. However, the Pro WX 7100 has wider 256-bit bus, resulting in higher total bandwidth.

Q: Which card has better API support?

A: The RX 6550M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4. The Pro WX 7100 supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

The Verdict

The data clearly favors the AMD Radeon RX 6550M for performance. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks, holds a higher percentile ranking at 85% versus 82%, and has a higher average benchmark score of 46,702 versus 40,063. Its Vulkan lead of 28.2% is decisive, indicating that it is the better choice for modern gaming and compute workloads that utilize current APIs and features like ray tracing. The RX 6550M is also more power-efficient, with an 80 W TDP compared to the Pro WX 7100’s 130 W, and it requires no power connectors.

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 7100, while losing on compute, is not without merit. Its 8 GB memory capacity and 224.0 GB/s bandwidth are double the RX 6550M’s 4 GB and 144.0 GB/s, making it more suitable for large datasets or multi-display professional environments where memory footprint matters more than raw shader throughput. Its single-slot design and 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs offer practical advantages for workstation integration. However, its end-of-life status and older GCN 4.0 architecture, with no ray tracing support and lower API versions, limit its future-proofing.

For users prioritizing raw benchmark scores and modern feature support, the RX 6550M is the obvious pick. For those needing larger memory capacity and a professional form factor with multiple display outputs, the Pro WX 7100 remains a viable, albeit older, option. The benchmark results show a 5.9% to 28.2% performance gap in favor of the RX 6550M, which is substantial in the Vulkan test. Ultimately, the choice depends on whether the workload is compute-bound, where the RX 6550M excels, or memory-bound, where the Pro WX 7100’s larger frame buffer provides an edge.