AMD Radeon Pro WX 7100 vs AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 scores 50,001 on average, while the AMD Radeon Pro WX 7100 scores 40,063. That puts the RX Vega 64 about 24.8% ahead in aggregate performance, and it ranks in the 86th percentile of all GPUs versus the Pro WX 7100's 82nd percentile.

Q: How do the two cards compare in the Geekbench Metal test?

A: The RX Vega 64 scores 68,750 in Metal, versus 40,357 for the Pro WX 7100. That is a 70.4% advantage for the RX Vega 64, the largest single-test gap in the direct comparison.

Q: Are there any tests where the Pro WX 7100 wins?

A: No. In the head-to-head benchmark set, the RX Vega 64 wins all three tests: Metal, OpenCL, and Vulkan. The Pro WX 7100 does not take a single recorded win.

Q: What is the difference in power draw?

A: The RX Vega 64 has a TDP of 295 W, while the Pro WX 7100 is rated at 130 W. The Pro WX 7100 also requires only a single 6-pin power connector and a 300 W suggested PSU, whereas the RX Vega 64 needs two 8-pin connectors and a 600 W suggested PSU.

Q: Do both cards support the same API levels?

A: Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.3. They differ in DirectX support: the RX Vega 64 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the Pro WX 7100 supports DirectX 12 (12_0).

Q: Which card has a higher launch MSRP?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 7100 had a launch MSRP of 799 USD, while the AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 had a launch MSRP of 499 USD.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different generations of AMD's Graphics Core Next design. The RX Vega 64 uses the Vega 10 chip on GCN 5.0 architecture, while the Pro WX 7100 uses the Ellesmere chip on GCN 4.0 architecture. Both are built on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries, but that is where the similarity ends.

The Vega 10 die is substantially larger: 495 mm² compared to 232 mm² for Ellesmere, with 12,500 million transistors against 5,700 million. Transistor density is similar at 25.3M per mm² versus 24.6M per mm², so the RX Vega 64 is a much larger, more complex chip. The RX Vega 64 belongs to the Vega (RX Vega) generation, while the Pro WX 7100 belongs to the Radeon Pro Polaris (WX x100) generation.

Memory architecture is another major split. The RX Vega 64 uses 8 GB of HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus with 483.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The Pro WX 7100 uses 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 224.0 GB/s. That is a 2.16x bandwidth advantage for the RX Vega 64, which matters heavily in bandwidth-sensitive workloads.

Compute resources also differ. The RX Vega 64 has 4096 shading units, 256 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The Pro WX 7100 has 2304 shading units, 144 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The RX Vega 64 roughly doubles the shading units and ROP count, with substantially more texture units. Neither card has dedicated ray tracing or tensor cores, so both rely on traditional GCN compute.

Clock behavior differs too. The RX Vega 64 runs a base clock of 1247 MHz and boost of 1546 MHz. The Pro WX 7100 runs a base of 1188 MHz and boost of 1243 MHz. The RX Vega 64 therefore has both a higher boost ceiling and a higher base clock, on top of far more compute units. Memory clocks are not directly comparable due to different memory types: 945 MHz (1890 Mbps effective) for HBM2 versus 1750 MHz (7 Gbps effective) for GDDR5.

The RX Vega 64 is a dual-slot card at 280 mm long, 111 mm tall, and 40 mm wide, with 1x HDMI 2.0b and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The Pro WX 7100 is a single-slot card at 241 mm long and 112 mm tall, with 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs and no width specified. The Pro WX 7100's single-slot cooler and lower power draw make it a much easier fit for dense workstation builds, while the RX Vega 64's larger footprint and dual-slot design reflect its higher performance envelope.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear performance hierarchy. The RX Vega 64 leads in every recorded benchmark and in average score, with a 24.8% aggregate advantage. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 6900 XT at 50,951 (1.9% ahead) and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti at 49,957 (0.1% ahead), placing it in the upper tier of GPUs. The Pro WX 7100 sits in a lower performance class, with nearest rivals like the AMD Radeon Pro 580 at 40,318 (0.6% ahead) and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 at 40,377 (0.8% ahead).

For raw performance, the RX Vega 64 is the choice. It wins the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test with a score of 1669, and it dominates all three Geekbench tests. Anyone prioritizing compute throughput, high-bandwidth memory, or gaming-class speed should pick the RX Vega 64.

The Pro WX 7100 is the choice for power-constrained or space-constrained systems. It draws 130 W versus 295 W, uses a single slot versus dual slot, needs one 6-pin connector instead of two 8-pins, and suggests a 300 W PSU instead of 600 W. It also has four DisplayPort outputs versus the RX Vega 64's combination of one HDMI and three DisplayPort. For a workstation that needs multiple DisplayPort connections and minimal power draw, the Pro WX 7100 makes sense despite the performance gap.

The release timeline also matters: the RX Vega 64 launched on 2017-08-06, while the Pro WX 7100 launched earlier on 2016-11-09. Both are end-of-life, but the RX Vega 64 is the newer design by roughly nine months.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 | AMD Radeon Pro WX 7100 |

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

| Chip | Vega 10 | Ellesmere |

| Architecture | GCN 5.0 | GCN 4.0 |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 14 nm |

| Transistors | 12,500 million | 5,700 million |

| Die Size | 495 mm² | 232 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 25.3M / mm² | 24.6M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1247 MHz | 1188 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1546 MHz | 1243 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 945 MHz (1890 Mbps effective) | 1750 MHz (7 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Type | HBM2 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | 2048 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 483.8 GB/s | 224.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 4096 | 2304 |

| TMUs | 256 | 144 |

| ROPs | 64 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 98.94 GPixel/s | 39.78 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 395.8 GTexel/s | 179.0 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 12.66 TFLOPS | 5.728 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 25.33 TFLOPS (2:1) | 5.728 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 295 W | 130 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | Single-slot |

| Power Connectors | 2x 8-pin | 1x 6-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 600 W | 300 W |

| Display Outputs | 1x HDMI 2.0b, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a | 4x DisplayPort 1.4a |

| DirectX Support | 12 (12_1) | 12 (12_0) |

| Length | 280 mm (11 inches) | 241 mm (9.5 inches) |

| Height | 111 mm (4.4 inches) | 112 mm (4.4 inches) |

| Width | 40 mm (1.6 inches) | Not specified |

| Release Date | 2017-08-06 | 2016-11-09 |

| Launch MSRP | 499 USD | 799 USD |

| Predecessor | Polaris | Radeon Pro GCN |

| Successor | Navi | Radeon Pro Vega |

The two cards share the same 8 GB memory capacity, PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, OpenGL 4.6 support, Vulkan 1.3 support, and 14 nm manufacturing process. Everything else of note diverges.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The direct comparison covers three Geekbench tests, and the RX Vega 64 wins all of them by wide margins.

In Geekbench Metal, the RX Vega 64 scores 68,750 against 40,357 for the Pro WX 7100. That is a 70.4% delta, the largest gap in the comparison. Metal performance tends to track raw compute throughput, and the RX Vega 64's 12.66 TFLOPS FP32 versus 5.728 TFLOPS explains much of the spread.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the RX Vega 64 scores 62,552 versus 40,148, a 55.8% advantage. OpenCL is the more portable cross-vendor workload, and the RX Vega 64 still clears the Pro WX 7100 by a large margin. The gap is slightly smaller than Metal, but the order is unchanged.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the RX Vega 64 scores 67,032 versus 39,683, a 68.9% delta. Vulkan results closely mirror the Metal results, which makes sense given that both are low-level APIs that expose the underlying hardware directly. The Pro WX 7100's Vulkan score of 39,683 is its lowest of the three tests, while the RX Vega 64's Vulkan score of 67,032 is its second-highest.

There is also a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 result for the RX Vega 64 alone: 1669. The Pro WX 7100 has no recorded score for that test, so no direct comparison is possible. Still, the RX Vega 64's presence in that DX12 testing, combined with its DirectX 12 (12_1) support versus the Pro WX 7100's DirectX 12 (12_1) support, points to stronger modern gaming API readiness.

The overall average score difference is 50,001 for the RX Vega 64 versus 40,063 for the Pro WX 7100, a 24.8% aggregate delta. The RX Vega 64's nearest rival AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT sits at 48,477 (3.1% behind), and the Intel Arc A550M at 49,737 (0.5% behind). The Pro WX 7100's nearest rivals cluster tightly around its score, with the AMD Radeon Pro 580 at 40,318 (0.6% ahead) and the NVIDIA RTX A500 Mobile at 39,568 (1.3% behind).

Where Each One Wins

The RX Vega 64 wins on raw compute in every measured category. It has higher FP32 throughput at 12.66 TFLOPS versus 5.728 TFLOPS, and its FP16 capability is dramatically different: 25.33 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio versus 5.728 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio. For workloads that can use FP16, the RX Vega 64 offers a massive 4.4x advantage. Pixel rate is 98.94 GPixel/s versus 39.78 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 395.8 GTexel/s versus 179.0 GTexel/s. Memory bandwidth is 483.8 GB/s versus 224.0 GB/s. Every throughput-limited task favors the RX Vega 64.

The Pro WX 7100 wins on power efficiency and physical design. It draws 130 W versus 295 W, which means less heat and lower system power requirements. It is single-slot, so it fits in chassis that cannot accommodate a dual-slot card. It uses one 6-pin power connector rather than two 8-pins, and its suggested PSU is 300 W rather than 600 W. It also has four DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, which is one more display output than the RX Vega 64's three DisplayPort plus one HDMI configuration. For multi-monitor workstation setups that prefer DisplayPort throughout, the Pro WX 7100 is the better fit.

The use-case split is straightforward. The RX Vega 64 is for compute-heavy tasks, gaming, and any workload that can exploit its higher FP32, FP16, or memory bandwidth. The Pro WX 7100 is for power-sensitive, space-constrained workstation builds where the priority is low power draw, single-slot cooling, and multiple DisplayPort outputs, and where the 55% to 70% performance deficit in the measured tests is acceptable.