AMD Radeon Pro WX 7100 vs NVIDIA RTX A2000 Comparison

NVIDIA RTX A2000 and AMD Radeon Pro WX 7100 are both end-of-life workstation cards, but they represent very different eras and design philosophies. The benchmark data shows a clear and decisive performance gap, with the A2000 winning both head-to-head tests by substantial margins. In Geekbench OpenCL, the A2000 scores 67,695 against the WX 7100’s 40,148, a 68.6% advantage. The Vulkan result is even more lopsided: 69,089 versus 39,683, a 74.1% lead for the NVIDIA card. These are not subtle differences; the A2000 is in a different performance class entirely.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two available cross-GPU benchmarks paint a consistent picture of NVIDIA dominance. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RTX A2000 delivers 67,695 points, while the Radeon Pro WX 7100 manages 40,148. That translates to a 68.6% delta in favor of the A2000. For context, the A2000’s average benchmark score across all tests is 46,043, which places it in the 85th percentile of all GPUs. The WX 7100’s average is 40,063, sitting at the 82nd percentile. While both are above average, the A2000’s raw compute advantage in OpenCL is massive.

The Vulkan results amplify this gap further. The A2000 scores 69,089, against 39,683 for the WX 7100, a 74.1% difference. This suggests the architectural gulf between Ampere and GCN 4.0 is especially pronounced in modern, low-level graphics APIs. The WX 7100’s best individual benchmark is its Geekbench Metal score of 40,357, which is still below the A2000’s worst benchmark result (its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1,345, though that test is not directly comparable across different suites).

Interestingly, the A2000’s nearest rivals in the overall database are not AMD workstation cards. It sits within 1.2% of the AMD Radeon RX 5600M and Intel Arc A530M, and just 0.2% behind the NVIDIA RTX 5880 Ada Generation. The WX 7100, meanwhile, is bracketed by the AMD Radeon Pro 580 (0.6% behind) and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 (0.8% behind). This positioning shows that the A2000 competes with much newer hardware, while the WX 7100 is closer to older, mid-range parts.

Where Each One Wins

Based strictly on the benchmark data, the NVIDIA RTX A2000 wins everywhere. It has zero losses in the head-to-head comparison, taking both the OpenCL and Vulkan tests. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 7100 fails to secure a single victory in any shared benchmark. This is not a case of one card excelling in compute while the other takes graphics; the A2000 is simply faster across the board.

That said, the WX 7100 does have one unique benchmark result that the A2000 cannot match: a Geekbench Metal score of 40,357. Since the A2000 has no Metal result in the data, the WX 7100 holds an uncontested advantage in Apple-centric Metal workloads. However, this is a narrow niche. For OpenCL and Vulkan—the two APIs where both cards have results—the A2000 is unequivocally superior. The A2000 also offers features like 26 ray tracing cores and 104 tensor cores, which the WX 7100 lacks entirely, giving it a functional edge in ray-traced or AI-accelerated tasks even if no direct benchmark exists for those in the pack.

The WX 7100’s only other potential advantage is its 8 GB of memory versus 6 GB, but this does not translate into any benchmark wins. In practical terms, the A2000 is the pick for any workload using OpenCL or Vulkan, while the WX 7100 might appeal only to users locked into Metal-specific pipelines.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two cards is generational. The RTX A2000 uses NVIDIA’s Ampere architecture on a chip codenamed GA106, built on an 8 nm process at Samsung. It packs 12,000 million transistors into a 276 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 43.5 million per square millimeter. The Radeon Pro WX 7100, by contrast, uses AMD’s GCN 4.0 architecture on the Ellesmere chip, fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It contains only 5,700 million transistors on a 232 mm² die, for a density of 24.6 million per square millimeter.

These numbers explain the performance delta. The A2000 has more than twice the transistor count in a slightly larger package, and its newer node allows for dramatically higher density. The A2000 also features 3,328 shading units, 104 texture mapping units, and 48 raster operations pipelines. The WX 7100 counters with 2,304 shading units, 144 TMUs, and only 32 ROPs. While the WX 7100 has more TMUs, the A2000’s higher shader count and newer architecture more than compensate.

Critically, the A2000 includes 26 dedicated ray tracing cores and 104 tensor cores. The WX 7100 has neither, as GCN 4.0 predates dedicated ray tracing and tensor hardware. This is a fundamental feature gap, not just a performance one. The A2000 also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the WX 7100 is limited to DirectX 12 (12_0). Vulkan support is likewise newer on the A2000 (version 1.4 versus 1.3), though both support OpenGL 4.6.

Specification Differences

The two cards diverge sharply on nearly every key specification. The RTX A2000 has a base clock of 562 MHz and a boost clock of 1200 MHz, while the WX 7100 runs at 1188 MHz base and 1243 MHz boost. Despite the A2000’s lower clocks, its architecture efficiency and higher shader count deliver far more compute. The A2000 achieves 7.987 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, against 5.728 TFLOPS for the WX 7100. Both have 1:1 FP16 ratios, but the A2000’s FP16 output is also 7.987 TFLOPS versus 5.728 TFLOPS for AMD.

Memory configurations differ significantly. The A2000 uses 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus, delivering 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The WX 7100 has 8 GB of GDDR5 on a wider 256-bit bus, but only achieves 224.0 GB/s. The A2000’s newer memory type more than compensates for the narrower bus. Power consumption also favors NVIDIA: the A2000 has a 70 W TDP and requires no external power connector, while the WX 7100 draws 130 W and needs a single 6-pin connector. The suggested power supply is 250 W for the A2000 versus 300 W for the WX 7100.

Physical dimensions and connectivity also differ. The A2000 is a dual-slot card measuring 167 mm (6.6 inches) in length and 69 mm (2.7 inches) in height. The WX 7100 is a single-slot card at 241 mm (9.5 inches) long and 112 mm (4.4 inches) tall. Both offer four DisplayPort outputs, but the A2000 uses mini-DisplayPort 1.4a while the WX 7100 uses full-size DisplayPort 1.4a. The A2000 runs on PCIe 4.0 x16, while the WX 7100 is limited to PCIe 3.0 x16. Release dates are far apart: the A2000 launched in August 2021, the WX 7100 in November 2016.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA RTX A2000 scores 67,695 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 68.6% higher than the Radeon Pro WX 7100’s score of 40,148.

Q: Does the Radeon Pro WX 7100 win any benchmark?

A: No. In the head-to-head comparison, the WX 7100 has 0 wins against the A2000’s 2 wins. However, it does have a Geekbench Metal score of 40,357, a test the A2000 does not have a result for.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The RTX A2000 provides 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth with 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus. The WX 7100 provides 224.0 GB/s with 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus.

Q: Do both cards support ray tracing?

A: No. The RTX A2000 has 26 dedicated ray tracing cores and 104 tensor cores. The WX 7100 has neither, as its GCN 4.0 architecture lacks these features.

Q: Which card has higher FP32 compute?

A: The RTX A2000 delivers 7.987 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, compared to 5.728 TFLOPS for the WX 7100.

Q: How do their power requirements compare?

A: The A2000 has a 70 W TDP and requires no power connector, with a 250 W suggested PSU. The WX 7100 has a 130 W TDP, needs one 6-pin connector, and suggests a 300 W PSU.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA RTX A2000 is the superior card in every measurable way. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks by margins of 68.6% and 74.1%, respectively. Its average benchmark score of 46,043 places it at the 85th percentile of all GPUs, while the WX 7100’s 40,063 average sits at the 82nd percentile. The A2000 offers more shading units, dedicated ray tracing and tensor cores, newer memory technology, higher bandwidth, and lower power consumption. It is also smaller, shorter, and requires no external power.

The only arguments for the WX 7100 are its larger 8 GB memory pool and its single-slot form factor, plus its uncontested Metal benchmark score. But these do not overcome the massive performance deficit. The WX 7100’s 5.728 TFLOPS of FP32 compute is less than the A2000’s 7.987 TFLOPS, and its older GCN 4.0 architecture lacks modern features entirely. For any user working in OpenCL or Vulkan, the choice is obvious. The A2000 is the card to pick if you need performance, efficiency, and future-proofing. The WX 7100 only makes sense for environments that specifically require Metal support or need the extra 2 GB of VRAM and are willing to sacrifice roughly 40% of compute performance. Benchmark results indicate that the A2000 is the clear winner, and the specification differences only reinforce that conclusion.