AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100 vs AMD Radeon RX 5600M Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100 and the AMD Radeon RX 5600M occupy very different corners of the GPU landscape, and the benchmark data reflects that split clearly. The Pro WX 9100 takes two of the three head-to-head benchmark victories, while the RX 5600M claims one. That single win is significant, though: the RX 5600M beats the Pro WX 9100 by 7% in Geekbench Metal, scoring 76653 against 71319. Metal performance favors the mobile part, which suggests that for Apple-centric or Metal-accelerated workloads, the newer architecture holds an edge.

The Pro WX 9100 answers back in the other two tests. In Geekbench OpenCL, the workstation card posts 66605 versus 59589 for the RX 5600M, a lead of 11.8%. In Geekbench Vulkan, the gap widens slightly to 12%, with the Pro WX 9100 scoring 54711 against 48843. These are compute-oriented workloads, and the Pro WX 9100's raw throughput advantages show up exactly where you would expect: OpenCL and Vulkan are both heavily used in rendering, simulation, and professional content creation.

Looking at the broader database averages, the Pro WX 9100 sits at an average benchmark score of 64212, while the RX 5600M averages 46601. That is a substantial overall gap, and it places the Pro WX 9100 in the 89th percentile of all GPUs, compared to the RX 5600M's 85th percentile. The nearest rivals for the Pro WX 9100 are all clustered within 0.6% to 0.8% of its score, including the NVIDIA CMP 30HX at 63842 and the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 56 at 63693. The RX 5600M, by contrast, sits within 1.4% of the NVIDIA RTX 5880 Ada Generation and essentially ties the Intel Arc A530M at 46614. The practical takeaway: the Pro WX 9100 is a high-throughput workstation card, while the RX 5600M is a capable mobile part that trades absolute performance for portability.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations entirely. The Pro WX 9100 uses the Vega 10 chip built on GCN 5.0, fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The RX 5600M uses the Navi 10 chip with RDNA 1.0, built on a 7 nm process at TSMC. That process shrink is a major differentiator: the RX 5600M packs 10,300 million transistors into a 251 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 41.0M per mm². The Pro WX 9100 has more transistors overall at 12,500 million, but spreads them across a much larger 495 mm² die, resulting in just 25.3M per mm². The density gap is nearly 62% in favor of the RX 5600M, which explains how the newer part achieves competitive performance with far fewer raw resources.

Shader configuration differs dramatically. The Pro WX 9100 has 4096 shading units, 256 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs. The RX 5600M has 2304 shading units, 144 TMUs, and also 64 ROPs. That means the Pro WX 9100 has roughly 78% more shading units and 78% more TMUs, but the same ROP count. The memory subsystems are even more divergent. The Pro WX 9100 uses 16 GB of HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus, delivering 483.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The RX 5600M uses 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus, with 288.0 GB/s. The Pro WX 9100's bandwidth advantage is 68%, a critical factor for memory-hungry professional workloads.

The RX 5600M does bring newer connectivity: PCIe 4.0 x16 versus PCIe 3.0 x16 on the Pro WX 9100. Vulkan support also differs, with the RX 5600M offering Vulkan 1.4 versus 1.3 on the Pro WX 9100. Both support DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6, so API parity exists at those levels. The RX 5600M is a mobile IGP part with no power connectors and a 150 W TDP, while the Pro WX 9100 is a dual-slot card requiring 1x 6-pin and 1x 8-pin connectors, with a 230 W TDP and a suggested 550 W power supply.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The direct comparison across three Geekbench tests tells the story of two different design philosophies. In Geekbench Metal, the RX 5600M wins with 76653 against 71319, a 7% advantage. This is the only test where the mobile part comes out ahead, and it is importantly Metal is Apple's GPU API, often used in creative and media workflows. The RDNA 1.0 architecture in the RX 5600M appears to handle Metal more efficiently despite having fewer shading units and lower raw throughput.

Geekbench OpenCL flips the result decisively. The Pro WX 9100 scores 66605, which is 11.8% higher than the RX 5600M's 59589. OpenCL is a general-purpose compute API, and here the Pro WX 9100's 4096 shading units and 12.29 TFLOPS FP32 performance come into play. The RX 5600M manages 5.829 TFLOPS FP32, less than half the Pro WX 9100's figure. That raw compute advantage translates directly into the OpenCL score gap.

Geekbench Vulkan shows the largest margin. The Pro WX 9100 hits 54711, while the RX 5600M reaches 48843, a 12% lead for the workstation card. Vulkan is increasingly common in games and cross-platform applications, and the Pro WX 9100's higher texture rate (384.0 GTexel/s versus 182.2 GTexel/s) and pixel rate (96.00 GPixel/s versus 80.96 GPixel/s) help explain the consistent advantage. The RX 5600M's lower clock speeds, with a boost of 1265 MHz versus 1500 MHz on the Pro WX 9100, further disadvantage it in these tests.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ on nearly every major specification line. The Pro WX 9100 uses a 14 nm process from GlobalFoundries with 12,500 million transistors on a 495 mm² die. The RX 5600M uses a 7 nm process from TSMC with 10,300 million transistors on a 251 mm² die. Transistor density is 25.3M per mm² for the Pro WX 9100 and 41.0M per mm² for the RX 5600M.

Clock speeds: the Pro WX 9100 runs at 1200 MHz base and 1500 MHz boost, while the RX 5600M runs at 1035 MHz base, 1265 MHz boost, and a 1190 MHz game clock. Memory clocks are 945 MHz (1890 Mbps effective) for the Pro WX 9100 versus 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) for the RX 5600M.

Memory configuration: 16 GB HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus with 483.8 GB/s bandwidth for the Pro WX 9100, versus 6 GB GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus with 288.0 GB/s for the RX 5600M. The Pro WX 9100 has 4096 shading units, 256 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The RX 5600M has 2304 shading units, 144 TMUs, and 64 ROPs.

Rates: the Pro WX 9100 delivers 96.00 GPixel/s and 384.0 GTexel/s, with 12.29 TFLOPS FP32 and 24.58 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1). The RX 5600M delivers 80.96 GPixel/s and 182.2 GTexel/s, with 5.829 TFLOPS FP32 and 11.66 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1).

Power and physical specs: the Pro WX 9100 has a 230 W TDP, is dual-slot, requires 1x 6-pin and 1x 8-pin connectors, and lists a 550 W suggested PSU. The RX 5600M has a 150 W TDP, is an IGP, requires no power connectors, and has a portable-device-dependent display output. The Pro WX 9100 offers 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs and measures 267 mm in length and 111 mm in height. The RX 5600M has no listed dimensions.

Bus interface: the Pro WX 9100 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, the RX 5600M uses PCIe 4.0 x16. Vulkan versions differ at 1.3 versus 1.4. The Pro WX 9100 released in 2017, while the RX 5600M released in 2020, and both are end-of-life.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins more head-to-head benchmarks?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100 wins two of the three head-to-head tests, taking Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. The AMD Radeon RX 5600M wins one test, Geekbench Metal.

Q: How large is the performance gap in the biggest Pro WX 9100 win?

A: The Pro WX 9100 leads by 12% in Geekbench Vulkan, scoring 54711 against the RX 5600M's 48843. Its OpenCL lead is 11.8%, with scores of 66605 and 59589 respectively.

Q: Where does the RX 5600M outperform the Pro WX 9100?

A: In Geekbench Metal, the RX 5600M scores 76653 versus 71319 for the Pro WX 9100, a 7% advantage. This is the only benchmark in the head-to-head set where the mobile part wins.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Pro WX 9100 has an average benchmark score of 64212, placing it in the 89th percentile of all GPUs. The RX 5600M averages 46601, placing it in the 85th percentile.

Q: What are the closest rivals for each GPU?

A: The Pro WX 9100's nearest rivals are the NVIDIA CMP 30HX at 63842 (0.6% difference), the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT LP at 63830 (0.6%), and the AMD Radeon RX 7600M at 63775 (0.7%). The RX 5600M's nearest rivals are the Intel Arc A530M at 46614 (0% difference), the AMD Radeon RX 6550M at 46702 (-0.2%), and the NVIDIA RTX A2000 at 46043 (1.2%).

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The Pro WX 9100 provides 483.8 GB/s of bandwidth from 16 GB of HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus. The RX 5600M provides 288.0 GB/s from 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear separation of use cases. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100 is the stronger compute card for professional workloads that rely on OpenCL and Vulkan. Its 11.8% and 12% leads in those respective benchmarks, combined with 16 GB of HBM2 memory and 483.8 GB/s of bandwidth, make it the choice for rendering, simulation, and data-heavy tasks where memory capacity and throughput matter. Its 4096 shading units and 12.29 TFLOPS FP32 performance give it more than double the raw compute of the RX 5600M. The 89th percentile standing versus 85th for the RX 5600M reinforces this hierarchy.

The AMD Radeon RX 5600M wins only in Metal, but that win is not trivial. For anyone working in Metal-centric environments, particularly Apple ecosystems, the 7% advantage in that API could be the deciding factor. The RX 5600M also offers far better transistor density (41.0M per mm² versus 25.3M per mm²), a newer 7 nm process, PCIe 4.0 support, and a much lower 150 W TDP with no external power connectors. It is a mobile part, designed for laptops and portable devices, and its 6 GB of GDDR6 memory is adequate for many gaming and creative tasks.

For a workstation build where compute performance is the priority, the Pro WX 9100 is the obvious pick from this data. Its dual-slot design and 230 W TDP require a proper desktop power supply, but the performance payoff is clear. For a laptop or compact system where Metal performance matters and power draw is constrained, the RX 5600M is the better fit. The benchmark results do not suggest one is universally superior; they suggest two different tools for two different jobs.