AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100 vs AMD Radeon RX 6650M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data splits the two GPUs almost perfectly down the middle, with each taking a decisive victory in its preferred API. The AMD Radeon RX 6650M dominates in GeekBench Vulkan, scoring 77,735 against the Radeon Pro WX 9100's 54,711. That is a 42.1% lead—a massive gap that speaks to the architectural gulf between the two designs. The RX 6650M’s Vulkan score is not just a win; it is a statement of modern API efficiency. In contrast, the Radeon Pro WX 9100 edges out the RX 6650M in GeekBench OpenCL, posting 66,605 versus 65,800, a slim 1.2% advantage. That is within the margin of run-to-run variance, but the data records it as a win for the older workstation card.

Looking at average benchmark scores across all tests, the RX 6650M sits at 71,768, which places it in the 91st percentile of all GPUs. The Pro WX 9100 averages 64,212, landing in the 89th percentile. The RX 6650M’s nearest rivals include the NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal at 72,098 (-0.5%) and the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64 at 72,379 (-0.8%), meaning the mobile chip is trading blows with desktop flagship cards from the previous generation. The Pro WX 9100, meanwhile, is bracketed by the NVIDIA CMP 30HX at 63,842 (+0.6%) and the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT LP at 63,830 (+0.6%). The deltaPct values show the RX 6650M has a slight edge over its closest rivals, while the Pro WX 9100 is essentially tied with its immediate competition.

The Vulkan result is the headline. A 42.1% delta is not a small margin; it suggests the RX 6650M’s RDNA 2.0 architecture extracts far more from modern, low-level APIs than the Pro WX 9100’s GCN 5.0 design can manage. Conversely, the OpenCL result shows the older card retaining relevance in compute workloads that favor raw shader throughput. The data does not support a single overall winner—each GPU wins one test, and the margins are starkly different. The RX 6650M wins by a landslide in Vulkan; the Pro WX 9100 wins by a hair in OpenCL.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6650M, with an average score of 71,768 compared to the Radeon Pro WX 9100's 64,212. The RX 6650M also holds a higher percentile rank at 91 versus 89 for the Pro WX 9100.

Q: How do the two cards compare in GeekBench Vulkan?

A: The RX 6650M is dramatically faster, scoring 77,735 against the Pro WX 9100's 54,711. This represents a 42.1% advantage for the RX 6650M, the largest margin in any benchmark between the two.

Q: Is the Radeon Pro WX 9100 faster in any test?

A: Yes, the Pro WX 9100 wins the GeekBench OpenCL test with a score of 66,605 versus the RX 6650M's 65,800. The margin is just 1.2%, which is far narrower than the Vulkan gap.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The Pro WX 9100 has 16 GB of HBM2 memory on a 2048-bit bus, delivering 483.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The RX 6650M has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, with 224.0 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU consumes more power?

A: The Pro WX 9100 has a TDP of 230 W and requires a 550 W power supply, plus 1x 6-pin and 1x 8-pin power connectors. The RX 6650M is rated at 120 W with no power connectors, as it is an integrated graphics package (IGP).

Q: What are the release dates for these products?

A: The Radeon Pro WX 9100 was released on 2017-07-09, while the Radeon RX 6650M came later on 2022-01-03. Both are now listed as end-of-life products.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two AMD GPUs is fundamental. The RX 6650M uses the Navi 23 chip built on RDNA 2.0, fabricated on a 7 nm process at TSMC. The Pro WX 9100 uses the Vega 10 chip on GCN 5.0, built on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The node difference is stark: 7 nm versus 14 nm, which explains much of the efficiency gap. The RX 6650M packs 11,060 million transistors into a 237 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 46.7M per mm². The Pro WX 9100 has more transistors—12,500 million—but spreads them across a massive 495 mm² die, resulting in just 25.3M per mm². The RX 6650M is nearly twice as dense per square millimeter.

The RX 6650M features 1,792 shading units, 112 texture mapping units, and 64 raster operations units. It also includes 28 ray tracing cores, a feature the Pro WX 9100 lacks entirely. The Pro WX 9100 counters with 4,096 shading units and 256 TMUs, but matches the RX 6650M with 64 ROPs. The RX 6650M's pixel rate is 154.6 GPixel/s, while the Pro WX 9100 manages 96.00 GPixel/s. However, the Pro WX 9100 leads in texture rate at 384.0 GTexel/s versus 270.6 GTexel/s for the RX 6650M.

In raw compute, the Pro WX 9100 outputs 12.29 TFLOPS FP32 and 24.58 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1), while the RX 6650M delivers 8.659 TFLOPS FP32 and 17.32 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1). The older card has a clear compute advantage on paper, yet the RX 6650M's newer architecture closes the gap in real-world API performance, as shown by the Vulkan results. The RX 6650M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the Pro WX 9100 only reaches DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6, but the RX 6650M runs Vulkan 1.4 versus the Pro WX 9100's Vulkan 1.3.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every major specification. The RX 6650M is a 7 nm part with a base clock of 2068 MHz, a boost clock of 2416 MHz, and a game clock of 2222 MHz. The Pro WX 9100 is a 14 nm part with a base clock of 1200 MHz and a boost clock of 1500 MHz; it has no game clock listed. Memory speed also diverges: the RX 6650M runs at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective), while the Pro WX 9100 runs at 945 MHz (1890 Mbps effective). The Pro WX 9100's memory is wider and faster overall—16 GB HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus with 483.8 GB/s bandwidth versus 8 GB GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 224.0 GB/s.

Power and physical design are opposites. The RX 6650M is an integrated graphics package (IGP) with a 120 W TDP, no power connectors, and a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface. The Pro WX 9100 is a dual-slot add-in card, 267 mm (10.5 inches) long and 111 mm (4.4 inches) tall, with a 230 W TDP, 1x 6-pin and 1x 8-pin power connectors, a suggested 550 W PSU, and a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface. Display outputs differ as well: the RX 6650M is portable-device dependent, while the Pro WX 9100 offers 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a.

The Pro WX 9100 has a listed launch MSRP of 1,599 USD. The RX 6650M has no launch MSRP in the data. The Pro WX 9100's predecessor is Radeon Pro GCN and its successor is Radeon Pro Vega; the RX 6650M's predecessor is Polaris Mobile, with no successor listed. Both are end-of-life, but the Pro WX 9100 released in 2017, roughly four and a half years before the RX 6650M's 2022 debut.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 6650M wins decisively in modern API workloads. Its 42.1% lead in GeekBench Vulkan is the clearest signal that this GPU is built for contemporary games and applications that leverage Vulkan's low-level access. The presence of 28 ray tracing cores gives it a feature set the Pro WX 9100 cannot match, making it the better choice for ray-traced content or any workload that uses DirectX 12 Ultimate features. Its higher pixel rate (154.6 GPixel/s versus 96.00 GPixel/s) suggests stronger fill-rate-bound performance, and its 91st percentile ranking versus 89th for the Pro WX 9100 confirms its overall standing.

The Pro WX 9100 wins in raw compute throughput. Its 12.29 TFLOPS FP32 and 24.58 TFLOPS FP16 are substantially higher than the RX 6650M's 8.659 and 17.32 TFLOPS, respectively. The 16 GB of HBM2 memory with 483.8 GB/s bandwidth is a massive advantage for large datasets that exceed the RX 6650M's 8 GB capacity. The Pro WX 9100's 6x mini-DisplayPort outputs make it suited for multi-monitor professional setups, while the RX 6650M's display outputs depend entirely on the portable device it is integrated into. The Pro WX 9100 also wins the OpenCL benchmark, albeit narrowly, and its higher texture rate (384.0 GTexel/s) indicates strength in texture-heavy compute.

For a builder choosing between these, the decision hinges on workload API and memory demands. If the target applications are Vulkan-based games or modern DirectX 12 titles, the RX 6650M is the clear choice. If the work involves large compute buffers, multi-display output, or FP16-heavy tasks that fit within OpenCL, the Pro WX 9100's memory capacity and compute throughput make it the stronger candidate.

The Verdict

The data supports two distinct profiles. The AMD Radeon RX 6650M is the modern pick for Vulkan-centric workloads, delivering a 42.1% performance advantage over the Pro WX 9100 in that API. It is smaller, denser, and more efficient, with a 7 nm process, 120 W TDP, and ray tracing support. Its 91st percentile average score of 71,768 places it above the Pro WX 9100's 89th percentile and 64,212 average. It wins one benchmark outright and holds its own in the other, losing OpenCL by just 1.2%.

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100 is the compute-focused alternative. It offers 16 GB of HBM2 memory with 483.8 GB/s bandwidth, double the RX 6650M's 8 GB and 224.0 GB/s. Its FP32 and FP16 throughput are roughly 40% higher, and its OpenCL win, while narrow, shows it still has a place in compute pipelines. But its 14 nm process, 230 W TDP, and lack of ray tracing cores make it a product of its 2017 era. The RX 6650M's Vulkan score of 77,735 versus 54,711 is not a close contest—it is a generational leap.

Choose the RX 6650M for modern gaming, Vulkan-based rendering, or any workload that benefits from ray tracing and DirectX 12 Ultimate. Choose the Pro WX 9100 for compute tasks that need massive memory bandwidth, large frame buffers, or multi-display professional output, provided the workload uses OpenCL or tolerates its older API support. The average scores favor the RX 6650M, but the Pro WX 9100's compute and memory specs keep it relevant for specific tasks. Neither card is a universal winner; the right choice depends entirely on which benchmark matches the intended use.