AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100 vs AMD Radeon RX 7900M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data reveals a decisive performance gap between the AMD Radeon RX 7900M and the AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100. Across the two shared benchmark tests, the RX 7900M wins both, with margins that are nothing short of staggering.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the RX 7900M scores 129499, while the Pro WX 9100 manages 66605. That is a delta of 94.4%, meaning the newer mobile GPU nearly doubles the older workstation card’s compute throughput in this API. The gap is not a narrow edge but a generational chasm, and it aligns with the architectural overhaul that separates these two products.

The Vulkan results are even more lopsided. The RX 7900M posts 158760, whereas the Pro WX 9100 reaches only 54711. The delta here is 190.2%, which translates to the RX 7900M delivering roughly three times the Vulkan performance of its rival. For any workload that relies on modern graphics APIs, the data leaves no ambiguity about which GPU dominates.

It is worth remembering the Pro WX 9100 does not have a single benchmark win in this head-to-head comparison. The wins column reads 2 for the RX 7900M and 0 for the Pro WX 9100. While the Pro WX 9100 holds its own against its own nearest rivals, it simply cannot keep pace with the RX 7900M in these particular tests.

The average benchmark scores reinforce this hierarchy. The RX 7900M sits at 97487, while the Pro WX 9100 lands at 64212. That difference, roughly 52% in favor of the RX 7900M, is consistent with the individual test results. Looking at the broader database, the RX 7900M ranks in the 94th percentile among all GPUs, whereas the Pro WX 9100 sits in the 89th percentile. Both are high performers in absolute terms, but the RX 7900M is clearly positioned a tier above.

Architecture Differences

The underlying silicon tells the story of why these two GPUs diverge so sharply. The RX 7900M is built on the Navi 31 chip using the RDNA 3.0 architecture, fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC. It packs 57,700 million transistors into a 529 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 109.1M per mm². In contrast, the Pro WX 9100 uses the Vega 10 chip with the older GCN 5.0 architecture, built on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. That chip contains only 12,500 million transistors on a 495 mm² die, giving it a density of 25.3M per mm².

The process node difference alone is massive: 5 nm versus 14 nm. That allows the RX 7900M to fit more than four times the transistors in nearly the same physical space. The density figures, 109.1M per mm² versus 25.3M per mm², quantify how much more efficient the newer manufacturing process is. This is not a minor refinement; it is a fundamental shift in what is possible on a single die.

Memory technology also diverges. The RX 7900M uses 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256 bit bus, achieving a bandwidth of 576.0 GB/s. The Pro WX 9100 also has 16 GB, but it uses HBM2 on a much wider 2048 bit bus, yet its bandwidth is lower at 483.8 GB/s. The RX 7900M’s narrower bus is compensated by much faster memory clocks: 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) versus 945 MHz (1890 Mbps effective). The result is that the newer card moves data faster despite using a less exotic memory type.

Shader resources also favor the RX 7900M. It has 4608 shading units, 288 texture mapping units, and 192 raster operation units. The Pro WX 9100 counters with 4096 shading units, 256 TMUs, and only 64 ROPs. The ROP disparity is particularly stark, and it shows up in the pixel rates: 401.3 GPixel/s for the RX 7900M versus 96.00 GPixel/s for the Pro WX 9100. Similarly, texture rate is 601.9 GTexel/s versus 384.0 GTexel/s.

Ray tracing is another differentiator. The RX 7900M includes 72 ray tracing cores, while the Pro WX 9100 has none listed. That means the older card cannot accelerate ray-traced workloads in hardware at all, whereas the newer card has dedicated silicon for that purpose. The FP32 compute also reflects the gap: 38.52 TFLOPS for the RX 7900M versus 12.29 TFLOPS for the Pro WX 9100. FP16 follows the same pattern at 77.05 TFLOPS versus 24.58 TFLOPS, both with a 2:1 ratio.

Where Each One Wins

Given the benchmark results, the RX 7900M wins in every measurable category that the database records. In Geekbench OpenCL, it leads by 94.4%, and in Geekbench Vulkan, it leads by 190.2%. For any compute task that runs through OpenCL or Vulkan, the RX 7900M is the clear choice.

The Pro WX 9100 does have its own context, though. Its nearest rivals in the database include the NVIDIA CMP 30HX, AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT LP, AMD Radeon RX 7600M, and AMD Radeon Pro Vega 56, all with average scores within 0.8% of each other. The Pro WX 9100’s average score of 64212 places it just ahead of the CMP 30HX (63842, delta 0.6%) and the RX 9060 XT LP (63830, delta 0.6%). So, among its own peer group, the Pro WX 9100 is competitive, even slightly ahead of some newer mainstream cards.

However, against the RX 7900M, the Pro WX 9100 has no wins to claim. The use case for the Pro WX 9100 would be limited to legacy software that relies on its specific feature set, such as its six mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, which the RX 7900M does not offer in the same way since its display outputs are listed as portable device dependent. For multi-display professional setups that require those specific outputs, the Pro WX 9100 retains a niche advantage.

The RX 7900M, by contrast, is the better choice for any performance-sensitive workload. Its 94th percentile ranking among all GPUs, versus the Pro WX 9100’s 89th percentile, confirms that it sits closer to the top of the performance hierarchy. The RX 7900M also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, whereas the Pro WX 9100 only reaches DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3. For modern gaming or compute applications that leverage the latest API features, the RX 7900M is the only viable option of the two.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every specification field. The RX 7900M uses a 5 nm process at TSMC, while the Pro WX 9100 uses a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. Transistor count is 57,700 million versus 12,500 million, and die size is 529 mm² versus 495 mm². Transistor density is 109.1M per mm² versus 25.3M per mm².

Clock speeds favor the RX 7900M: base clock of 1825 MHz versus 1200 MHz, and boost clock of 2090 MHz versus 1500 MHz. Memory clocks are 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) for the RX 7900M versus 945 MHz (1890 Mbps effective) for the Pro WX 9100. Memory type is GDDR6 for the RX 7900M and HBM2 for the Pro WX 9100, with bus widths of 256 bit and 2048 bit, respectively. Bandwidth is 576.0 GB/s versus 483.8 GB/s.

Shading units are 4608 versus 4096, TMUs are 288 versus 256, and ROPs are 192 versus 64. The RX 7900M has 72 ray tracing cores; the Pro WX 9100 has none. Pixel rate is 401.3 GPixel/s versus 96.00 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 601.9 GTexel/s versus 384.0 GTexel/s. FP32 is 38.52 TFLOPS versus 12.29 TFLOPS, and FP16 is 77.05 TFLOPS versus 24.58 TFLOPS.

TDP differs significantly: 180 W for the RX 7900M versus 230 W for the Pro WX 9100. The RX 7900M is an IGP with no power connectors, while the Pro WX 9100 is dual-slot and requires a 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin connector, with a suggested PSU of 550 W. Bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x16 for the RX 7900M and PCIe 3.0 x16 for the Pro WX 9100.

Display outputs also differ: the RX 7900M is portable device dependent, while the Pro WX 9100 offers 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a. Dimensions are not listed for the RX 7900M, but the Pro WX 9100 measures 267 mm (10.5 inches) in length and 111 mm (4.4 inches) in height.

Production status separates them further: the RX 7900M is active, while the Pro WX 9100 is end-of-life. Release dates are 2023-10-18 for the RX 7900M and 2017-07-09 for the Pro WX 9100. The Pro WX 9100 has a launch MSRP of 1,599 USD. The RX 7900M has no launch MSRP listed.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 7900M has an average benchmark score of 97487, while the AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100 has an average score of 64212.

Q: How large is the performance gap in Vulkan?

A: In Geekbench Vulkan, the RX 7900M scores 158760 versus 54711 for the Pro WX 9100, a delta of 190.2% in favor of the RX 7900M.

Q: Does the Pro WX 9100 support ray tracing?

A: No, the database lists no ray tracing cores for the Pro WX 9100, while the RX 7900M has 72 ray tracing cores.

Q: What memory types do the two GPUs use?

A: The RX 7900M uses 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256 bit bus with 576.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Pro WX 9100 uses 16 GB of HBM2 on a 2048 bit bus with 483.8 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU is more power efficient?

A: The RX 7900M has a TDP of 180 W, while the Pro WX 9100 has a TDP of 230 W, despite the RX 7900M delivering significantly higher performance.

Q: What are the production statuses of these GPUs?

A: The RX 7900M is listed as active, while the Pro WX 9100 is end-of-life.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear conclusion: the AMD Radeon RX 7900M is the superior GPU in nearly every dimension. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks, has higher compute throughput, more memory bandwidth, more ROPs, supports ray tracing, and does all of this at a lower TDP. Its 94th percentile ranking versus the Pro WX 9100’s 89th percentile confirms that it occupies a higher tier in the overall GPU landscape.

The Pro WX 9100 is not without merit. Among its own nearest rivals, it is competitive, edging out the NVIDIA CMP 30HX and AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT LP by 0.6% in average score. It also offers six mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, which could be valuable for specific multi-display professional setups. Its 16 GB of HBM2 memory, while lower bandwidth than the RX 7900M’s GDDR6, is still substantial.

However, for anyone choosing between these two specific cards, the RX 7900M is the pick for performance. The 190.2% lead in Vulkan and 94.4% lead in OpenCL are not marginal advantages; they are transformative differences. The RX 7900M also supports newer API versions, including DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4, ensuring better compatibility with modern software.

The Pro WX 9100’s 230 W TDP and dual-slot form factor make it a heavier, less efficient option, while the RX 7900M operates as an IGP with no power connectors. The RX 7900M is also currently active in production, whereas the Pro WX 9100 is end-of-life, meaning the newer card is more likely to receive ongoing support.

In summary, the RX 7900M wins on raw performance, efficiency, and future-readiness. The Pro WX 9100 retains a narrow niche for users who specifically need its display output configuration, but in every benchmark the database records, the RX 7900M is the clear and decisive winner.