AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100 vs NVIDIA RTX A2000 Comparison

The Verdict

The data presents two very different workstation cards separated by four years of architecture evolution. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100 is a 2017-era flagship built around a massive 12,500 million transistor Vega 10 die, while the NVIDIA RTX A2000 is a 2021 compact card using the GA106 chip with 12,000 million transistors. The average benchmark scores tell a complex story: the WX 9100 posts an avgBenchmarkScore of 64212, placing in the 89th percentile of all GPUs, while the RTX A2000 records 46043, sitting in the 85th percentile. That raw average gap of 39.5% favors the AMD card, but the head-to-head results show the NVIDIA card winning both shared tests, which indicates the average is heavily influenced by the WX 9100's Metal score of 71319, a test the A2000 does not appear in.

For raw compute throughput, the WX 9100 is the clear choice. Its 12.29 TFLOPS FP32 and 24.58 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1) dwarf the A2000's 7.987 TFLOPS in both precisions. The AMD card also carries 16 GB of HBM2 memory on a 2048-bit bus delivering 483.8 GB/s, versus 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus at 288.0 GB/s. If your workloads are memory-bandwidth bound or require large datasets that fit in VRAM, the WX 9100 is the only option here.

However, the RTX A2000 wins on architectural features and efficiency. It includes 26 RT cores and 104 tensor cores, neither of which exist on the WX 9100. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while the AMD card tops out at DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3. The A2000 also draws a mere 70 W TDP compared to 230 W, requires no power connectors, and fits in a 167 mm length versus 267 mm. For compact workstations, multi-GPU builds, or any environment where power and space matter, the A2000 is the sensible pick. Choose the WX 9100 for maximum FP32 compute and memory capacity; choose the RTX A2000 for modern API support, ray tracing, tensor acceleration, and minimal power draw.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100 has an avgBenchmarkScore of 64212, which is 39.5% higher than the NVIDIA RTX A2000's 46043. The WX 9100 also sits in the 89th percentile of all GPUs, while the A2000 is in the 85th percentile.

Q: How do the two cards compare in the shared OpenCL and Vulkan tests?

A: In Geekbench OpenCL, the RTX A2000 scores 67695 versus the WX 9100's 66605, a 1.6% difference in NVIDIA's favor. In Geekbench Vulkan, the gap is much larger: the A2000 scores 69089 versus 54711, a 20.8% advantage for NVIDIA.

Q: Does the RTX A2000 support ray tracing?

A: Yes, the RTX A2000 includes 26 RT cores and 104 tensor cores, and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2). The AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100 has no RT or tensor cores and is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1).

Q: Which card offers more memory bandwidth?

A: The WX 9100 offers 483.8 GB/s of bandwidth from 16 GB of HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus. The RTX A2000 provides 288.0 GB/s from 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus. The AMD card has 68% more bandwidth and 10 GB more memory capacity.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The WX 9100 has a 230 W TDP and requires a 550 W suggested PSU with 1x 6-pin and 1x 8-pin connectors. The RTX A2000 has a 70 W TDP, needs only a 250 W suggested PSU, and uses no power connectors at all.

Q: Which card is physically smaller?

A: The RTX A2000 is 167 mm long and 69 mm high, while the WX 9100 is 267 mm long and 111 mm high. Both are dual-slot cards, but the NVIDIA card is substantially more compact.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100 is built on GCN 5.0 architecture using the Vega 10 chip, fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The die measures 495 mm² and packs 12,500 million transistors, yielding a transistor density of 25.3 million per mm². The NVIDIA RTX A2000 uses the Ampere architecture with the GA106 chip, manufactured on an 8 nm process at Samsung. Its die is 276 mm² with 12,000 million transistors, resulting in a density of 43.5 million per mm². The A2000 achieves 72% higher transistor density on a die that is 44% smaller.

The compute layouts differ dramatically. The WX 9100 has 4096 shading units, 256 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The RTX A2000 has 3328 shading units, 104 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. The AMD card has 23% more shaders, 146% more TMUs, and 33% more ROPs. However, the A2000 adds 26 RT cores and 104 tensor cores, which have no equivalent on the Vega-based AMD card. This means the NVIDIA card can accelerate ray tracing and AI/deep learning workloads, while the AMD card is purely a raster and compute device.

Memory architecture is another fundamental split. The WX 9100 uses HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus, while the A2000 uses GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus. The API support also diverges: the AMD card lists DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3, whereas the NVIDIA card supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The A2000's newer API baseline reflects its Ampere generation and enables features like mesh shaders and other DX12 Ultimate capabilities that the WX 9100 cannot access.

Specification Differences

The recorded data shows the following differences between the two cards. The WX 9100 uses a 14 nm process from GlobalFoundries; the A2000 uses an 8 nm process from Samsung. The WX 9100's die is 495 mm² with 12,500 million transistors; the A2000's die is 276 mm² with 12,000 million transistors. Transistor density is 25.3M per mm² versus 43.5M per mm². The WX 9100 has base and boost clocks of 1200 MHz and 1500 MHz; the A2000 has 562 MHz base and 1200 MHz boost. Memory clocks are 945 MHz (1890 Mbps effective) on the AMD card versus 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) on the NVIDIA card.

Memory capacity is 16 GB of HBM2 versus 6 GB of GDDR6. Bus width is 2048 bit versus 192 bit. Bandwidth is 483.8 GB/s versus 288.0 GB/s. The WX 9100 has 4096 shading units, 256 TMUs, and 64 ROPs; the A2000 has 3328 shading units, 104 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. The A2000 uniquely has 26 RT cores and 104 tensor cores. Pixel rate is 96.00 GPixel/s versus 57.60 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 384.0 GTexel/s versus 124.8 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 12.29 TFLOPS versus 7.987 TFLOPS. FP16 is 24.58 TFLOPS (2:1) versus 7.987 TFLOPS (1:1).

Power and physical specs differ sharply: TDP is 230 W versus 70 W. The WX 9100 needs 1x 6-pin and 1x 8-pin power connectors; the A2000 requires none. Suggested PSU is 550 W versus 250 W. The WX 9100 is 267 mm long and 111 mm high; the A2000 is 167 mm long and 69 mm high. Display outputs are 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a versus 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a. Bus interface is PCIe 3.0 x16 versus PCIe 4.0 x16. Release dates are July 2017 for the AMD card and August 2021 for the NVIDIA card. The launch MSRP for the WX 9100 was 1,599 USD, while the A2000 launched at 449 USD.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data contains two shared tests, and the NVIDIA RTX A2000 wins both. In Geekbench OpenCL, the A2000 scores 67695 against the WX 9100's 66605, a 1.6% difference. This is a narrow margin, but it is consistent across the two runs. In Geekbench Vulkan, the A2000 scores 69089 against 54711, a 20.8% advantage. That is a substantial gap, and it suggests the Ampere architecture has significantly stronger Vulkan driver optimization or hardware efficiency than the older GCN 5.0 implementation.

The WX 9100's overall average is propped up by its Geekbench Metal score of 71319, which is its strongest recorded result and higher than any score the A2000 has in the database. However, the A2000 does not have a Metal benchmark listed, so a direct comparison on that API is impossible from the data. The WX 9100 also posts a Geekbench Vulkan score of 54711, which is its weakest result, while its OpenCL score of 66605 is close to the A2000's OpenCL number.

Looking at the nearest rival data provides context. The WX 9100's closest competitors by average score are the NVIDIA CMP 30HX at 63842 (0.6% behind), the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT LP at 63830 (0.6% behind), and the AMD Radeon RX 7600M at 63775 (0.7% behind). The RTX A2000's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA RTX 5880 Ada Generation at 45972 (0.2% behind), the Intel Arc A730M at 45592 (1% behind), and the AMD Radeon RX 5600M at 46601 (1.2% ahead). This shows that the WX 9100 sits in a performance tier roughly 39% higher than the A2000 based on average scores, but the A2000's modern architecture narrows or reverses that gap in specific API tests.

The wins tally is 0 for the AMD card and 2 for the NVIDIA card across the head-to-head tests. The Vulkan result is particularly striking: the A2000 outperforms the WX 9100 by more than a fifth despite having 18.7% fewer shading units, 59.4% fewer TMUs, and 25% fewer ROPs. The A2000 also has roughly one-third the FP32 throughput of the WX 9100, yet it wins both compute-oriented benchmarks. This indicates that architectural efficiency, driver maturity, and newer API support can overcome raw hardware specifications. The OpenCL margin is small enough to be considered a statistical tie, but the Vulkan margin is decisive. For buyers weighing these two cards, the choice comes down to whether raw throughput and memory capacity matter more than modern feature support and efficiency. The data shows the WX 9100 wins the specification sheet, but the A2000 wins the actual recorded compute tests.