AMD FirePro W2100 vs NVIDIA GeForce 940MX Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA GeForce 940MX outperforms the AMD FirePro W2100 in both recorded tests. In Geekbench OpenCL, the 940MX scores 4939 against 4093 for the W2100, a delta of 20.7 percent. This is a substantial margin, placing the 940MX firmly ahead in compute workloads that leverage OpenCL acceleration. The Vulkan test narrows the gap, with the 940MX scoring 4749 versus 4497, a 5.6 percent advantage. While the lead is smaller, it is still a consistent win for the NVIDIA part.

The average benchmark scores reinforce this picture. The 940MX averages 4844 across its tests, while the W2100 averages 4295. That is a difference of 549 points, or roughly 12.8 percent. The percentile rankings also favor the 940MX: it sits in the 28th percentile among all GPUs, whereas the W2100 lands in the 25th percentile. Neither card is a high performer by modern standards, but within their peer group, the 940MX is clearly the stronger option.

The nearest rivals for each card provide context. The 940MX is bracketed by the GeForce GTX 560M at 4855 (a -0.2 percent delta) and the Radeon R6 M255DX at 4867 (-0.5 percent). The GTS 450 trails slightly at 4893 (-1 percent), while the RTX 3080 12 GB, a far more powerful part, shows a 1.1 percent higher score at 4791. This last entry is notable: the 940MX actually scores higher than a desktop RTX 3080 12 GB in this specific benchmark, though that result likely reflects the nature of the OpenCL test rather than real-world gaming performance.

For the W2100, its nearest rivals cluster tightly. The GeForce GTX 460M scores 4282, a 0.3 percent delta. The Radeon Vega 3 is at 4268 (0.6 percent), the RTX 4070 GDDR6 at 4335 (-0.9 percent), and the Quadro K3000M at 4241 (1.3 percent). The W2100 sits within a 2.2 percent band of all four rivals, indicating that it is a mid-pack performer in its segment. The 940MX, by contrast, has a wider spread among its rivals, but it sits above three of them and only marginally below the fourth.

In head-to-head terms, the 940MX wins both recorded benchmarks. The OpenCL margin of 20.7 percent is decisive, and the Vulkan margin of 5.6 percent, while smaller, still represents a clear victory. The data shows no benchmark where the W2100 takes the lead.

Where Each One Wins

The 940MX wins everywhere the data records a comparison. In OpenCL, its 20.7 percent advantage suggests that compute-heavy tasks, such as GPGPU acceleration in productivity software, will favor the NVIDIA part. The 940MX's higher shading unit count (512 versus 320) and its faster clock speeds contribute to this outcome. Its FP32 throughput of 881.7 GFLOPS is more than double the W2100's 435.2 GFLOPS, which explains the large OpenCL gap.

In Vulkan, the 940MX still leads, but by a narrower 5.6 percent. Vulkan workloads often depend on driver efficiency and memory bandwidth. Here, the 940MX's GDDR5 memory with 40.10 GB/s bandwidth gives it an edge over the W2100's DDR3 memory at 28.80 GB/s. The W2100 does have a wider 128-bit bus versus 64-bit, but the 940MX's faster memory type compensates, resulting in higher effective bandwidth.

The W2100 does not win any recorded benchmark. However, it does have attributes that could matter in specific use cases. Its single-slot form factor and 168 mm length make it a compact option for low-profile workstations. It offers two DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, which is a fixed feature, whereas the 940MX's display outputs are described as "Portable Device Dependent," meaning they vary by laptop design. For a professional workstation needing a stable, small-footprint card with dual DisplayPort connectivity, the W2100 has a niche appeal. But in pure performance terms, the data does not support it.

The 940MX's higher transistor count (1,870 million versus 950 million) and larger die (148 mm² versus 77 mm²) give it more computational resources. Its texture rate of 27.55 GTexel/s is over double the W2100's 13.60 GTexel/s, and its pixel rate of 6.888 GPixel/s exceeds the W2100's 5.440 GPixel/s. These metrics align with the benchmark results: the 940MX is the faster card across the board.

The Verdict

The data points to a single conclusion: the NVIDIA GeForce 940MX is the superior GPU in this comparison. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks, has a higher average score, and sits in a higher percentile among all GPUs. For any application that relies on OpenCL or Vulkan compute, the 940MX delivers better performance.

The 20.7 percent OpenCL lead is the most significant number in this analysis. It indicates that the 940MX is substantially more capable in general-purpose compute workloads. The Vulkan lead of 5.6 percent is smaller but still decisive. If the choice is between these two cards for a system that will run modern graphics APIs or compute tasks, the 940MX is the clear pick.

The W2100 is not without merit. Its single-slot design and dual DisplayPort outputs are advantages for compact workstations that need multiple monitors. Its 26 W TDP is only slightly higher than the 940MX's 23 W, so power consumption is comparable. And its 128-bit memory bus, while paired with slower DDR3, could be beneficial in specific memory-bound scenarios. But no benchmark result supports choosing it over the 940MX for performance reasons.

For users who prioritize compute performance, the 940MX is the only rational choice. For users who need a low-profile, single-slot card with fixed display outputs and are willing to accept lower compute performance, the W2100 might suffice. But the database shows that the 940MX wins both tests, and that is the strongest evidence available.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 940MX has an average score of 4844, while the AMD FirePro W2100 averages 4295.

Q: How much faster is the 940MX in OpenCL?

A: The 940MX scores 4939 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 20.7 percent higher than the W2100's 4093.

Q: Does the W2100 win any benchmark?

A: No. The 940MX wins both recorded tests: Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The 940MX has 512 shading units, while the W2100 has 320.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The 940MX has 40.10 GB/s of bandwidth from its GDDR5 memory, while the W2100 has 28.80 GB/s from DDR3.

Q: Which card has a higher pixel rate?

A: The 940MX has a pixel rate of 6.888 GPixel/s, compared to the W2100's 5.440 GPixel/s.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations. The NVIDIA GeForce 940MX uses the GM107 chip based on the Maxwell architecture, part of the GeForce 900M generation. The AMD FirePro W2100 uses the Oland chip based on GCN 1.0, from the FirePro GCN (Wx100) generation. Both are manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC, but their designs diverge significantly.

The 940MX packs 1,870 million transistors into a 148 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.6 million per mm². The W2100 has 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, with a density of 12.3 million per mm². The 940MX has nearly double the transistor count, which translates into more compute resources. It features 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 8 ROPs. The W2100 has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs.

Clock speeds also differ. The 940MX runs at a base of 795 MHz with a boost of 861 MHz. The W2100 has a lower base of 630 MHz and a boost of 680 MHz. Memory clocks reflect the different memory types: the 940MX's GDDR5 runs at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective), while the W2100's DDR3 runs at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective). The 940MX's memory bandwidth is 40.10 GB/s, and the W2100's is 28.80 GB/s.

The FP32 compute throughput is starkly different: 881.7 GFLOPS for the 940MX versus 435.2 GFLOPS for the W2100. Texture rate is 27.55 GTexel/s versus 13.60 GTexel/s. Pixel rate is 6.888 GPixel/s versus 5.440 GPixel/s. These architectural differences explain the benchmark results.

API support is similar but not identical. Both support DirectX 12 and OpenGL 4.6. The 940MX supports Vulkan 1.4, while the W2100 supports Vulkan 1.2.170. The 940MX's DirectX support is 12 (11_0), and the W2100's is 12 (11_1). The W2100 has a slight edge in DirectX feature level, but the 940MX has a more recent Vulkan version.

Specification Differences

The specification tables show several distinct differences between the two cards.

Chip and architecture: The 940MX uses the GM107 chip (Maxwell), while the W2100 uses Oland (GCN 1.0).

Transistors and die size: The 940MX has 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die. The W2100 has 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die.

Clock speeds: The 940MX has a base clock of 795 MHz and a boost of 861 MHz. The W2100 has a base of 630 MHz and a boost of 680 MHz.

Memory: The 940MX uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus with 40.10 GB/s bandwidth. The W2100 uses 2 GB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus with 28.80 GB/s bandwidth.

Shading units and TMUs: The 940MX has 512 shading units and 32 TMUs. The W2100 has 320 shading units and 20 TMUs. Both have 8 ROPs.

Compute rates: The 940MX delivers 881.7 GFLOPS FP32, 27.55 GTexel/s texture rate, and 6.888 GPixel/s pixel rate. The W2100 delivers 435.2 GFLOPS, 13.60 GTexel/s, and 5.440 GPixel/s.

Power and physical: The 940MX has a 23 W TDP and uses an MXM module form factor. The W2100 has a 26 W TDP and is a single-slot card measuring 168 mm by 69 mm. Neither requires external power connectors. The W2100 suggests a 200 W power supply.

Bus interface: Both use PCIe 3.0 x8.

Display outputs: The 940MX's outputs are portable device dependent, meaning they vary by laptop. The W2100 has fixed 2x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs.

Release dates: The 940MX launched on 2016-06-27, while the W2100 launched earlier on 2014-08-11. Both are end-of-life products. The 940MX's predecessor is the GeForce 800M and its successor is GeForce 10 Mobile. The W2100's predecessor is FirePro Terascale and its successor is Radeon Pro Polaris.