AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 and AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 represent two vastly different design philosophies, separated by a full product generation and aimed at distinct market segments. The data shows that the GTX 1070 holds a decisive performance advantage in the shared benchmark suite, but the WX 2100 counters with a massive efficiency lead. The head-to-head results are stark, with the GTX 1070 delivering 423.7% higher scores in Geekbench OpenCL and 105.4% higher scores in Geekbench Vulkan, yet the WX 2100 draws only a fraction of the power and fits into a far smaller physical footprint. These are not direct competitors in the traditional sense, but rather two endpoints of the GPU spectrum, and the benchmark results quantify the trade-offs each makes.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two available comparison points, both from the Geekbench suite, paint a clear picture of raw compute dominance by the NVIDIA part. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the GTX 1070 scores 44,700, while the WX 2100 manages only 8,536. This translates to a delta of 423.7% in favor of the GTX 1070, meaning the NVIDIA card is over five times faster in this compute workload. The gap narrows somewhat in the Vulkan API test, but remains overwhelming: the GTX 1070 posts 22,121 against the WX 2100’s 10,770, a 105.4% advantage. These are not marginal wins; they are category-level differences, placing the GTX 1070 in a completely different performance tier.

Examining the broader benchmark context reinforces this disparity. The GTX 1070’s average benchmark score across all tested workloads is 9,780, while the WX 2100 averages 9,653. While the averages are surprisingly close, this is misleading due to the limited test coverage of the WX 2100, which only has two recorded benchmark entries. The GTX 1070’s individual results show a wide range, from a low of 48 in Passmark DirectX 12 to a high of 44,700 in Geekbench OpenCL, demonstrating its strength across both synthetic and API-specific tests. The WX 2100’s two scores, 8,536 and 10,770, are tightly clustered, indicating consistent but low-level performance. The GTX 1070’s best single score is roughly 4.2 times higher than the WX 2100’s best, and its worst score is still 2.4 times higher than the WX 2100’s worst.

The percentile rankings offer another angle. The GTX 1070 sits at the 47th percentile of all GPUs, while the WX 2100 is at the 46th percentile. This near-identical percentile placement, despite the massive benchmark deltas, suggests that the WX 2100 is being compared against a different population of cards, likely lower-power professional parts rather than the full consumer spectrum. In terms of nearest rivals, the GTX 1070’s closest competitor is the AMD FirePro W5000, which scores 9,803, a mere 0.2% difference. The WX 2100’s nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M, scoring 9,645, just 0.1% higher. These rival relationships show that the WX 2100 competes with mobile-class GPUs, while the GTX 1070 trades blows with desktop workstation parts from the previous generation.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gulf between the two cards is as wide as the performance gap. The GTX 1070 is built on NVIDIA’s Pascal architecture, specifically the GP104 chip, fabricated on a 16 nm process at TSMC. This chip contains 7,200 million transistors on a 314 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 22.9 million per square millimeter. In contrast, the WX 2100 uses AMD’s GCN 4.0 architecture, implemented in the Lexa chip, built on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. This die is far smaller, at 103 mm², and packs just 2,200 million transistors, resulting in a slightly lower density of 21.4 million per square millimeter. The GTX 1070’s larger, denser chip provides the raw hardware resources for its performance lead.

The compute resources are heavily skewed toward the NVIDIA card. The GTX 1070 features 1,920 shading units, 120 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 64 raster operation pipelines (ROPs). The WX 2100 has only 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs — a quarter of the shading units and TMUs, and a quarter of the ROPs. This translates directly into throughput: the GTX 1070 achieves 6.463 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the WX 2100 manages 1,248.3 GFLOPS (1.248 TFLOPS). The pixel rate tells a similar story, with the GTX 1070 at 107.7 GPixel/s versus the WX 2100’s 19.50 GPixel/s, and the texture rate is 202.0 GTexel/s against 39.01 GTexel/s.

Memory architecture is another key differentiator. The GTX 1070 comes with 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 256.3 GB/s of bandwidth. The WX 2100 has only 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus, yielding 48.00 GB/s. This is a 64-bit versus 256-bit bus width difference, and the bandwidth gap of over 5x is a critical factor in memory-bound workloads. Clock speeds also differ, with the GTX 1070 running at a 1506 MHz base and 1683 MHz boost, while the WX 2100 runs at 925 MHz base and 1219 MHz boost. The FP16 performance is notably asymmetric: the GTX 1070 delivers only 101.0 GFLOPS at a 1:64 ratio, while the WX 2100 delivers 1,248.3 GFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio, making the AMD card far more capable in half-precision compute tasks.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 has an average benchmark score of 9,780, while the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 averages 9,653. Despite the GTX 1070’s higher average, the difference is only 1.3%, and the WX 2100’s average is based on just two benchmark entries.

Q: How much faster is the GTX 1070 in compute workloads?

A: In Geekbench OpenCL, the GTX 1070 scores 44,700 versus the WX 2100’s 8,536, a 423.7% advantage. In Geekbench Vulkan, the GTX 1070 scores 22,121 versus 10,770, a 105.4% advantage.

Q: What are the power consumption requirements for each card?

A: The GTX 1070 has a TDP of 150 W and requires a 450 W power supply, along with a single 8-pin power connector. The WX 2100 has a TDP of 35 W, requires only a 200 W power supply, and has no power connectors, drawing power solely from the PCIe slot.

Q: Which card offers better memory bandwidth?

A: The GTX 1070 offers 256.3 GB/s of memory bandwidth, compared to 48.00 GB/s for the WX 2100. This is a 5.3x difference, driven by the GTX 1070’s 256-bit memory bus versus the WX 2100’s 64-bit bus.

Q: How do the two cards compare in terms of physical size?

A: The GTX 1070 is a dual-slot card, measuring 267 mm in length, 112 mm in height, and 40 mm in width. The WX 2100 is a single-slot card, measuring 168 mm in length and 69 mm in height, with no width specified. The WX 2100 is significantly smaller and slimmer.

Q: What is the transistor count and die size difference?

A: The GTX 1070 contains 7,200 million transistors on a 314 mm² die, while the WX 2100 contains 2,200 million transistors on a 103 mm² die. The GTX 1070’s die is 3.0 times larger and holds 3.3 times more transistors.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 | AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 |

|----------------|-------------------------|-------------------------|

| Architecture | Pascal | GCN 4.0 |

| Chip | GP104 | Lexa |

| Process Node | 16 nm | 14 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | GlobalFoundries |

| Transistors | 7,200 million | 2,200 million |

| Die Size | 314 mm² | 103 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 22.9M / mm² | 21.4M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1506 MHz | 925 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1683 MHz | 1219 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 2002 MHz (8 Gbps effective) | 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 8 GB | 2 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 256.3 GB/s | 48.00 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1920 | 512 |

| TMUs | 120 | 32 |

| ROPs | 64 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 107.7 GPixel/s | 19.50 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 202.0 GTexel/s | 39.01 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 6.463 TFLOPS | 1,248.3 GFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 101.0 GFLOPS (1:64) | 1,248.3 GFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 150 W | 35 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | Single-slot |

| Power Connectors | 1x 8-pin | None |

| Suggested PSU | 450 W | 200 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |

| Display Outputs | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a | 1x DisplayPort 1.4a, 2x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a |

| DirectX Support | 12 (12_1) | 12 (12_0) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.4 | 1.3 |

| Length | 267 mm (10.5 inches) | 168 mm (6.6 inches) |

| Height | 112 mm (4.4 inches) | 69 mm (2.7 inches) |

| Width | 40 mm (1.6 inches) | Not specified |

| Release Date | 2016-06-09 | 2017-06-03 |

| Launch MSRP | 379 USD | 149 USD |

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 wins decisively in every measured performance category. The data shows a 423.7% lead in Geekbench OpenCL and a 105.4% lead in Geekbench Vulkan, with corresponding advantages in pixel rate, texture rate, and memory bandwidth. It is the clear choice for any workload that demands raw graphics or compute throughput, such as high-resolution gaming, 3D rendering, or GPU-accelerated scientific computing. Its 8 GB of memory and 256-bit bus make it suitable for large datasets and high-resolution textures, and its 6.463 TFLOPS FP32 performance places it in a completely different league from the WX 2100. The GTX 1070 also wins on expansion capability, using a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface versus the WX 2100’s x8, and offers more display outputs, including a DVI port and three DisplayPort 1.4a connections.

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 wins on efficiency, physical footprint, and half-precision compute. Its TDP of 35 W is less than a quarter of the GTX 1070’s 150 W, and it requires no auxiliary power connectors, making it ideal for compact or low-power systems. Its single-slot design and shorter length (168 mm versus 267 mm) allow it to fit into space-constrained chassis where the dual-slot GTX 1070 would not. The WX 2100 also holds a significant advantage in FP16 performance, delivering 1,248.3 GFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio, compared to the GTX 1070’s 101.0 GFLOPS at a 1:64 ratio. This makes the WX 2100 a better fit for workloads that leverage half-precision arithmetic, such as certain machine learning inference tasks or image processing pipelines. Its launch MSRP of 149 USD, versus 379 USD for the GTX 1070, reflects its positioning as a low-cost, low-power professional solution. For users prioritizing minimal power draw, silent operation, or a tiny form factor, the WX 2100 is the superior choice, despite its massive performance deficit.