AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data leaves no ambiguity about which of these two GPUs is faster. In the two shared benchmark tests, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 wins both, and the margins are extreme. In Geekbench OpenCL, the GTX 1660 scores 47,850 against the Radeon Pro WX 2100's 8,536, a delta of 460.6%. That is not a narrow edge; it is a fundamental gap in compute throughput. The Vulkan test tells the same story, with the GTX 1660 posting 50,137 versus 10,770 for the WX 2100, a 365.5% advantage.

Context matters here. The GTX 1660 sits at the 51st percentile among all GPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 11,680. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT, which averages 11,627 (0.5% behind), and the AMD Radeon Pro 5500M at 11,528 (1.3% behind). The GTX 1660 also edges out the NVIDIA Tesla K20c, which scores 11,479, a 1.8% deficit. Meanwhile, the Radeon Pro WX 2100 sits at the 46th percentile with an average score of 9,653. Its closest competitor is the NVIDIA Quadro P4000 at 9,665 (0.1% ahead), and it trails the NVIDIA Tesla C2070 by 0.6% (9,716). The WX 2100 is clustered with mobile and older workstation parts, while the GTX 1660 competes with modern mid-range desktop cards.

The head-to-head deltas are so large that they dwarf even the widest gaps among the rivals. The GTX 1660's OpenCL score is more than five times the WX 2100's, and its Vulkan result is nearly five times higher. For any workload that relies on these APIs, the choice is clear. The WX 2100 does not have a single benchmark where it closes the gap, let alone takes the lead. The win tally is 2–0 in favor of the GTX 1660.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different design philosophies and process generations. The GTX 1660 uses the TU116 chip, built on TSMC's 12 nm process. It packs 6,600 million transistors into a 284 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 23.2 million per square millimeter. The Radeon Pro WX 2100 uses the Lexa chip, fabricated by GlobalFoundries on a 14 nm node. It contains 2,200 million transistors on a 103 mm² die, with a density of 21.4 million per square millimeter. The GTX 1660 is the denser and larger chip, which foreshadows its performance advantage.

Architecturally, the GTX 1660 is Turing, while the WX 2100 is GCN 4.0. Neither card has ray tracing cores or tensor cores, so that feature set is a non-issue. The GTX 1660 belongs to the GeForce 16 generation, a Turing variant without the RT and Tensor hardware. The WX 2100 is part of the Radeon Pro Polaris family under the WX x100 series. The GTX 1660's predecessor is the GeForce 10 series, and its successor is GeForce 20. The WX 2100 follows Radeon Pro GCN and is succeeded by Radeon Pro Vega.

The compute resources are starkly different. The GTX 1660 has 1,408 shading units, 88 texture mapping units, and 48 raster output pipelines. The WX 2100 has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. That is roughly 2.75 times more shaders, 2.75 times more TMUs, and 3 times more ROPs in the GTX 1660's favor. Pixel rate for the GTX 1660 is 85.68 GPixel/s versus 19.50 GPixel/s for the WX 2100. Texture rate is 157.1 GTexel/s versus 39.01 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput is 5.027 TFLOPS against 1,248.3 GFLOPS (1.248 TFLOPS). The GTX 1660 also offers FP16 at 10.05 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, while the WX 2100's FP16 is the same as its FP32 (1,248.3 GFLOPS, 1:1).

Memory configurations reinforce the gap. The GTX 1660 has 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus, delivering 192.1 GB/s of bandwidth. The WX 2100 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus, with 48.00 GB/s. The GTX 1660 offers four times the capacity and four times the bandwidth. Clock speeds also differ: the GTX 1660 runs at a base of 1530 MHz and boosts to 1785 MHz, while the WX 2100 is at 925 MHz base and 1219 MHz boost. Memory clocks are 2001 MHz (8 Gbps effective) versus 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective).

The GTX 1660 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The WX 2100 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. Both are end-of-life products, but the GTX 1660 launched on 2019-03-13, while the WX 2100 launched on 2017-06-03. The GTX 1660 is a dual-slot card, 229 mm long, 111 mm tall, and 35 mm wide, requiring a single 8-pin power connector and a 300 W suggested PSU. The WX 2100 is a single-slot card, 168 mm long and 69 mm tall, with no power connectors and a 200 W suggested PSU. The GTX 1660 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the WX 2100 uses PCIe 3.0 x8.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in compute benchmarks?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 wins both shared tests. In Geekbench OpenCL it scores 47,850 versus 8,536 for the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100, a 460.6% advantage. In Geekbench Vulkan it scores 50,137 versus 10,770, a 365.5% lead.

Q: What are the memory differences between the two cards?

A: The GTX 1660 has 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus with 192.1 GB/s bandwidth. The WX 2100 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus with 48.00 GB/s. The GTX 1660 has four times the capacity and four times the bandwidth.

Q: How do their power requirements compare?

A: The GTX 1660 has a TDP of 120 W, uses a dual-slot cooler, and requires one 8-pin power connector with a suggested PSU of 300 W. The WX 2100 has a TDP of 35 W, is a single-slot card, needs no power connectors, and has a suggested PSU of 200 W.

Q: Do either of these cards support ray tracing or tensor cores?

A: No. Both the GTX 1660 (Turing) and the WX 2100 (GCN 4.0) list no ray tracing cores and no tensor cores in the database.

Q: What API levels do they support?

A: The GTX 1660 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The WX 2100 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3.

Q: What is the release timeline for these products?

A: The WX 2100 launched on 2017-06-03, while the GTX 1660 launched on 2019-03-13. Both are marked as end-of-life in the database.

The Verdict

The data does not support a balanced recommendation. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 is the superior performer in every measurable way. Its average benchmark score is 11,680 against 9,653 for the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100. It sits at the 51st percentile among all GPUs, while the WX 2100 is at the 46th percentile. In the two tests they share, the GTX 1660 is 460.6% ahead in OpenCL and 365.5% ahead in Vulkan. Those are not competitive margins; they are generational leaps.

The WX 2100 has some redeeming characteristics for specific use cases. It is a much smaller card: single-slot, 168 mm long, 69 mm tall, with no power connectors and a 35 W TDP. The GTX 1660 is dual-slot, 229 mm long, 111 mm tall, and draws 120 W. For a system with strict space and power limits, the WX 2100 is the only sensible option. It also offers three DisplayPort outputs (1x full-size and 2x mini), while the GTX 1660 has one DVI, one HDMI 2.0, and one DisplayPort 1.4a. The WX 2100's PCIe 3.0 x8 interface is half the width of the GTX 1660's x16, which may matter in bandwidth-constrained environments.

However, the performance gap is so large that any compute-focused workload will favor the GTX 1660 overwhelmingly. The GTX 1660's nearest rivals, such as the AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT (0.5% behind) and the AMD Radeon Pro 5500M (1.3% behind), indicate it competes in a much higher tier. The WX 2100's rivals, including the NVIDIA Quadro P4000 (0.1% ahead) and the NVIDIA Tesla C2070 (0.6% ahead), show it is anchored to older or lower-end hardware. If the choice is between these two for any task that uses OpenCL or Vulkan, the GTX 1660 is the clear pick. The WX 2100 only makes sense when its physical footprint and power draw are the deciding constraints.

Specification Differences

| Field | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 | AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 |

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

| Chip | TU116 | Lexa |

| Architecture | Turing | GCN 4.0 |

| Generation | GeForce 16 | Radeon Pro Polaris (WX x100) |

| Process node | 12 nm | 14 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | GlobalFoundries |

| Transistors | 6,600 million | 2,200 million |

| Die size | 284 mm² | 103 mm² |

| Transistor density | 23.2M / mm² | 21.4M / mm² |

| Base clock | 1530 MHz | 925 MHz |

| Boost clock | 1785 MHz | 1219 MHz |

| Memory clock | 2001 MHz (8 Gbps effective) | 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective) |

| Memory size | 6 GB | 2 GB |

| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |

| Memory bus width | 192 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory bandwidth | 192.1 GB/s | 48.00 GB/s |

| Shading units | 1408 | 512 |

| TMUs | 88 | 32 |

| ROPs | 48 | 16 |

| Pixel rate | 85.68 GPixel/s | 19.50 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 157.1 GTexel/s | 39.01 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 5.027 TFLOPS | 1,248.3 GFLOPS |

| FP16 | 10.05 TFLOPS (2:1) | 1,248.3 GFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 120 W | 35 W |

| Slot width | Dual-slot | Single-slot |

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

| Suggested PSU | 300 W | 200 W |

| Bus interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |

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

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

| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.3 |

| Length | 229 mm (9 inches) | 168 mm (6.6 inches) |

| Height | 111 mm (4.4 inches) | 69 mm (2.7 inches) |

| Width | 35 mm (1.4 inches) | Not specified |

| Release date | 2019-03-13 | 2017-06-03 |

| Predecessor | GeForce 10 | Radeon Pro GCN |

| Successor | GeForce 20 | Radeon Pro Vega |

| Launch MSRP | 219 USD | 149 USD |

| Average benchmark score | 11,680 | 9,653 |

| Percentile vs all GPUs | 51 | 46 |