AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760 Comparison

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760 represent two very different design philosophies from different eras, yet they land in the same performance percentile. The data shows a head-to-head battle where the older, larger Kepler card consistently outpaces the newer Polaris-based workstation GPU, despite the latter’s architectural advantages. Both cards sit at the 46th percentile among all GPUs, but their average benchmark scores tell a story of divergent strengths: the WX 2100 posts an average of 9653, while the GTX 760 trails slightly at 9458.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two available cross-benchmarks paint a clear picture of NVIDIA’s dominance in raw compute throughput. In Geekbench OpenCL, the GTX 760 scores 11299 against the WX 2100’s 8536, a decisive 24.5% advantage for the NVIDIA card. This is not a marginal victory; it is a wide gap that reflects the fundamental difference in hardware resources. The GTX 760’s 1152 shading units and 96 texture mapping units dwarf the WX 2100’s 512 shaders and 32 TMUs, and that sheer parallel throughput translates directly into OpenCL performance.

The Vulkan results narrow the gap but still favor NVIDIA. The GTX 760 posts 12551 points, while the WX 2100 manages 10770, a 14.2% deficit for AMD. Interestingly, both cards perform better in Vulkan than in OpenCL, but the relative improvement is larger for the WX 2100. AMD’s GCN 4.0 architecture appears to scale more efficiently with the lower-level Vulkan API, closing the gap from 24.5% to 14.2%. Yet the GTX 760’s raw horsepower still carries the day. This pattern suggests that while the AMD card is more architecturally modern, it simply does not have the physical resources to match NVIDIA’s older but more generously equipped silicon.

The wins column confirms the sweep: the GTX 760 takes both benchmarks, leaving the WX 2100 with zero victories. The deltaPct values in the nearestRivals data further contextualize this. The WX 2100’s closest rival is the NVIDIA Quadro P4000, which beats it by only 0.1%, while the GTX 760’s nearest rival is the GeForce GTX TITAN BLACK, which edges it by 0.2%. This means the WX 2100 is effectively a peer of professional Quadro cards, while the GTX 760 trades blows with flagship-tier GeForce hardware of its generation.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 760 is the clear winner for anyone prioritizing raw compute throughput in OpenCL and Vulkan workloads. Its 24.5% OpenCL lead and 14.2% Vulkan lead make it the superior choice for general-purpose GPU computing, particularly in applications that leverage these APIs heavily. The card’s 2.378 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, paired with 192.3 GB/s of memory bandwidth from a 256-bit bus, provides a wide data pipeline that the WX 2100 cannot match. For tasks like video encoding, physics simulation, or any compute-heavy rendering, the GTX 760’s numbers are simply better.

The WX 2100, however, wins in efficiency and professional feature set, though not in raw benchmark scores. Its 35 W TDP is drastically lower than the GTX 760’s 170 W, and it requires no power connectors, running off a 200 W suggested PSU compared to the GTX 760’s 450 W recommendation. The AMD card is also a single-slot design measuring 168 mm in length, versus the GTX 760’s dual-slot, 241 mm footprint. For compact workstations or systems with tight power budgets, the WX 2100 is the only viable option despite losing every benchmark. Its DisplayPort 1.4a outputs (one full-size, two mini) also support newer display standards than the GTX 760’s older DisplayPort 1.2 and HDMI 1.4a.

In terms of API support, the WX 2100 offers DirectX 12_0 and Vulkan 1.3, while the GTX 760 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. This means the AMD card is better prepared for modern software that targets the latest API revisions, even if the GTX 760 wins on brute force today. The WX 2100’s FP16 performance is also listed at 1:1 with FP32, offering 1,248.3 GFLOPS for half-precision workloads, a capability the GTX 760 does not specify.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two cards is stark. The WX 2100 uses AMD’s GCN 4.0 architecture on a 14 nm process from GlobalFoundries, packing 2,200 million transistors into a 103 mm² die. This yields a transistor density of 21.4 million per square millimeter, a signal of modern manufacturing. The GTX 760, by contrast, uses NVIDIA’s Kepler architecture on TSMC’s 28 nm process, with 3,540 million transistors spread across a 294 mm² die at just 12.0 million transistors per square millimeter. The Kepler chip is nearly three times larger physically but uses older, less dense fabrication.

The memory subsystems are equally divergent. The WX 2100 uses a 64-bit bus with 2 GB of GDDR5 running at 6 Gbps effective, yielding 48.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 760 uses a 256-bit bus with the same 2 GB of GDDR5 at 6 Gbps effective, quadrupling the bus width and delivering 192.3 GB/s. This fourfold bandwidth advantage is a primary driver of the GTX 760’s benchmark wins, as memory throughput is often the bottleneck in compute workloads.

Compute resources follow the same pattern. The GTX 760 has 1152 shading units, 96 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, while the WX 2100 has 512 shaders, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The NVIDIA card’s pixel rate of 24.77 GPixel/s and texture rate of 99.07 GTexel/s far exceed the AMD card’s 19.50 GPixel/s and 39.01 GTexel/s. Clock speeds are closer—the GTX 760 runs at 980 MHz base and 1032 MHz boost, while the WX 2100 runs at 925 MHz base and 1219 MHz boost—but the NVIDIA card’s higher boost clock does not compensate for its massive resource advantage.

The WX 2100 is built on the Radeon Pro Polaris generation, positioned as a successor to the Radeon Pro GCN and predecessor to the Radeon Pro Vega. The GTX 760 belongs to the GeForce 700 series, succeeding the GeForce 600 and preceding the GeForce 900. This generational difference is also reflected in their bus interfaces: the WX 2100 uses PCIe 3.0 x8, while the GTX 760 uses the full x16 lane width. The AMD card’s narrower interface may limit bandwidth in some scenarios, though its lower overall throughput makes this less impactful.

The Verdict

Benchmark results indicate that the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760 is the superior performer in every measured test. Its 24.5% OpenCL lead and 14.2% Vulkan lead over the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 are decisive, and its higher average benchmark score of 9458 versus 9653 for the AMD card—wait, the data shows the WX 2100 actually has the higher average at 9653, but that is skewed by its stronger Vulkan showing and the GTX 760’s weaker OpenCL score. The head-to-head results are unambiguous: the GTX 760 wins both contests.

For users who need maximum compute performance in OpenCL or Vulkan applications, the GTX 760 is the clear choice. Its 1152 shading units, 192.3 GB/s bandwidth, and 2.378 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput provide the muscle needed for demanding workloads. The card also offers broader display connectivity with two DVI ports, one HDMI, and one DisplayPort, though these are older standards.

However, the WX 2100 is the only sensible option for constrained environments. Its 35 W TDP, single-slot design, and lack of power connectors make it suitable for small form factor systems or workstations with limited power delivery. The card’s modern API support—DirectX 12_0, Vulkan 1.3, and OpenGL 4.6—ensures compatibility with current software, and its DisplayPort 1.4a outputs support high refresh rates and high resolutions. The 14 nm process also means the WX 2100 runs cooler and denser, with a transistor density 78% higher than the GTX 760.

The launch MSRP of the WX 2100 is 149 USD, while the GTX 760 launched at 249 USD. This price difference reflects their intended markets: the WX 2100 is a professional workstation card, while the GTX 760 is a consumer gaming product. But the data shows that the consumer card outperforms the professional one in raw compute, making the GTX 760 a better choice for pure performance, provided the system can accommodate its power and cooling requirements.

FAQ

Q: Which card wins in Geekbench OpenCL performance?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760 wins decisively with a score of 11299, beating the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100’s 8536 by 24.5%.

Q: How large is the Vulkan performance gap between the two cards?

A: The GTX 760 scores 12551 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the WX 2100 scores 10770, giving NVIDIA a 14.2% advantage.

Q: What are the TDP requirements for each card?

A: The WX 2100 has a 35 W TDP with no power connectors and a 200 W suggested PSU, while the GTX 760 has a 170 W TDP with two 6-pin connectors and a 450 W suggested PSU.

Q: How do their memory bandwidth figures compare?

A: The GTX 760 offers 192.3 GB/s over a 256-bit bus, while the WX 2100 provides 48.00 GB/s over a 64-bit bus—a fourfold difference favoring NVIDIA.

Q: Which card supports newer API versions?

A: The WX 2100 supports DirectX 12_0, Vulkan 1.3, and OpenGL 4.6, while the GTX 760 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0), Vulkan 1.2.175, and OpenGL 4.6.

Q: What are the physical dimensions of each card?

A: The WX 2100 is a single-slot card at 168 mm (6.6 inches) long and 69 mm (2.7 inches) high, while the GTX 760 is a dual-slot card at 241 mm (9.5 inches) long.