AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M and the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 occupy very different corners of the GPU landscape, yet the recorded database results place them within reach of each other in overall standing. The GTX 780M sits at the 50th percentile of all GPUs in the database with an average benchmark score of 11261, while the WX 2100 lands at the 46th percentile with an average of 9653. Both are end-of-life products, but the head-to-head data tells a story of a mobile flagship from NVIDIA's Kepler era comfortably outpacing a low-profile professional card from AMD's Polaris generation. What follows is a step-by-step walk through the measurements.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Only two tests appear in both records, and the NVIDIA card wins both.

The OpenCL result is the widest gap. The GTX 780M scored 12769 in Geekbench OpenCL against 8536 for the WX 2100, a margin of 49.6 percent in NVIDIA's favor. That is not a close contest: it reflects the raw compute hardware difference, since the GTX 780M carries 1536 shading units and 2.448 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput, while the WX 2100 offers 512 shading units and 1248.3 GFLOPS. The OpenCL workload rewards exactly the kind of parallel width the Kepler part has in surplus.

The Vulkan test narrows the gap but does not close it. Here the GTX 780M recorded 12696 and the WX 2100 answered with 10770, a 17.9 percent advantage for NVIDIA. The smaller spread suggests the WX 2100's more modern GCN 4.0 architecture and newer API support (Vulkan 1.3 versus 1.2.175) extract more relative performance from graphically oriented workloads than from raw compute.

The GTX 780M also holds a Geekbench Metal score of 8319 in its record, a test the WX 2100 does not appear in, so no direct comparison is possible there. Across the shared tests the tally is two wins for the GTX 780M and zero for the WX 2100.

Context from the surrounding database reinforces the gap. The GTX 780M's average score of 11261 puts it within 0.3 percent of the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 (11228) and the AMD FirePro W4300 (11225), and 1.6 percent ahead of the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q variants (11088). The WX 2100's average of 9653 clusters it against the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M (9645, 0.1 percent apart), the NVIDIA Quadro P4000 (9665, 0.1 percent behind), the NVIDIA Quadro K5000 (9637, 0.2 percent behind), and the NVIDIA Tesla C2070 (9716, 0.6 percent ahead).

Architecture Differences

These two cards approach graphics from opposite directions. The GTX 780M is built on the GK104 chip, Kepler architecture, part of the GeForce 700M generation, fabricated on TSMC's 28 nm process with 3540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, giving a density of 12.0M transistors per mm². The WX 2100 uses the Lexa chip, GCN 4.0 architecture from the Radeon Pro Polaris (WX x100) line, built on GlobalFoundries' 14 nm node with 2200 million transistors on a much smaller 103 mm² die and a higher density of 21.4M per mm².

The NVIDIA part compensates for the older node with sheer scale. Its 1536 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 32 ROPs triple the WX 2100's 512 shading units and quadruple its 32 TMUs; the ROP count is doubled at 32 versus 16. That scale shows in throughput: 25.50 GPixel/s and 102.0 GTexel/s for the GTX 780M against 19.50 GPixel/s and 39.01 GTexel/s for the WX 2100.

Clocks run in the opposite direction. The WX 2100 boosts from a 925 MHz base to 1219 MHz, comfortably above the GTX 780M's 771 MHz base and 797 MHz boost. Memory also favors the AMD card in frequency, 1500 MHz and 6 Gbps effective versus 1250 MHz and 5 Gbps effective, but the bus kills that advantage. The GTX 780M pairs a 256-bit bus with 4 GB of GDDR5 for 160.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The WX 2100's 64-bit bus with 2 GB of GDDR5 yields just 48.00 GB/s, less than a third of the NVIDIA figure, and half the capacity.

One genuine advantage on the AMD side is FP16 support: the WX 2100 matches its FP16 rate to FP16 1:1 at 1248.3 GFLOPS, while the GTX 780M record lists no FP16 figure at all. Both predate dedicated ray tracing and tensor hardware, so neither lists RT cores or tensor cores.

API support favors the newer card. The WX 2100 covers DirectX 12 at feature level 12_0, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The GTX 780M covers DirectX 12 at feature level 11_0, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. Neither card is missing modern API entry points entirely, but the WX 2100 reaches a higher feature tier.

Platform integration differs sharply. The GTX 780M is an MXM module on an MXM-B (3.0) interface with a 122 W TDP, portable-device-dependent display outputs, and no power connectors. The WX 2100 is a single-slot desktop card on PCIe 3.0 x8 with a 35 W TDP, no power connectors, a suggested 200 W power supply, and three outputs: one DisplayPort 1.4a and two mini-DisplayPort 1.4a. Its compact 168 mm by 69 mm dimensions reinforce its low-profile desktop orientation.

Release timing also matters: the GTX 780M arrived on 2013-05-10 as part of the GeForce line between the 600M and 800M generations, while the WX 2100 launched on 2017-06-03 as a workstation product between the Radeon Pro GCN and Radeon Pro Vega lines. The WX 2100 carried a launch MSRP of 149 USD; the GTX 780M record lists no MSRP figure.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in the shared benchmarks?

A: The GTX 780M wins both shared tests: Geekbench OpenCL by 49.6 percent (12769 versus 8536) and Geekbench Vulkan by 17.9 percent (12696 versus 10770).

Q: How do their overall database standings compare?

A: The GTX 780M averages 11261 and sits at the 50th percentile of all GPUs; the WX 2100 averages 9653 at the 46th percentile.

Q: Which card has more memory bandwidth and capacity?

A: The GTX 780M, with 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus delivering 160.0 GB/s. The WX 2100 has 2 GB on a 64-bit bus delivering 48.00 GB/s.

Q: Which one draws less power?

A: The WX 2100, with a 35 W TDP versus 122 W for the GTX 780M. The WX 2100 also lists a suggested 200 W power supply.

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

A: No. Neither record lists RT cores or tensor cores; both predate that hardware.

Q: Which card supports the newer graphics APIs?

A: The WX 2100, with DirectX 12 feature level 12_0 and Vulkan 1.3, versus feature level 11_0 and Vulkan 1.2.175 on the GTX 780M. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

The Verdict

The data points to the GTX 780M for anyone prioritizing raw performance. It wins every shared benchmark, delivers roughly double the theoretical FP32 compute (2.448 TFLOPS versus 1248.3 GFLOPS), and triples the memory bandwidth. If compute throughput, texture fill rate, or memory capacity matter, it is the clear pick on the numbers.

The WX 2100 argues for itself on efficiency and form factor. Its 35 W TDP is less than a third of the GTX 780M's 122 W, it fits a single-slot desktop chassis with modest dimensions, needs no auxiliary power, and offers newer API support with a higher DirectX feature level plus full-rate FP16. For a compact professional workstation where DisplayPort 1.4a outputs and low power draw outweigh benchmark scores, it is the rational choice.

Note also that these are not direct market competitors: one is an MXM mobile module, the other a single-slot desktop card. In practice the choice may be dictated by the platform, not the benchmarks.

Specification Differences

• Manufacturer: NVIDIA versus AMD
• Chip: GK104 versus Lexa
• Architecture: Kepler versus GCN 4.0
• Generation: GeForce 700M versus Radeon Pro Polaris (WX x100)
• Process node: 28 nm (TSMC) versus 14 nm (GlobalFoundries)
• Transistors: 3540 million versus 2200 million
• Die size: 294 mm² versus 103 mm²
• Transistor density: 12.0M/mm² versus 21.4M/mm²
• Base clock: 771 MHz versus 925 MHz
• Boost clock: 797 MHz versus 1219 MHz
• Memory size: 4 GB versus 2 GB
• Memory speed: 1250 MHz, 5 Gbps effective versus 1500 MHz, 6 Gbps effective
• Bus width: 256 bit versus 64 bit
• Bandwidth: 160.0 GB/s versus 48.00 GB/s
• Shading units: 1536 versus 512
• TMUs: 128 versus 32
• ROPs: 32 versus 16
• Pixel rate: 25.50 GPixel/s versus 19.50 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 102.0 GTexel/s versus 39.01 GTexel/s
• FP32: 2.448 TFLOPS versus 1248.3 GFLOPS
• FP16: not listed versus 1248.3 GFLOPS (1:1)
• TDP: 122 W versus 35 W
• Slot width: MXM Module versus Single-slot
• Suggested PSU: not listed versus 200 W
• Bus interface: MXM-B (3.0) versus PCIe 3.0 x8
• Display outputs: portable device dependent versus 1x DisplayPort 1.4a and 2x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a
• DirectX: 12 (11_0) versus 12 (12_0)
• Vulkan: 1.2.175 versus 1.3
• Release date: 2013-05-10 versus 2017-06-03
• Predecessor: GeForce 600M versus Radeon Pro GCN
• Successor: GeForce 800M versus Radeon Pro Vega
• Launch MSRP: not listed versus 149 USD

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 780M wins wherever parallel throughput dominates. Its 49.6 percent OpenCL lead maps directly to its shading unit and FP32 advantages, so general-purpose GPU compute workloads favor it decisively. Its Vulkan win of 17.9 percent, backed by 102.0 GTexel/s of texture fill and 160.0 GB/s of bandwidth, makes it the stronger choice for graphics workloads that push large textures or high resolutions. The 4 GB frame buffer also doubles the WX 2100's capacity, relevant whenever datasets or scenes exceed 2 GB.

The WX 2100 wins on platform fit rather than benchmark scores. Its power envelope of 35 W suits tight thermal budgets, and its single-slot, compact desktop format with three DisplayPort 1.4a-class outputs suits multi-monitor professional setups where a modern feature level (DirectX 12_0) and Vulkan 1.3 support matter more than raw speed. Its GCN 4.0 FP16 capability at full rate can also benefit workloads that use half-precision data.

On the recorded evidence, the performance ledger belongs entirely to the GTX 780M, two wins to zero, while the WX 2100's case rests on efficiency, modern API support, and its desktop workstation form factor.