AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A and the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 are both end-of-life mobile and professional graphics solutions that occupy a similar performance tier, yet they are built on fundamentally different philosophies. The GTX 950A is a consumer-oriented MXM module from the GeForce 900A generation, while the WX 2100 is a professional single-slot card from AMD's Radeon Pro Polaris lineup. Benchmark data from the FACT PACK shows that while the NVIDIA card wins the single available head-to-head test, the AMD card offers distinct advantages in API support and a significantly different feature set. The data indicates that these are not direct substitutes; rather, each card is optimized for a specific workload environment, making the choice highly dependent on the user's software ecosystem and performance priorities.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A is the clear winner in raw compute performance based on the available data. In the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark, it scores 10273 points, which is 20.3% higher than the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100's score of 8536. This advantage is also reflected in its theoretical specifications: the GTX 950A delivers 1,438.7 GFLOPS of FP32 compute power versus 1,248.3 GFLOPS for the AMD card, a difference of roughly 15%. The NVIDIA card also has a higher texture fill rate at 44.96 GTexel/s compared to 39.01 GTexel/s for the AMD card. For users running compute-heavy applications that leverage OpenCL, such as certain rendering engines or GPU-accelerated analysis tools, the GTX 950A is the more capable performer. Its 48th percentile ranking among all GPUs also places it slightly above the AMD card's 46th percentile, reinforcing its edge in overall benchmark standing.

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 wins in areas that are not directly measured by the single OpenCL test but are critical for professional use. Most notably, it offers a more modern and complete API feature set. It supports DirectX 12 (12_0), whereas the GTX 950A only supports DirectX 12 (11_0). This means the AMD card is fully compliant with the latest DirectX 12 feature level, making it more future-proof for newer applications that require these features. Additionally, the WX 2100 has a significantly higher memory bandwidth of 48.00 GB/s compared to the GTX 950A's 32.03 GB/s, despite having a narrower 64-bit memory bus. This is due to its use of faster GDDR5 memory operating at 6 Gbps effective, versus the NVIDIA card's slower DDR3 memory at 2 Gbps effective. While this bandwidth advantage does not translate into a win in the OpenCL benchmark, it is a crucial specification for texture-heavy workloads or tasks that frequently access large datasets in VRAM. Furthermore, the WX 2100 is a professional Radeon Pro card, which typically includes validated drivers for professional ISV applications, a factor that cannot be quantified by raw benchmark scores but is a significant consideration for workstation users.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A is faster, scoring 10273 points compared to the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100's 8536 points. This represents a 20.3% performance advantage for the NVIDIA card.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 have any performance advantage over the GTX 950A?

A: While it loses in raw compute, the AMD card has a higher memory bandwidth at 48.00 GB/s versus 32.03 GB/s for the NVIDIA card. It also has a higher pixel rate at 19.50 GPixel/s versus 17.98 GPixel/s, which suggests a potential advantage in certain fill-rate-bound scenarios.

Q: What are the API support differences between these two cards?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.4. The AMD card has a higher DirectX 12 feature level, while the NVIDIA card has a newer Vulkan version.

Q: How do these cards compare in terms of power consumption?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 has a much lower TDP of 35 W, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A has a TDP of 75 W. The AMD card also suggests a 200 W power supply, whereas the NVIDIA card does not list a suggested PSU.

Q: What form factors do these two cards use?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A is an MXM Module with an MXM-B (3.0) interface. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 is a Single-slot card with a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface and physical dimensions of 168 mm in length and 69 mm in height.

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score across all its listed tests?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A has an average benchmark score of 10273, while the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 has an average of 9653. The NVIDIA card's average is based on a single OpenCL test, whereas the AMD card's average includes both OpenCL and Vulkan scores.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available in the data is the Geekbench OpenCL test. In this test, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A decisively outperforms the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100. The NVIDIA card scores 10273 points, while the AMD card scores 8536 points. This yields a delta of 20.3% in favor of the GTX 950A. This is a substantial performance gap that suggests the NVIDIA card is significantly more efficient at executing the parallel compute workloads that OpenCL benchmarks represent.

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 has a second benchmark result, a Geekbench Vulkan score of 10770, which is not directly comparable to the NVIDIA card's OpenCL score. However, this Vulkan score is notably higher than its own OpenCL score and higher than the GTX 950A's OpenCL score. This indicates that the AMD card's performance is highly dependent on the API used. While it lags in OpenCL, its Vulkan performance is strong, suggesting it may be a better choice for applications that utilize the Vulkan API. The NVIDIA card's nearest rivals in terms of average score include the AMD Radeon RX 6500M (10362, -0.9% delta) and the NVIDIA Tesla C2075 (10400, -1.2% delta), placing it in a competitive performance bracket. The AMD card's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M (9645, 0.1% delta) and the NVIDIA Quadro P4000 (9665, -0.1% delta), showing it is closely matched with those older professional and mobile parts.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ significantly across several core specifications. The process node is a major differentiator: the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 is built on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A uses a 28 nm process at TSMC. This leads to differences in transistor density, with the AMD card packing 21.4M transistors per mm² versus the NVIDIA card's 12.6M per mm². The AMD card has a higher transistor count (2,200 million) but a smaller die size (103 mm²) compared to the NVIDIA card's 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die.

Memory configuration is another key area of difference. The GTX 950A uses 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus, resulting in a bandwidth of 32.03 GB/s. In contrast, the WX 2100 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 64-bit bus but achieves a higher bandwidth of 48.00 GB/s. The memory clocks also differ: the NVIDIA card runs at 1001 MHz (2 Gbps effective), while the AMD card runs at 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective). The rendering pipeline also varies, with the NVIDIA card featuring 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, while the AMD card has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs.

The cards are presented in completely different form factors. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A is an MXM Module with an MXM-B (3.0) interface, while the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 is a single-slot card with a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface. The AMD card has specific physical dimensions (168 mm length, 69 mm height) and a suggested PSU of 200 W, while the NVIDIA card has no listed dimensions or suggested PSU. Power consumption is also starkly different: the GTX 950A has a TDP of 75 W, while the WX 2100 has a TDP of 35 W. Neither card requires external power connectors. The AMD card offers a professional display output configuration with 1x DisplayPort 1.4a and 2x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a, whereas the NVIDIA card's display outputs are described as "Portable Device Dependent."

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs is generational and philosophical. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A is based on the Maxwell architecture, specifically the GM107 chip. This architecture was designed for high energy efficiency and strong performance per clock in gaming workloads. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 is based on the GCN 4.0 architecture, using the Lexa chip. GCN 4.0 is a more modern architecture that emphasizes compute capability and was also used in AMD's Polaris gaming cards. The AMD card's generation is listed as "Radeon Pro Polaris (WX x100)," indicating its professional positioning within that family.

In terms of compute capabilities, the AMD card has a significant feature that the NVIDIA card lacks: native FP16 support. The WX 2100 lists its FP16 performance at 1,248.3 GFLOPS, with a 1:1 ratio to FP32, meaning it can process half-precision data at the same rate as full-precision. The GTX 950A does not list an FP16 figure, suggesting it has no dedicated half-precision path. This is a critical difference for machine learning inference or certain scientific workloads that use FP16 to accelerate computation. The NVIDIA card's FP32 performance is higher at 1,438.7 GFLOPS, but its FP16 capability is absent from the data.

The manufacturing technology reflects the release timeline. The GTX 950A was released on 2015-03-12, using the older 28 nm node. The WX 2100 was released over two years later on 2017-06-03, allowing it to benefit from the more advanced 14 nm process. This newer node enables the AMD card to achieve higher transistor density and lower power consumption (35 W TDP vs. 75 W). The AMD card also has a newer DirectX 12 feature level (12_0) compared to the NVIDIA card's 11_0, which is a direct consequence of its more modern architecture. The NVIDIA card does have a newer Vulkan version (1.4) compared to the AMD card's 1.3. The AMD card's successor is listed as "Radeon Pro Vega," while the NVIDIA card's predecessor is "GeForce 800A," highlighting their positions in their respective product lifecycles.