AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 Comparison

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 are both end-of-life graphics cards, but they target fundamentally different use cases. The WX 2100 is a professional workstation GPU built on a 14 nm process with GCN 4.0 architecture, while the GTX 960 is a consumer gaming card on a 28 nm process with Maxwell 2.0 architecture. Benchmark data shows a split decision: the GTX 960 dominates in OpenCL compute workloads, while the WX 2100 wins in Vulkan performance. The average benchmark scores are close — 9653 for the WX 2100 versus 9273 for the GTX 960 — but the underlying specifications and API results tell a more nuanced story about which card suits which workload.

The Verdict

The data presents two distinct profiles. For users prioritizing raw compute throughput in OpenCL applications, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 is the clear choice. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 18925 is more than double the WX 2100’s 8536, a 54.9% advantage that reflects its larger shader count and wider memory bus. The GTX 960 also holds a higher percentile rank in the overall GPU hierarchy at 45th percentile versus the WX 2100’s 46th percentile, though the difference is marginal.

However, for Vulkan-based workloads, the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 wins decisively. Its Geekbench Vulkan score of 10770 beats the GTX 960’s 9231 by 16.7%. This is notable because Vulkan is a modern, low-overhead API that benefits from the WX 2100’s newer architecture and driver optimization for professional applications. The WX 2100 also has a higher average benchmark score (9653 vs 9273), indicating slightly better overall consistency across tests.

Professionals should pick the WX 2100 for its workstation pedigree, Vulkan performance, and dramatically lower power requirements (35 W TDP versus 120 W). Gamers or compute-focused users should pick the GTX 960 for its OpenCL dominance and higher raw throughput. The GTX 960’s nearest rival comparison shows it sits within 0.6% of the AMD Radeon Vega 8, while the WX 2100 is essentially tied with the NVIDIA Quadro P4000 (0.1% delta). Both cards are end-of-life, so availability and driver support are considerations, but the data clearly favors NVIDIA for compute and AMD for Vulkan-specific tasks.

FAQ

Q: Which card has better overall benchmark performance?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 has a higher average benchmark score of 9653 compared to the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960’s 9273. However, the GTX 960 wins the OpenCL test 18925 to 8536, while the WX 2100 wins the Vulkan test 10770 to 9231, resulting in a 1-1 split in head-to-head wins.

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

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 has a TDP of 35 W and requires no power connectors, with a suggested PSU of 200 W. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 has a TDP of 120 W, requires a single 6-pin power connector, and suggests a 300 W PSU. The WX 2100 is significantly more power-efficient.

Q: What are the memory specifications for each card?

A: Both cards have 2 GB of GDDR5 memory, but the GTX 960 uses a 128-bit bus with 112.2 GB/s bandwidth, while the WX 2100 uses a 64-bit bus with only 48.00 GB/s bandwidth. The GTX 960 also has a higher effective memory clock of 7 Gbps versus 6 Gbps on the WX 2100.

Q: Which card supports newer graphics APIs?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The GTX 960 has a slight edge in API version numbers.

Q: How do the cards compare in physical size?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 is a single-slot card measuring 168 mm (6.6 inches) in length and 69 mm (2.7 inches) in height. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 is a dual-slot card measuring 241 mm (9.5 inches) in length. The WX 2100 is considerably more compact.

Q: What are the nearest rivals for each card based on average benchmark scores?

A: The WX 2100’s nearest rival is the NVIDIA Quadro P4000 with an average score of 9665 (0.1% difference), followed by the GTX 960M at 9645 (0.1%) and Quadro K5000 at 9637 (0.2%). The GTX 960’s nearest rival is the AMD Radeon R7 M380 at 9313 (-0.4%), with the GTX 850M at 9302 (-0.3%) and GTX 465 at 9294 (-0.2%) close behind.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 uses the Lexa chip built on GCN 4.0 architecture, manufactured by GlobalFoundries on a 14 nm process. It contains 2,200 million transistors on a 103 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 21.4 million per square millimeter. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 uses the GM206 chip with Maxwell 2.0 architecture, manufactured by TSMC on a 28 nm process. It packs 2,940 million transistors on a significantly larger 228 mm² die, with a lower transistor density of 12.9 million per square millimeter.

The WX 2100 belongs to the Radeon Pro Polaris (WX x100) generation and is the successor to Radeon Pro GCN, with its own successor being Radeon Pro Vega. The GTX 960 belongs to the GeForce 900 generation, succeeding GeForce 700 and preceding GeForce 10. The WX 2100 supports 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 raster output pipelines. The GTX 960 doubles those counts with 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. Neither card has dedicated ray tracing or tensor cores.

The WX 2100 features a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface, while the GTX 960 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, offering double the bus lanes. Display outputs differ as well: the WX 2100 provides one DisplayPort 1.4a and two mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, while the GTX 960 offers one DVI, one HDMI 2.0, and three DisplayPort 1.2 outputs. The WX 2100 is a single-slot card with no power connectors, whereas the GTX 960 is dual-slot with a single 6-pin connector.

Specification Differences

The most striking specification difference is process node and transistor count. The WX 2100 uses a 14 nm process with 2,200 million transistors on a 103 mm² die, while the GTX 960 uses a 28 nm process with 2,940 million transistors on a 228 mm² die. This gives the WX 2100 a transistor density of 21.4M/mm² versus 12.9M/mm² for the GTX 960, reflecting the newer manufacturing technology.

Clock speeds differ notably. The WX 2100 has a base clock of 925 MHz and boost clock of 1219 MHz, while the GTX 960 has a base clock of 1127 MHz and boost of 1178 MHz. The GTX 960 has a higher base clock but a lower boost clock relative to its base. Memory clocks also differ: the WX 2100 runs at 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective), while the GTX 960 runs at 1753 MHz (7 Gbps effective).

The memory bus width is a major differentiator. The WX 2100 uses a 64-bit bus with 48.00 GB/s bandwidth, while the GTX 960 uses a 128-bit bus with 112.2 GB/s bandwidth — more than double. This directly impacts fill rates: the WX 2100 delivers 19.50 GPixel/s pixel rate and 39.01 GTexel/s texture rate, while the GTX 960 delivers 37.70 GPixel/s and 75.39 GTexel/s, respectively. FP32 performance is 1,248.3 GFLOPS for the WX 2100 versus 2.413 TFLOPS for the GTX 960.

Power and physical specifications diverge sharply. The WX 2100 has a 35 W TDP, is single-slot, requires no power connectors, and suggests a 200 W PSU. The GTX 960 has a 120 W TDP, is dual-slot, requires a 6-pin connector, and suggests a 300 W PSU. The WX 2100 measures 168 mm long and 69 mm tall, while the GTX 960 measures 241 mm long. The WX 2100 launched on June 3, 2017 with a launch MSRP of 149 USD, while the GTX 960 launched on January 21, 2015 with a launch MSRP of 199 USD.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two cards split their head-to-head benchmark results exactly, with one win each. The Geekbench OpenCL test shows a massive victory for the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960. The GTX 960 scores 18925 points against the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100’s 8536, a delta of -54.9% for the WX 2100. This result aligns with the GTX 960’s hardware advantages: double the shading units (1024 vs 512), double the TMUs (64 vs 32), double the ROPs (32 vs 16), and more than double the memory bandwidth (112.2 GB/s vs 48.00 GB/s). The OpenCL workload appears to scale strongly with these parallel compute resources, and the GTX 960’s higher FP32 throughput of 2.413 TFLOPS versus 1,248.3 GFLOPS reinforces this dominance.

The Geekbench Vulkan test reverses the outcome. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 scores 10770 points, beating the GTX 960’s 9231 by 16.7%. This is a surprising result given the WX 2100’s smaller resource pool, but it suggests that Vulkan’s low-overhead design interacts more favorably with the WX 2100’s GCN 4.0 architecture and newer 14 nm process. The WX 2100’s higher boost clock relative to its base (1219 MHz vs 925 MHz, a 31.8% increase) may also contribute to better sustained performance in Vulkan workloads. The GTX 960’s Vulkan score of 9231 is actually lower than its OpenCL score of 18925, indicating that the Maxwell architecture does not translate its compute strength to Vulkan as effectively.

Looking at the broader benchmark context, the WX 2100’s average score of 9653 places it at the 46th percentile of all GPUs, while the GTX 960’s average of 9273 places it at the 45th percentile. The WX 2100’s nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Quadro P4000 (9665, 0.1% higher), GTX 960M (9645, 0.1% lower), and Quadro K5000 (9637, 0.2% lower). The GTX 960’s nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon R7 M380 (9313, 0.4% higher), GTX 850M (9302, 0.3% higher), and GTX 465 (9294, 0.2% higher). These comparisons show that both cards sit in a tightly packed performance tier, with the WX 2100 holding a slight overall edge in average scores despite losing the OpenCL test by such a wide margin. The GTX 960 also has a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 162 and a Geekbench Metal score of 8773, though the WX 2100 has no equivalent tests in the data pack.