AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data reveals a fascinating split between these two end-of-life mobile and workstation GPUs. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M decisively outperforms the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100, scoring 11,045 against 8,536. That represents a 22.7% advantage for the NVIDIA part, a substantial margin that underscores the GTX 960M's raw compute throughput in this particular workload. The OpenCL result aligns with the GTX 960M's higher shading unit count of 640 versus 512, as well as its larger 128-bit memory bus and 80.19 GB/s of bandwidth, which likely helps feed those additional cores more effectively.

However, the story flips dramatically when the test shifts to Geekbench Vulkan. Here, the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 takes a commanding lead, scoring 10,770 versus the GTX 960M's 8,245. This is a 30.6% victory for AMD, and it is a telling sign of architectural priorities. The WX 2100's GCN 4.0 architecture with its 14 nm process node and full Vulkan 1.3 API support appears to extract significantly more performance from the Vulkan API than the Maxwell-based GTX 960M, which lists Vulkan 1.4 support but clearly struggles in this specific benchmark. The delta between the two cards in Vulkan is even larger than the GTX 960M's OpenCL margin, suggesting that AMD's driver and hardware implementation for modern graphics APIs is notably stronger.

Looking at the aggregate picture, the two cards land virtually identically. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 posts an average benchmark score of 9,653, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M sits at 9,645. That is a difference of only 0.1%, which is statistically negligible. The nearest rivals list confirms this tight grouping: the NVIDIA Quadro P4000 scores 9,665 (0.1% above the WX 2100), the Quadro K5000 hits 9,637 (0.2% below), and the Tesla C2070 reaches 9,716 (0.6% higher). Both cards occupy the 46th percentile among all GPUs, meaning they sit in the middle of the performance distribution, neither exceptional nor weak in overall terms. The data suggests that for general-purpose compute across multiple APIs, these two GPUs are effectively interchangeable, but their individual API-specific strengths could matter greatly depending on the software ecosystem in use.

The Verdict

The benchmark results indicate a clear split decision with no universal winner. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M is the superior choice for OpenCL-based workloads, delivering 22.7% higher performance in that specific test. This makes it the more compelling option for applications that rely heavily on OpenCL compute, such as certain scientific simulations, video encoding pipelines, or legacy professional software stacks. The GTX 960M's 4 GB memory capacity also provides a practical advantage for larger datasets, even if the raw bandwidth advantage of 80.19 GB/s versus 48.00 GB/s already suggests it can move data faster.

Conversely, the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 is the definitive winner in Vulkan-based tasks. Its 30.6% advantage in the Vulkan benchmark is substantial, and for modern games or compute applications built on Vulkan, this GPU will deliver noticeably smoother performance. The WX 2100 also benefits from a much lower power envelope at 35 W versus 75 W, which is a significant consideration for compact workstation builds or systems with limited thermal headroom. The single-slot form factor and lack of power connectors further cement its suitability for dense, low-power environments.

For a buyer choosing between these two, the decision hinges entirely on the software stack. If the primary applications leverage OpenCL, the GTX 960M's higher score and larger memory pool make it the rational pick. If Vulkan is the target API, the WX 2100's commanding lead removes any ambiguity. In mixed workloads, the near-identical average scores (9,653 vs 9,645) mean neither card offers a meaningful aggregate advantage, so the tiebreaker should be the specific API mix and the physical constraints of the system. The GTX 960M's MXM module form factor suits laptops and mobile workstations, while the WX 2100's 168 mm length and 69 mm height make it a flexible option for small desktop chassis.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 wins decisively in Vulkan compute and graphics tasks. The 30.6% margin over the GTX 960M in the Geekbench Vulkan test is the single largest performance differential in this comparison, indicating that AMD's architecture handles Vulkan's explicit, low-overhead model with greater efficiency. This advantage likely stems from the GCN 4.0 design's ability to parallelize work across its 512 shading units effectively under Vulkan's command buffer model. For users running Vulkan-based game engines, CAD visualization tools, or emerging compute frameworks that favor this API, the WX 2100 is the clear winner. Its 35 W TDP also makes it the preferred choice for power-constrained systems, and the DisplayPort 1.4a outputs (one full-size and two mini) provide modern display connectivity without needing adapters.

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M wins in OpenCL workloads, posting an 11,045 score that is 22.7% higher than the WX 2100's 8,536. This is a substantial margin that suggests the Maxwell architecture's compute units are better optimized for OpenCL's programming model, or that NVIDIA's OpenCL driver stack extracts more performance from the hardware. The GTX 960M's 4 GB GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus (80.19 GB/s bandwidth) doubles the WX 2100's 2 GB capacity and offers 67% more bandwidth, which is crucial for memory-intensive OpenCL kernels that manipulate large buffers. The 640 shading units and 40 texture mapping units also give it a raw throughput advantage that manifests in this benchmark. For professionals using OpenCL-accelerated applications like certain Adobe products, Blender's OpenCL renderer, or specialized scientific tools, the GTX 960M is the stronger performer.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 edges out the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M with an average score of 9,653 versus 9,645, a difference of only 0.1%.

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

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 scores 10,770 in the Geekbench Vulkan test, which is 30.6% higher than the GTX 960M's 8,245.

Q: What memory specifications differentiate these GPUs?

A: The GTX 960M has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 80.19 GB/s bandwidth, while the WX 2100 has 2 GB on a 64-bit bus with 48.00 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card consumes less power?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 has a 35 W TDP, which is less than half of the GTX 960M's 75 W TDP.

Q: What are the architectural process nodes for each GPU?

A: The WX 2100 uses a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries, while the GTX 960M uses a 28 nm process at TSMC.

Q: How do the two cards compare in OpenCL performance?

A: The GTX 960M scores 11,045 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 22.7% higher than the WX 2100's 8,536.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 is built on the Lexa chip using GCN 4.0 architecture, manufactured on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. This newer process node allows AMD to pack 2,200 million transistors into a die size of just 103 mm², yielding a transistor density of 21.4 million transistors per square millimeter. The GCN 4.0 design features 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 raster output pipelines. Its FP32 performance is rated at 1,248.3 GFLOPS, with FP16 performance matching at 1,248.3 GFLOPS in a 1:1 ratio. The architecture supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3, with full DisplayPort 1.4a outputs.

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M employs the GM107 chip based on the Maxwell architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. This older process results in a larger die of 148 mm² despite containing fewer transistors at 1,870 million, giving it a lower transistor density of 12.6 million per square millimeter. Maxwell's design includes 640 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 16 raster output pipelines. Its FP32 performance reaches 1.505 TFLOPS, which is higher than the WX 2100's figure, but it has no listed FP16 capability. The GTX 960M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, but its display outputs are portable device dependent, reflecting its mobile MXM form factor.

The architectural divergence explains the benchmark results. The WX 2100's newer 14 nm process and GCN 4.0 design appear optimized for Vulkan's explicit multi-threading model, yielding the 30.6% advantage in that test. The GTX 960M's Maxwell architecture, with its higher shading unit count and FP32 throughput, dominates in OpenCL where the GPU can leverage its additional cores. The transistor density difference (21.4M vs 12.6M per mm²) also reflects the process generation gap, with AMD achieving more complexity in a smaller area, though NVIDIA compensates with a larger die and more raw compute units.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across several key specification fields. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 operates at a base clock of 925 MHz with a boost clock of 1,219 MHz, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M runs at a higher base of 1,097 MHz but a lower boost of 1,176 MHz. Memory configurations diverge significantly: the WX 2100 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus with 48.00 GB/s bandwidth and memory clock of 1,500 MHz (6 Gbps effective), whereas the GTX 960M offers 4 GB on a 128-bit bus with 80.19 GB/s bandwidth and memory clock of 1,253 MHz (5 Gbps effective). The shading unit counts differ (512 vs 640), as do texture mapping units (32 vs 40), while both share 16 ROPs.

Power characteristics show the WX 2100 at 35 W TDP with no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 200 W, while the GTX 960M draws 75 W with no power connectors and no suggested PSU listed. Physical form factors are distinct: the WX 2100 is a single-slot card measuring 168 mm in length and 69 mm in height with PCIe 3.0 x8 interface, while the GTX 960M is an MXM module using the MXM-B (3.0) bus interface. Display outputs differ, with the WX 2100 providing one full-size DisplayPort 1.4a and two mini-DisplayPort 1.4a connectors, whereas the GTX 960M's outputs are portable device dependent. The WX 2100's launch MSRP was 149 USD. The WX 2100 was released on 2017-06-03, while the GTX 960M predates it with a release on 2015-03-12. Both are end-of-life products, with the WX 2100 succeeding the Radeon Pro GCN and preceding the Radeon Pro Vega, while the GTX 960M succeeds the GeForce 800M and precedes the GeForce 10 Mobile.