AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 vs NVIDIA GeForce MX330 Comparison

The Verdict

The data splits these two cards cleanly by workload and platform. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 is the stronger performer in every recorded benchmark, leading by 8.1% in OpenCL and a decisive 19.4% in Vulkan. It is the pick for anyone running compute or graphics workloads that lean on Vulkan, or for a workstation that needs a professional-grade feature set. The NVIDIA GeForce MX330, despite its lower raw scores, has a much lower power draw at 10 W versus 35 W, making it the better fit for thin, portable systems where battery life and heat matter more than peak throughput. The MX330 also supports DirectX 12_1, a slightly newer feature level than the WX 2100's 12_0, which may matter for specific gaming titles. In short: choose the WX 2100 for raw performance and professional tasks, choose the MX330 for an energy-sipping mobile solution where the 10 W envelope is the priority.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and foundries. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 is built on GCN 4.0, uses a Lexa chip, and is manufactured on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The NVIDIA GeForce MX330 is based on Pascal, uses the GP108B chip, and is also on a 14 nm process, but fabricated by Samsung. Both are end-of-life products, but they target different market segments: the WX 2100 belongs to the Radeon Pro Polaris generation, while the MX330 is part of the GeForce MX 3xx family.

Transistor counts differ notably. The WX 2100 packs 2,200 million transistors on a 103 mm² die, giving a density of 21.4 million transistors per square millimeter. The MX330 has 1,800 million transistors on a smaller 74 mm² die, resulting in a higher density of 24.3 million per square millimeter. The MX330's smaller die and lower transistor count align with its much lower 10 W TDP.

The compute layout also diverges. The WX 2100 has 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 raster operation units. The MX330 has fewer resources across the board: 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, but the same 16 ROPs. Clock speeds tell a different story, the MX330 runs much higher at 1531 MHz base and 1594 MHz boost, while the WX 2100 sits at 925 MHz base and 1219 MHz boost. The higher clocks on the MX330 partially offset its smaller shader count, but not enough to overcome the AMD card's wider execution hardware.

Memory subsystems are similar in capacity and type, both use 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus. The MX330 has a faster memory clock at 1752 MHz (7 Gbps effective) versus 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective), which yields a bandwidth advantage of 56.06 GB/s versus 48.00 GB/s. The bus interface differs as well: the WX 2100 uses PCIe 3.0 x8, while the MX330 is limited to PCIe 3.0 x4.

Feature support shows a split. The WX 2100 has a professional display output configuration with 1x DisplayPort 1.4a and 2x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a, while the MX330's outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent," reflecting its intended laptop integration. Both support DirectX 12, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan, but the MX330 reaches DirectX 12_1 while the WX 2100 stops at 12_0. Vulkan support also differs: the MX330 lists Vulkan 1.4, the WX 2100 lists Vulkan 1.3.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded benchmark data contains two direct comparisons, and AMD wins both. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Radeon Pro WX 2100 scores 8,536 against the GeForce MX330's 7,896. That is an 8.1% advantage for the AMD card. In the Geekbench Vulkan test, the gap widens considerably: the WX 2100 scores 10,770 versus 9,019, a 19.4% lead. The Vulkan result is the single biggest differentiator in the entire comparison, and it suggests the AMD architecture handles the lower-level API substantially better relative to its OpenCL showing. The average benchmark score, computed across all recorded tests, reinforces the same order: the WX 2100 averages 9,653, while the MX330 averages 8,458, a difference of about 14.1%.

Context from the nearest rivals in the database helps frame these numbers. The WX 2100's average score of 9,653 sits within a tight cluster: it is 0.1% ahead of the GeForce GTX 960M, 0.1% behind the Quadro P4000, 0.2% ahead of the Quadro K5000, and 0.6% behind the Tesla C2070. That places it in a very competitive mid-range band where small percentage swings matter. The MX330's average of 8,458 is essentially tied with the Radeon HD 8870M at a 0% delta, 0.3% behind the Radeon 880M, 0.4% behind the GeForce GTX 675MX, and 1.2% behind the Intel Arc A380. The MX330 sits at a lower performance tier overall, roughly 10% below the WX 2100's neighborhood.

The percentile rankings confirm the hierarchy. The WX 2100 sits at the 46th percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the MX330 sits at the 43rd. That three-point gap is small in absolute terms, but the benchmark deltas show a more meaningful performance separation, especially under Vulkan. For any workload that can use Vulkan, the WX 2100 is the clear choice based purely on recorded scores.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 has an average benchmark score of 9,653, compared to 8,458 for the NVIDIA GeForce MX330. That is a 14.1% advantage for the AMD card.

Q: Is the MX330 better in any benchmark?

A: No. In the two recorded head-to-head tests, Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan, the WX 2100 wins both. The MX330 has no recorded wins in this comparison.

Q: Why might someone choose the MX330 despite losing all benchmarks?

A: The MX330 has a 10 W TDP compared to the WX 2100's 35 W. For portable devices, that lower power draw is a major advantage, as it generates less heat and consumes less battery. The MX330 is also listed as an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with portable-device-dependent outputs, indicating it is designed for laptops where the WX 2100's single-slot, DisplayPort-heavy design would not fit.

Q: Do these cards support the same DirectX version?

A: Both support DirectX 12, but the MX330 reaches feature level 12_1, while the WX 2100 only reaches 12_0. The MX330 also lists Vulkan 1.4 support, while the WX 2100 lists Vulkan 1.3.

Q: How does the memory bandwidth compare?

A: The MX330 has a higher memory bandwidth at 56.06 GB/s, thanks to a 1752 MHz memory clock (7 Gbps effective). The WX 2100 delivers 48.00 GB/s from a 1500 MHz clock (6 Gbps effective). Both use 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus.

Q: What is the performance gap in the Vulkan test?

A: The WX 2100 leads by 19.4% in Geekbench Vulkan, scoring 10,770 versus 9,019. This is the largest margin in any recorded benchmark between the two.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 wins in every performance metric recorded. Its OpenCL lead of 8.1% and Vulkan lead of 19.4% make it the stronger choice for compute-heavy tasks, rendering, or any application that can leverage the Vulkan API. Its higher average benchmark score of 9,653 versus 8,458 also places it in a more favorable competitive band, matching or slightly exceeding the GeForce GTX 960M and Quadro K5000, while remaining within 0.6% of the Tesla C2070. The WX 2100 also offers a professional display output suite with DisplayPort 1.4a, which is a clear advantage for workstation setups that need multiple high-resolution monitors. Its 35 W TDP and single-slot design make it feasible for a compact desktop workstation, though it will require a system power supply rated at 200 W per the suggested PSU.

The NVIDIA GeForce MX330 wins in efficiency and mobility. Its 10 W TDP is a fraction of the WX 2100's 35 W, making it suitable for ultra-thin laptops where thermal headroom is minimal. The MX330's higher memory bandwidth of 56.06 GB/s is another point in its favor, though it does not translate into a benchmark win. It also has a newer DirectX feature level (12_1 vs 12_0), which may be relevant for specific games or applications that require that feature set. The MX330's smaller die size of 74 mm² and lower transistor count of 1,800 million reflect a design optimized for low power and compact integration. It is the right pick when the priority is battery life and portability rather than peak frame rates or compute throughput.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every specification. The WX 2100 uses a Lexa chip on GCN 4.0 architecture, fabricated at GlobalFoundries on 14 nm, with 2,200 million transistors on a 103 mm² die. The MX330 uses a GP108B chip on Pascal, fabricated at Samsung on 14 nm, with 1,800 million transistors on a 74 mm² die. Core counts differ: 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs for the WX 2100 versus 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 16 ROPs for the MX330. Clock speeds are higher on the MX330: 1531 MHz base and 1594 MHz boost versus 925 MHz and 1219 MHz. Memory clocks favor the MX330 at 1752 MHz (7 Gbps effective) versus 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective), yielding 56.06 GB/s versus 48.00 GB/s bandwidth, though both have 2 GB GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus. Pixel rate is higher on the MX330 at 25.50 GPixel/s versus 19.50 GPixel/s, while texture rates are close: 38.26 GTexel/s versus 39.01 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is nearly identical, 1,224.2 GFLOPS for the MX330 and 1,248.3 GFLOPS for the WX 2100, but FP16 differs drastically: the WX 2100 delivers 1,248.3 GFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio, while the MX330 manages only 19.13 GFLOPS at a 1:64 ratio. TDP is 35 W for the WX 2100 and 10 W for the MX330. The WX 2100 is single-slot with no power connectors and a 200 W suggested PSU; the MX330 is IGP with no power connectors and no suggested PSU listed. The bus interface is PCIe 3.0 x8 on the WX 2100 and PCIe 3.0 x4 on the MX330. Display outputs are 1x DisplayPort 1.4a and 2x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a on the WX 2100 versus portable-device-dependent on the MX330. DirectX support differs at feature level 12_0 versus 12_1, Vulkan support at 1.3 versus 1.4, while OpenGL 4.6 is common. The WX 2100 has a launch MSRP of 149 USD; no launch MSRP is recorded for the MX330.