AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 vs NVIDIA Quadro K1200 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data splits cleanly between the two cards, with each claiming one decisive victory. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the NVIDIA Quadro K1200 scores 8831 against 8536 for the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100, a 3.3% margin in NVIDIA's favor. That is a modest lead, not a blowout, but it is consistent with the K1200's broader profile as a card that trades on mature driver optimization in compute workloads.

The Vulkan result tells a completely different story. The AMD card scores 10770, while the Quadro K1200 manages only 7698. That is a 39.9% advantage for AMD, a massive gap that reflects the architectural gulf between the two designs. Vulkan is a low-level API that rewards modern hardware, and the WX 2100's GCN 4.0 implementation clearly scales far better under that workload. For any application that leans on Vulkan, the choice is not close.

Looking at the aggregate average benchmark score, the AMD card lands at 9653, while the NVIDIA card sits at 8265. That puts the WX 2100 roughly 16.8% ahead overall, driven almost entirely by its Vulkan dominance. The OpenCL result is close enough that it barely moves the needle, but the Vulkan win is so large that it defines the comparison.

Context from the nearest rivals in the database reinforces these findings. The WX 2100's average score of 9653 places it within 0.1% of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M (9645), 0.1% behind the NVIDIA Quadro P4000 (9665), and 0.2% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro K5000 (9637). It trails the NVIDIA Tesla C2070 (9716) by 0.6%. The K1200's average of 8265, meanwhile, sits 0.7% behind the AMD Radeon R9 M375X (8325), but 1.2% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 (8167) and 1.6% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M (8135). The percentile rankings back this up: the WX 2100 lands in the 46th percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the K1200 sits in the 43rd. Both are mid-pack cards, but the AMD part sits measurably higher.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from opposite design philosophies and different manufacturing generations. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 uses the Lexa chip built on GCN 4.0 architecture, fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It packs 2,200 million transistors into a 103 mm² die, giving it a transistor density of 21.4 million per square millimeter. The NVIDIA Quadro K1200 uses the GM107 chip on Maxwell architecture, built on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It contains 1,870 million transistors across a 148 mm² die, for a density of 12.6 million per square millimeter. The process advantage is clear: AMD crams more transistors into less space, which directly enables its lower power draw.

Clock behavior also differs. The AMD card runs a base clock of 925 MHz with a boost up to 1219 MHz. The NVIDIA card starts higher at 954 MHz base but only boosts to 1033 MHz. Despite the lower base clock, the AMD part's boost headroom is substantially higher, which contributes to its Vulkan performance advantage. Memory clocks tell a similar story: AMD runs its GDDR5 at 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective), while NVIDIA runs at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective). However, memory bandwidth flips the other way. The K1200 has a 128-bit bus and 4 GB of GDDR5, yielding 80.19 GB/s, while the WX 2100 has only a 64-bit bus and 2 GB, yielding 48.00 GB/s. That is a 67% bandwidth advantage for NVIDIA, which matters in memory-bound OpenCL workloads.

Shader resources are identical in raw count: both have 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. But the clock differences change the throughput numbers. The AMD card produces 19.50 GPixel/s pixel rate and 39.01 GTexel/s texture rate, while the NVIDIA card produces 16.53 GPixel/s and 33.06 GTexel/s. FP32 compute also favors AMD at 1,248.3 GFLOPS versus 1,057.8 GFLOPS. Notably, the WX 2100 supports FP16 at a 1:1 ratio (1,248.3 GFLOPS), while the K1200 has no FP16 support at all. Feature support diverges further: AMD lists DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3, while NVIDIA lists DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Vulkan version difference is minor, but the DirectX feature level gap is meaningful for modern workloads.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split based on workload. If your applications run on Vulkan, the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 is the only rational choice. Its 39.9% Vulkan lead is not a marginal edge; it is a generational gap. The WX 2100 also wins on raw compute throughput, FP32 and FP16 performance, and power efficiency, drawing 35 W versus 45 W for the K1200.

If your work is dominated by OpenCL, the NVIDIA Quadro K1200 takes the win, albeit by a narrow 3.3% margin. That advantage likely comes from its 67% higher memory bandwidth and larger 4 GB frame buffer, which help in memory-intensive compute tasks. The K1200 also supports Vulkan 1.4 versus 1.3, though that does not translate into actual Vulkan performance here.

For a professional workstation buyer, the practical answer depends on the software stack. Legacy OpenCL pipelines that are bandwidth-hungry will favor the K1200. Modern Vulkan-based tools or anything that can leverage FP16 will strongly favor the WX 2100. The aggregate benchmark score favors AMD by roughly 16.8%, and its higher percentile ranking (46th versus 43rd) confirms that it is the stronger all-around part in this database.

Specification Differences

The two cards diverge on nearly every measurable specification except for the raw shader counts. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 uses a 14 nm process from GlobalFoundries with 2,200 million transistors on a 103 mm² die, while the NVIDIA Quadro K1200 uses a 28 nm process from TSMC with 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die. Clock speeds differ: AMD runs 925 MHz base and 1219 MHz boost, while NVIDIA runs 954 MHz base and 1033 MHz boost. Memory configurations are starkly different: AMD has 2 GB GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus with 48.00 GB/s bandwidth, while NVIDIA has 4 GB GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 80.19 GB/s bandwidth. Memory clocks also differ at 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective) versus 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective). Compute rates favor AMD: 19.50 GPixel/s versus 16.53 GPixel/s, 39.01 GTexel/s versus 33.06 GTexel/s, and 1,248.3 GFLOPS FP32 versus 1,057.8 GFLOPS. FP16 is supported only on AMD at 1,248.3 GFLOPS. Power draw favors AMD at 35 W versus 45 W. The bus interface differs: PCIe 3.0 x8 for AMD versus PCIe 2.0 x16 for NVIDIA. Display outputs are 1x DisplayPort 1.4a plus 2x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a on AMD, versus 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 on NVIDIA. Physical dimensions are close: AMD is 168 mm long, NVIDIA is 160 mm long, both 69 mm high and single-slot. API support differs on DirectX (12_0 versus 11_0) and Vulkan (1.3 versus 1.4), while both support OpenGL 4.6. The AMD card launched with an MSRP of 149 USD.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in OpenCL benchmarks?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K1200 scores 8831 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 3.3% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100's 8536.

Q: Which card is faster in Vulkan benchmarks?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 scores 10770 in Geekbench Vulkan, which is 39.9% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro K1200's 7698.

Q: What is the overall average benchmark score for each card?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 has an average benchmark score of 9653, while the NVIDIA Quadro K1200 has an average of 8265. The AMD card sits in the 46th percentile of all GPUs, while the NVIDIA card sits in the 43rd.

Q: Which card has more memory bandwidth?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K1200 has 80.19 GB/s of bandwidth from its 128-bit bus and 4 GB GDDR5, versus 48.00 GB/s from the AMD card's 64-bit bus and 2 GB GDDR5.

Q: Do both cards support FP16 compute?

A: No. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 supports FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32 (1,248.3 GFLOPS), while the NVIDIA Quadro K1200 has no FP16 support listed.

Q: Which card draws less power?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 has a TDP of 35 W, while the NVIDIA Quadro K1200 has a TDP of 45 W. Both are single-slot cards with no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 200 W.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 wins in modern, compute-heavy scenarios. Its 39.9% Vulkan advantage is the single largest gap in this comparison, and it dominates any workload that can use FP16 arithmetic. The 14 nm process and higher boost clock (1219 MHz versus 1033 MHz) give it superior pixel fill (19.50 GPixel/s versus 16.53 GPixel/s), texture rate (39.01 GTexel/s versus 33.06 GTexel/s), and FP32 throughput (1,248.3 GFLOPS versus 1,057.8 GFLOPS). It also draws 10 W less power, which matters in dense workstation builds or small form factor systems. The launch MSRP of 149 USD reflects its positioning as an entry-level professional card, and the data shows it outperforms its aggregate average versus the K1200 by roughly 16.8%.

The NVIDIA Quadro K1200 wins in memory-bound and legacy compute scenarios. Its 80.19 GB/s bandwidth is 67% higher than the AMD card's 48.00 GB/s, and its 4 GB frame buffer doubles the AMD card's 2 GB. These specs directly explain its OpenCL victory. The K1200 also has a wider bus (128-bit versus 64-bit), which helps with large data sets that exceed the AMD card's capacity. Its base clock is higher at 954 MHz versus 925 MHz, and it supports the newer Vulkan 1.4 API, though that does not help it in the recorded Vulkan benchmark. For users stuck on older OpenCL-based professional applications, the K1200 is the safer pick.

In practical terms, a builder choosing between these two should look at the software stack first. If the primary applications are Vulkan-based or can use FP16, the WX 2100 is clearly superior. If the workload is classic OpenCL compute with large memory footprints, the K1200's bandwidth and capacity win out. The aggregate data favors AMD, but the K1200 remains the right tool for a specific, narrowing set of tasks.