AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 vs NVIDIA Quadro K2200 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a clear split between these two professional graphics cards. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the NVIDIA Quadro K2200 delivers a score of 11,431, while the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 trails with 8,536. That is a 33.9% advantage for the NVIDIA card, a substantial margin that indicates a significant gap in raw compute throughput for OpenCL workloads. The K2200’s score places it roughly in line with rivals such as the AMD Radeon Pro 450 (10,804, a 0.4% difference) and the NVIDIA GeForce MX350 (10,883, a 1.1% difference), showing that it competes well in this specific metric.

However, the story flips entirely when examining the Geekbench Vulkan results. Here, the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 scores 10,770, outperforming the NVIDIA Quadro K2200’s 10,090. The delta is 6.3% in favor of the AMD card. This is a notable reversal, and it suggests that the two architectures handle the Vulkan API differently. The WX 2100’s Vulkan score is closely matched with rivals like the NVIDIA Quadro P4000 (9,665, a 0.1% difference) and the NVIDIA Quadro K5000 (9,637, a 0.2% difference), indicating that its Vulkan performance is competitive within its peer group.

The average benchmark score further contextualizes the split. The NVIDIA Quadro K2200 holds an average of 10,761, while the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 averages 9,653. This gives the K2200 a roughly 11.5% edge in overall combined benchmark performance. The K2200’s average is only 0.7% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti (10,690) and 1.2% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 6600S (10,629), showing that it sits in a tight cluster of similarly performing hardware. The WX 2100, by contrast, is nearly tied with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M (9,645, a 0.1% difference) and trails the NVIDIA Tesla C2070 (9,716) by 0.6%. This data indicates that while the two cards are close in overall standing, their strengths are polarized across different APIs.

Where Each One Wins

The use-case split is stark. The NVIDIA Quadro K2200 is the clear winner for OpenCL-based compute tasks. Its 33.9% lead in Geekbench OpenCL suggests that applications leveraging this API, which is common in many professional rendering, simulation, and general-purpose GPU workloads, will see substantially higher performance on the K2200. The recorded data shows that the K2200’s OpenCL score of 11,431 is its strongest benchmark result, outpacing its own Vulkan score by 13.3%. This makes the K2200 the more suitable option for compute-heavy OpenCL environments.

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 takes the crown for Vulkan workloads. Its 6.3% advantage in Geekbench Vulkan indicates that applications built on this newer, lower-level graphics API will run faster on the WX 2100. Importantly, the WX 2100’s Vulkan score of 10,770 is 26.2% higher than its own OpenCL score of 8,536. This demonstrates a clear architectural bias toward Vulkan. For tasks like modern game engines, CAD viewport rendering, or any software that has adopted Vulkan for its graphics pipeline, the WX 2100 is the better performer.

In terms of percentile ranking, the K2200 sits at the 49th percentile of all GPUs, while the WX 2100 is at the 46th percentile. This difference is small, but it reinforces the idea that the K2200 has a slight edge in overall capability. The one-win-each split in the head-to-head benchmarks means that the choice hinges entirely on the software ecosystem the user intends to run. There is no universal winner; the victor is determined by API usage.

Architecture Differences

The two cards are built on fundamentally different architectures and process nodes. The NVIDIA Quadro K2200 uses the GM107 chip, which is based on the Maxwell architecture. It is fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC, with 1,870 million transistors packed into a 148 mm² die. This yields a transistor density of 12.6 million per mm². The AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100, in contrast, uses the Lexa chip, based on the GCN 4.0 architecture. It is built on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries, with 2,200 million transistors on a smaller 103 mm² die, resulting in a much higher transistor density of 21.4 million per mm². The smaller, denser die on the WX 2100 is a direct result of the newer manufacturing process.

The memory configurations differ significantly. The K2200 offers 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing a bandwidth of 80.19 GB/s. The WX 2100 has only 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 64-bit bus, cutting its bandwidth to 48.00 GB/s. This is a major differentiator; the K2200 has twice the memory capacity and 67% more bandwidth. The K2200’s memory clock runs at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective), while the WX 2100’s memory runs at 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective). Despite the higher memory clock on the WX 2100, the narrower bus limits its overall bandwidth.

Compute resources also diverge. The K2200 has 640 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 16 raster operations pipelines. The WX 2100 has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The K2200’s higher shading unit and TMU counts contribute to its superior OpenCL performance. The K2200’s clock speeds are 1046 MHz base and 1124 MHz boost, while the WX 2100 runs at 925 MHz base and 1219 MHz boost. The WX 2100’s higher boost clock helps it in Vulkan, but it cannot compensate for the lower raw unit count. The pixel rate favors the WX 2100 at 19.50 GPixel/s versus the K2200’s 17.98 GPixel/s, while the texture rate favors the K2200 at 44.96 GTexel/s versus 39.01 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is higher on the K2200 at 1,438.7 GFLOPS versus 1,248.3 GFLOPS, and the WX 2100 adds FP16 capability at 1,248.3 GFLOPS (1:1), which the K2200 lacks entirely.

The bus interface and display outputs also differ. The K2200 uses PCIe 2.0 x16, while the WX 2100 uses PCIe 3.0 x8. The WX 2100 supports DisplayPort 1.4a outputs (1x DisplayPort and 2x mini-DisplayPort), while the K2200 offers older DisplayPort 1.2 (2x) and a DVI output. The API support shows the K2200 supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the WX 2100 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The WX 2100 has a slightly more modern DirectX feature level, but the K2200 has a newer Vulkan version.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K2200 has an average benchmark score of 10,761, which is 1,108 points higher than the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100’s average of 9,653.

Q: How much faster is the K2200 in OpenCL?

A: The K2200 scores 11,431 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 33.9% higher than the WX 2100’s score of 8,536.

Q: Is the WX 2100 better in any benchmark?

A: Yes, the WX 2100 wins the Geekbench Vulkan test with a score of 10,770, which is 6.3% higher than the K2200’s score of 10,090.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The K2200 has a memory bandwidth of 80.19 GB/s, while the WX 2100 has 48.00 GB/s, giving the K2200 a 67% advantage.

Q: Which card has a higher transistor density?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 has a transistor density of 21.4M per mm², compared to the NVIDIA Quadro K2200’s 12.6M per mm².

Q: What are the TDP ratings for these cards?

A: The K2200 has a TDP of 68 W with a suggested PSU of 250 W, while the WX 2100 has a TDP of 35 W with a suggested PSU of 200 W.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear choice based on workload. For users whose applications rely heavily on OpenCL, the NVIDIA Quadro K2200 is the definitive pick. Its 33.9% lead in that benchmark, combined with its higher average score, larger memory capacity (4 GB versus 2 GB), and greater bandwidth (80.19 GB/s versus 48.00 GB/s), makes it the more powerful card for compute-heavy tasks. The K2200 also holds a higher percentile ranking at 49 versus the WX 2100’s 46.

For users working in a Vulkan-centric environment, the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 is the better choice. Its 6.3% lead in Geekbench Vulkan is meaningful, and its higher boost clock of 1219 MHz, combined with its modern 14 nm process and support for DirectX 12 (12_0), suggests it is better optimized for graphics-heavy applications that take advantage of these newer APIs. The WX 2100 also consumes less power, with a TDP of 35 W versus 68 W, and has a smaller physical footprint (168 mm length versus 202 mm), which could be a factor in compact systems.

The overall average benchmark score favors the K2200, and the one-win-each split means neither card is objectively superior. The choice must be driven by the specific API usage of the target software. If OpenCL is the priority, the K2200 is the only sane option. If Vulkan is the priority, the WX 2100 is the correct selection. There is no middle ground in the recorded data.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro K2200 | AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 |

| :--- | :--- | :--- |

| Architecture | Maxwell | GCN 4.0 |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 14 nm |

| Transistors | 1,870 million | 2,200 million |

| Die Size | 148 mm² | 103 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.6M / mm² | 21.4M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1046 MHz | 925 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1124 MHz | 1219 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) | 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 2 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 80.19 GB/s | 48.00 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 640 | 512 |

| TMUs | 40 | 32 |

| ROPs | 16 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 17.98 GPixel/s | 19.50 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 44.96 GTexel/s | 39.01 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 1,438.7 GFLOPS | 1,248.3 GFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | Not specified | 1,248.3 GFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 68 W | 35 W |

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | 200 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |

| Display Outputs | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort 1.2 | 1x DisplayPort 1.4a, 2x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a |

| DirectX Support | 12 (11_0) | 12 (12_0) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.4 | 1.3 |

| Length | 202 mm (8 inches) | 168 mm (6.6 inches) |

| Height | 111 mm (4.4 inches) | 69 mm (2.7 inches) |

| Release Date | 2014-07-21 | 2017-06-03 |

| Launch MSRP | Not specified | 149 USD |