AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 vs NVIDIA Quadro P4000 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro P4000 and AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 are both end-of-life professional workstation graphics cards, but they occupy very different segments of the market. The data shows the P4000 is a high-end card built on NVIDIA’s Pascal architecture, while the WX 2100 is a low-power entry-level offering based on AMD’s GCN 4.0 architecture. Despite their vastly different specifications and price points, the average benchmark scores from the database place them remarkably close, with the P4000 scoring 9665 and the WX 2100 scoring 9653. This creates an interesting comparison where the raw specifications suggest a landslide victory, yet the aggregate benchmark data tells a more nuanced story.

FAQ

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare between the two cards?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P4000 has an average benchmark score of 9665, while the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 scores 9653. This puts the P4000 only 0.1% ahead, making them effectively tied in overall aggregate performance according to the database.

Q: Which card has more video memory, and does it matter?

A: The Quadro P4000 features 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, providing 243.3 GB/s of bandwidth. The WX 2100 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus, yielding only 48.00 GB/s. This 4x memory capacity and 5x bandwidth difference is critical for large datasets and high-resolution textures.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The P4000 has a TDP of 105 W and requires a 1x 6-pin power connector, with a suggested PSU of 300 W. The WX 2100 has a much lower TDP of 35 W, needs no power connectors, and only suggests a 200 W PSU, making it far easier to install in compact systems.

Q: Which card supports newer API versions?

A: Both cards support DirectX 12 and OpenGL 4.6. However, the P4000 supports DirectX 12_1 and Vulkan 1.4, while the WX 2100 supports DirectX 12_0 and Vulkan 1.3. The P4000 has a slight edge in API feature levels.

Q: How do the cards perform in the available head-to-head benchmarks?

A: In Geekbench OpenCL, the P4000 scores 36212 versus 8536 for the WX 2100, a 324.2% advantage. In Geekbench Vulkan, the P4000 scores 41786 versus 10770, a 288% advantage. The P4000 wins both head-to-head tests.

Q: Are there any benchmark categories where the WX 2100 wins?

A: No. The database lists only two head-to-head benchmark comparisons, and the P4000 wins both. The WX 2100 has zero benchmark wins against the P4000.

Architecture Differences

The fundamental architectural split here is between NVIDIA’s Pascal and AMD’s GCN 4.0. The Quadro P4000 uses the GP104 chip, manufactured on a 16 nm process at TSMC, packing 7,200 million transistors into a 314 mm² die. In contrast, the Radeon Pro WX 2100 uses the Lexa chip, built on GlobalFoundries’ 14 nm node, with 2,200 million transistors on a much smaller 103 mm² die. This leads to similar transistor densities, with the P4000 at 22.9M / mm² and the WX 2100 at 21.4M / mm².

The compute resources are starkly different. The P4000 has 1792 shading units, 112 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs. The WX 2100 has only 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This 3.5x difference in shading units directly translates to raw compute capability. The P4000 delivers 5.304 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the WX 2100 provides 1,248.3 GFLOPS. Interestingly, the WX 2100 offers FP16 performance at 1:1 ratio (1,248.3 GFLOPS), whereas the P4000 has severely crippled FP16 at just 82.88 GFLOPS, a 1:64 ratio.

Memory architecture also diverges significantly. The P4000 uses a 256-bit memory bus with 8 GB of GDDR5 running at 7.6 Gbps effective, achieving 243.3 GB/s bandwidth. The WX 2100 uses a 64-bit bus with 2 GB of GDDR5 at 6 Gbps effective, resulting in only 48.00 GB/s. The pixel and texture rates follow suit: the P4000 hits 94.72 GPixel/s and 165.8 GTexel/s, while the WX 2100 manages 19.50 GPixel/s and 39.01 GTexel/s.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro P4000 is the clear winner for compute-heavy professional workloads. Its 5.304 TFLOPS FP32 performance and 8 GB memory capacity make it suitable for rendering, simulation, and any task that requires large frame buffers. The 324.2% lead in Geekbench OpenCL and 288% lead in Geekbench Vulkan demonstrate its dominance in general-purpose GPU compute and modern graphics APIs. The 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs also support multi-monitor professional setups.

The Radeon Pro WX 2100 wins in efficiency and physical footprint. Its 35 W TDP means no power connector is required, and its 168 mm length and 69 mm height make it a half-height, low-profile card suitable for space-constrained workstations. The 1:1 FP16 ratio is notable for applications that can leverage half-precision math, though the overall FP32 performance is far below the P4000. The PCIe 3.0 x8 interface is also a downgrade from the P4000’s x16 connection, limiting bandwidth for data transfer.

For users with minimal GPU needs, the WX 2100’s lower power draw and physical size may be deciding factors. However, the data shows that in every benchmark category where both cards have scores, the P4000 wins decisively. The WX 2100’s only advantages are its power efficiency, compact size, and the fact that it achieves similar aggregate scores despite vastly inferior specs — likely due to the limited benchmark data available for it.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every measurable specification. The P4000 uses a 16 nm process, while the WX 2100 uses 14 nm. The P4000 has 7,200 million transistors versus 2,200 million for the WX 2100, and its die size is 314 mm² versus 103 mm². Clock speeds differ: the P4000 has a base clock of 1202 MHz and boost of 1480 MHz, while the WX 2100 has a 925 MHz base and 1219 MHz boost.

Memory is a major differentiator: the P4000 offers 8 GB GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 243.3 GB/s bandwidth, while the WX 2100 has 2 GB GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus with 48.00 GB/s. The P4000’s memory clock is 1901 MHz (7.6 Gbps effective) versus 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective) for the WX 2100. Compute units also diverge: the P4000 has 1792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, compared to 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs for the WX 2100.

Power and physical specs are equally distinct. The P4000 has a 105 W TDP, requires a 1x 6-pin connector, and suggests a 300 W PSU, while the WX 2100 has a 35 W TDP, no power connectors, and suggests a 200 W PSU. The P4000 measures 241 mm in length and 111 mm in height, while the WX 2100 is 168 mm long and 69 mm tall. The P4000 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the WX 2100 uses PCIe 3.0 x8. Display outputs differ: the P4000 has 4x DisplayPort 1.4a, while the WX 2100 has 1x DisplayPort 1.4a and 2x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a. API support also differs, with the P4000 supporting DirectX 12_1 and Vulkan 1.4, versus DirectX 12_0 and Vulkan 1.3 for the WX 2100.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database provides two head-to-head benchmark comparisons, and both are dominant wins for the Quadro P4000. In Geekbench OpenCL, the P4000 scores 36212 against the WX 2100’s 8536, a delta of 324.2%. This is a massive margin that reflects the P4000’s 4.25x higher FP32 throughput and much larger memory subsystem. OpenCL workloads that stress compute and memory bandwidth will heavily favor the P4000.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the P4000 scores 41786 versus 10770 for the WX 2100, a delta of 288%. This test measures graphics and compute performance through the Vulkan API. The P4000’s superior geometry processing, pixel fill rate, and texture rate all contribute to this lead. The WX 2100’s 1:1 FP16 support does not help here, as Vulkan benchmarks typically use FP32 paths.

These results align with the specification differences. The P4000’s 1792 shading units versus 512, 64 ROPs versus 16, and 243.3 GB/s versus 48.00 GB/s bandwidth create insurmountable gaps. The only parity between the two is in their aggregate average benchmark scores, which are within 0.1% of each other. This is likely because the WX 2100 only has two benchmark entries, while the P4000 has ten, including several older DirectX and Passmark tests where the P4000 scores poorly (e.g., Passmark DirectX 12 at 40, DirectX 10 at 66). The average scores are thus skewed by the different test sets.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the data, the NVIDIA Quadro P4000 is the superior performer in every measurable benchmark category. It wins both head-to-head tests with deltas of 324.2% and 288%, and it offers 8 GB of memory versus 2 GB, 5.304 TFLOPS versus 1,248.3 GFLOPS, and 4x DisplayPort outputs versus 3. The P4000 targets professional users who need raw compute power, large memory capacity, and high-bandwidth rendering. Its launch MSRP was 815 USD, reflecting its high-end positioning.

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100, with a launch MSRP of 149 USD, is for a completely different use case. Its 35 W TDP, no power connectors, and compact 168 mm length make it ideal for low-profile workstations or systems where power and space are at a premium. The data shows it cannot compete with the P4000 on performance, but its aggregate score of 9653 is close to the P4000’s 9665, suggesting that for basic professional tasks, the gap may not be as wide as specs alone indicate. However, this is due to limited benchmark coverage, not actual performance parity.

Users who need to drive multiple 4K displays, work with large 3D models, or run compute-heavy simulations should choose the Quadro P4000. Users with simple CAD tasks, low-resolution displays, or strict power budgets should consider the Radeon Pro WX 2100. The data does not support any scenario where the WX 2100 outperforms the P4000, but its efficiency and size are legitimate advantages that the benchmark scores do not capture.