AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 vs NVIDIA GeForce GT 1010 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison recorded in the database is a single Geekbench OpenCL test, and it goes to the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100. The AMD card scored 7,333 points against 6,698 for the NVIDIA GeForce GT 1010, a 9.5% advantage. That margin is not trivial; it places the two cards in adjacent performance tiers, but the AMD part is clearly ahead in raw compute throughput as measured by this workload.

Looking at the broader database averages, the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 holds an average benchmark score of 7,580. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 1010 sits at 6,698. That is a gap of roughly 13% in favor of the AMD card. The difference is consistent with the head-to-head result, suggesting the OpenCL test is representative of the overall performance relationship between these two products.

The AMD card’s nearest rivals in the database include the AMD Radeon 540 at 7,673 (1.2% faster), the AMD Radeon R7 250 at 7,557 (0.3% slower), and the Intel Arc A310 at 7,550 (0.4% slower). The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is also nearby at 7,472, trailing the WX 3100 by 1.4%. This places the WX 3100 in a tight cluster of low-end to mid-range cards where small percentage swings separate one model from the next.

The NVIDIA GeForce GT 1010, by contrast, sits among a different set of rivals. Its closest match is the AMD FirePro M5100 at 6,830, which is 1.9% faster. The AMD Radeon R7 M370 trails by 1.0% at 6,764, and the AMD Radeon R7 M460 is 1.3% behind at 6,612. The AMD Radeon HD 7730M is 1.8% slower at 6,581. These are all older mobile or low-power desktop parts, and the GT 1010’s position among them confirms it is a baseline entry-level GPU.

In percentile terms, the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 ranks at the 41st percentile of all GPUs in the database. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 1010 ranks at the 38th percentile. The three-point spread is modest, but it reinforces the idea that these are both bottom-half products. Neither card is designed for high-end workloads; the data places them firmly in the entry-level segment.

The single head-to-head win for AMD is the only measurable victory in the record. There are no tests in the database where the NVIDIA card comes out ahead. That does not mean the GT 1010 is without merit; rather, the available benchmark data simply does not include a scenario where it outperforms the WX 3100. The delta of 9.5% in OpenCL is the only direct comparison point, and it favors AMD across the board.

The Verdict

The data is straightforward: the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 is the faster card. In the one direct head-to-head benchmark recorded, it beats the NVIDIA GeForce GT 1010 by 9.5%. The average benchmark scores confirm the same ordering, with the AMD part at 7,580 versus 6,698 for the NVIDIA part. There is no recorded test where the GT 1010 wins.

The AMD card also offers more of nearly everything that matters for compute performance. It has double the shading units (512 versus 256), double the texture mapping units (32 versus 16), and double the render output units (16 versus 8). Its FP32 throughput is 1,248.3 GFLOPS versus 751.6 GFLOPS for the NVIDIA card. The memory subsystem is also lopsided: 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus delivering 96.00 GB/s, compared to 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus delivering 48.06 GB/s. Every one of these numbers points the same direction.

Who should pick the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100? Anyone whose workload is compute-heavy, particularly OpenCL-based tasks. The Radeon Pro branding suggests professional applications, and the benchmark data supports that positioning. The card also supports both OpenCL and Vulkan in the database, with a Vulkan score of 7,827, which is higher than its OpenCL score of 7,333. That makes it a more versatile choice for applications that can leverage either API.

Who should pick the NVIDIA GeForce GT 1010? The data does not show a performance advantage in any recorded test. However, the GT 1010 has a much lower power draw: 30 W versus 65 W for the AMD card. It also has a smaller physical footprint at 147 mm length versus 168 mm. If the priority is minimal power consumption and a compact card for basic display output, the GT 1010 has a role. But for any measurable compute performance, the AMD card is the clear choice based on the database records.

The percentile rankings reinforce this. The AMD card sits at 41, the NVIDIA card at 38. Both are low, but the AMD part is consistently ahead. The verdict is unambiguous: the Radeon Pro WX 3100 is the superior GPU in every benchmark metric recorded.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 has an average benchmark score of 7,580, while the NVIDIA GeForce GT 1010 has 6,698.

Q: What is the margin in the direct head-to-head OpenCL test?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 scored 7,333 and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 1010 scored 6,698, giving the AMD card a 9.5% lead.

Q: How does the AMD card compare to its nearest rival, the AMD Radeon 540?

A: The AMD Radeon 540 averages 7,673, which is 1.2% higher than the Radeon Pro WX 3100’s 7,580.

Q: What is the closest competitor to the NVIDIA GeForce GT 1010?

A: The AMD FirePro M5100 averages 6,830, which is 1.9% faster than the GT 1010’s 6,698.

Q: Does the NVIDIA card win any recorded benchmark?

A: No. The database shows zero wins for the NVIDIA GeForce GT 1010 in head-to-head testing.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 delivers 96.00 GB/s over a 128-bit bus, while the NVIDIA GeForce GT 1010 delivers 48.06 GB/s over a 64-bit bus.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in almost every measurable specification. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 uses the Lexa chip, while the NVIDIA GeForce GT 1010 uses the GP108. The AMD part is built on GCN 4.0 architecture, the NVIDIA part on Pascal. Both are on a 14 nm process, but AMD uses GlobalFoundries as the foundry and NVIDIA uses Samsung.

The transistor counts differ: AMD lists 2,200 million transistors on a 103 mm² die, while NVIDIA lists 1,800 million on a 74 mm² die. This results in a transistor density of 21.4M per mm² for AMD and 24.3M per mm² for NVIDIA. The NVIDIA chip is denser per square millimeter, but the AMD chip has more total transistors and a larger die.

Clock speeds are higher on the NVIDIA card. The GT 1010 has a base clock of 1,228 MHz and a boost clock of 1,468 MHz. The WX 3100 has a base of 925 MHz and a boost of 1,219 MHz. Memory clocks are nearly identical: 1,500 MHz for AMD and 1,502 MHz for NVIDIA, both with 6 Gbps effective data rate.

The memory configuration is starkly different. AMD offers 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth. NVIDIA offers 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus with 48.06 GB/s bandwidth. The compute units follow the same pattern: AMD has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs; NVIDIA has 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs.

Pixel and texture rates reflect these differences. The AMD card achieves 19.50 GPixel/s and 39.01 GTexel/s. The NVIDIA card achieves 11.74 GPixel/s and 23.49 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 1,248.3 GFLOPS for AMD and 751.6 GFLOPS for NVIDIA. The AMD card also lists FP16 at 1,248.3 GFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio; the NVIDIA card has no recorded FP16 value.

Power and physical specs also diverge. AMD has a 65 W TDP and suggests a 250 W power supply. NVIDIA has a 30 W TDP and suggests a 200 W power supply. Both are single-slot with no power connectors. The AMD card is 168 mm long and 69 mm tall; the NVIDIA card is 147 mm long with no recorded height. The bus interface is PCIe 3.0 x8 for AMD and PCIe 3.0 x4 for NVIDIA.

Display outputs are different as well. AMD provides 1x DisplayPort 1.4a and 2x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a. NVIDIA provides 1x DVI and 1x mini-HDMI 2.0. API support is similar but not identical: both support DirectX 12 and OpenGL 4.6, but AMD lists DirectX 12_0 and Vulkan 1.3, while NVIDIA lists DirectX 12_1 and Vulkan 1.4.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split is fundamental. AMD uses GCN 4.0, also known as Polaris, a design that emphasizes balanced compute and graphics throughput. The chip is named Lexa, and the generation is listed as Radeon Pro Polaris (WX x100). NVIDIA uses Pascal, the same architecture family as the GeForce 10 series, with the chip designated GP108.

The process nodes are identical at 14 nm, but the foundries differ. AMD works with GlobalFoundries; NVIDIA works with Samsung. The transistor densities tell a story: NVIDIA packs 24.3M transistors per mm² versus AMD’s 21.4M per mm². This is a minor density advantage for NVIDIA, but it does not translate into performance leadership in the recorded benchmarks.

The core configurations are the clearest architectural difference. AMD’s GCN design scales with a larger number of shader units, 512, and a wider memory bus, 128 bit. NVIDIA’s Pascal design for GP108 is intentionally small, with 256 shader units and a 64-bit bus. The result is that AMD has double the TMUs and ROPs, and it shows in the pixel and texture rates.

Cache and feature specifics beyond what is listed are not in the database, but the available fields show distinct design philosophies. AMD’s card supports FP16 at the same rate as FP32, indicating a 1:1 ratio that can be beneficial for certain compute workloads. NVIDIA does not list an FP16 value at all, suggesting no special half-precision support.

The API support differs slightly in DirectX feature level and Vulkan version. AMD lists DirectX 12_0 and Vulkan 1.3; NVIDIA lists DirectX 12_1 and Vulkan 1.4. The higher DirectX feature level on the NVIDIA card is notable, but the benchmark data does not show a corresponding performance benefit. The Pascal architecture is older in terms of release, but the database records show the AMD GCN part outperforming it in compute.

Memory architecture is another divergence. AMD uses a 128-bit GDDR5 interface with 4 GB capacity, while NVIDIA uses a 64-bit GDDR5 interface with 2 GB. The bandwidth difference is exactly double, 96.00 GB/s versus 48.06 GB/s. This is a structural advantage for AMD, not a clock speed difference, since both cards run memory at effectively 6 Gbps.

The power envelope is a key architectural outcome. NVIDIA’s smaller chip and narrower memory bus allow a 30 W TDP, less than half of AMD’s 65 W. This makes the GT 1010 an extremely low-power option, suitable for systems with minimal cooling or power delivery. The AMD card, while more power-hungry, offers double the memory and compute resources.

Both cards are end-of-life in production status. The AMD card was released in 2017, the NVIDIA card in 2021. The AMD card has a recorded launch MSRP of 199 USD; the NVIDIA card has no recorded launch MSRP. The predecessor and successor lines differ as well: AMD’s lineage runs from Radeon Pro GCN to Radeon Pro Vega, while NVIDIA’s runs from GeForce 900 to GeForce 20.

The slot width is single-slot for both, and neither requires external power connectors. The bus interface favors AMD with PCIe 3.0 x8 versus NVIDIA’s PCIe 3.0 x4. In practice, this means the AMD card has double the PCIe bandwidth available for data transfers, which can matter in compute workloads that stream data from the host.

The display outputs reflect different target markets. AMD provides three DisplayPort outputs, consistent with professional workstation use. NVIDIA provides DVI and mini-HDMI, more typical of consumer or basic office use. These are not performance metrics, but they indicate different design intents that align with the benchmark results.