AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 vs NVIDIA GeForce GT 555M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only recorded head-to-head benchmark in the database is Geekbench OpenCL, and the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 takes a clear victory. It scores 7,333 against the NVIDIA GeForce GT 555M's 6,493, a 12.9% advantage. This is not a marginal win; it places the AMD part in a different performance tier for compute workloads.

To put that 12.9% gap into context, look at where each card sits among its nearest rivals. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 has an average benchmark score of 7,580, which puts it 0.3% ahead of the AMD Radeon R7 250 (7,557) and 0.4% ahead of the Intel Arc A310 (7,550). It trails the AMD Radeon 540 by 1.2% (that card scores 7,673) and beats the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 by 1.4% (7,472). So the WX 3100 is clustered with a group of modern low-end to mid-range cards, and its OpenCL score is consistent with that neighborhood.

The NVIDIA GeForce GT 555M, by contrast, has an average benchmark score of 6,493, which is 0.2% above the NVIDIA Quadro M5000M (6,481) and 0.3% above the AMD Radeon Vega 10 Mobile (6,476). It is 0.3% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670M (6,513) and 0.9% behind the Intel UHD Graphics P750 (6,554). The GT 555M is effectively a legacy mobile part, and its compute performance sits at the bottom of that group. In the single head-to-head test, the AMD part wins outright, and the delta is far larger than any of the rival deltas listed for either card.

The data shows no reverse win for the NVIDIA card. The head-to-head table records 1 win for AMD and 0 for NVIDIA. There is no Vulkan score recorded for the GT 555M, so the WX 3100's Geekbench Vulkan result of 7,827 stands alone. That Vulkan score is higher than its own OpenCL score, which suggests the AMD architecture handles the Vulkan API particularly well, but there is no comparable NVIDIA number to measure against.

The Verdict

From the recorded data, the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 is the stronger compute part. It wins the only benchmark where both are measured, and its average score (7,580) is 16.7% higher than the GT 555M's average (6,493). The percentile ranking confirms this: the WX 3100 sits in the 41st percentile of all GPUs, while the GT 555M sits in the 37th.

Who should pick the AMD card? Anyone running OpenCL-based workloads, which includes many professional compute tasks, video encoding filters, and certain physics simulations. The 12.9% lead in Geekbench OpenCL is substantial for a head-to-head comparison, and it is backed by a broader 1,087-point average score gap. The WX 3100 also has Vulkan support (score 7,827), which the GT 555M lacks entirely, so any Vulkan compute or rendering workload is only possible on the AMD side.

Who should pick the NVIDIA card? Strictly from the data, the GT 555M has no benchmark win to recommend it. Its only advantage is qualitative: it is a 35 W part versus the AMD's 65 W, which could matter in a power-constrained laptop chassis. But the database shows no performance test where the NVIDIA card comes out ahead. If you are choosing between these two for compute, the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 is the clear pick. If you are constrained by thermals and do not need compute performance, the GT 555M is the lower-power option, but you are sacrificing over 12% OpenCL performance and all Vulkan capability.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 wins in every benchmark category where both are tested. It wins OpenCL compute, it wins the average score comparison, and it wins the only head-to-head matchup. Its Vulkan score (7,827) is its best recorded result, so for Vulkan-based workloads it is even stronger relatively, though there is no GT 555M number to compare directly.

The GT 555M's wins are not in performance but in efficiency and form factor. It draws a 35 W TDP versus the AMD's 65 W, which is a significant difference for mobile use. It also uses a PCIe 2.0 x16 interface, whereas the AMD uses PCIe 3.0 x8; the older interface may be more compatible with legacy laptops. The GT 555M's display outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent," meaning it relies on the laptop's own panel and connectors, which is typical for an integrated mobile GPU.

For use cases: if you need raw compute throughput, even at the entry level, the AMD card is the winner. If you need the lowest possible power draw and already have a laptop motherboard that accepts a 35 W GPU, the GT 555M is the only one that fits that thermal envelope. There is no scenario in the data where the GT 555M outperforms the WX 3100 in any compute metric.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 scores 7,333, which is 12.9% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce GT 555M's 6,493.

Q: Does the NVIDIA GeForce GT 555M support Vulkan?

A: No. The database lists no Vulkan score for the GT 555M, and its API support does not include Vulkan. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 has a Vulkan score of 7,827.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 has an average score of 7,580, while the GT 555M averages 6,493. That is a 1,087-point difference in favor of the AMD card.

Q: Which GPU has a higher percentile ranking?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 is in the 41st percentile of all GPUs, while the GT 555M is in the 37th percentile.

Q: What is the power draw difference?

A: The GT 555M has a 35 W TDP, which is lower than the WX 3100's 65 W TDP. This makes the NVIDIA card more suitable for power-constrained laptops.

Q: Are there any benchmark categories where the GT 555M wins?

A: No. The head-to-head table records 1 win for the AMD and 0 wins for the NVIDIA. The GT 555M has no recorded benchmark victory over the WX 3100.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from completely different architectural generations and foundries. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 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 a transistor density of 21.4 million per square millimeter. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 555M uses the GF106 chip based on Fermi architecture, built on a 40 nm process at TSMC. It has 1,170 million transistors spread over a 238 mm² die, for a density of just 4.9 million per square millimeter.

The compute resources differ sharply. The WX 3100 has 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 raster output units. The GT 555M has 144 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. That means the AMD card has more than 3.5 times the shading units and a third more texture units, which explains its large compute lead. The AMD card also supports fp16 at a 1:1 ratio with fp32, while the GT 555M has no fp16 capability listed.

The memory architecture is also different. The WX 3100 uses GDDR5 with 4 GB capacity, while the GT 555M uses DDR3 with only 1 GB. Both have a 128-bit bus, but the AMD memory clock is 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective) versus the NVIDIA's 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective). The API support differs as well: the WX 3100 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3, while the GT 555M supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6 but no Vulkan.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the two cards, based only on the recorded data:

• Process node: AMD is 14 nm; NVIDIA is 40 nm.
• Foundry: AMD uses GlobalFoundries; NVIDIA uses TSMC.
• Transistor count: AMD has 2,200 million; NVIDIA has 1,170 million.
• Die size: AMD is 103 mm²; NVIDIA is 238 mm².
• Transistor density: AMD is 21.4M / mm²; NVIDIA is 4.9M / mm².
• Memory size: AMD has 4 GB; NVIDIA has 1024 MB.
• Memory type: AMD uses GDDR5; NVIDIA uses DDR3.
• Memory clock: AMD is 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective); NVIDIA is 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective).
• Memory bandwidth: AMD is 96.00 GB/s; NVIDIA is 28.80 GB/s.
• Shading units: AMD has 512; NVIDIA has 144.
• Texture mapping units: AMD has 32; NVIDIA has 24.
• Raster output units: Both have 16, so no difference there.
• Pixel rate: AMD is 19.50 GPixel/s; NVIDIA is 3.540 GPixel/s.
• Texture rate: AMD is 39.01 GTexel/s; NVIDIA is 14.16 GTexel/s.
• FP32 performance: AMD is 1,248.3 GFLOPS; NVIDIA is 339.8 GFLOPS.
• FP16 performance: AMD is 1,248.3 GFLOPS (1:1); NVIDIA has no recorded fp16.
• TDP: AMD is 65 W; NVIDIA is 35 W.
• Slot width: AMD is single-slot; NVIDIA has no recorded slot width.
• Power connectors: AMD has none; NVIDIA has no recorded connectors.
• Suggested PSU: AMD lists 250 W; NVIDIA has no recorded value.
• Bus interface: AMD is PCIe 3.0 x8; NVIDIA is PCIe 2.0 x16.
• Display outputs: AMD has 1x DisplayPort 1.4a and 2x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a; NVIDIA is "Portable Device Dependent".
• DirectX support: AMD is 12 (12_0); NVIDIA is 12 (11_0).
• Vulkan support: AMD is 1.3; NVIDIA has no Vulkan support.
• Release date: AMD is 2017-06-11; NVIDIA is 2011-07-01.
• Predecessor: AMD's is Radeon Pro GCN; NVIDIA's is GeForce 400M.
• Successor: AMD's is Radeon Pro Vega; NVIDIA's is GeForce 600M.
• Launch MSRP: AMD is 199 USD; NVIDIA has no recorded launch MSRP.
• Production status: Both are end-of-life.

The AMD card also has recorded dimensions (168 mm length, 69 mm height), while the NVIDIA card has none. The GT 555M's base and boost clocks are not recorded, while the AMD has a 925 MHz base and 1219 MHz boost. The AMD card's architecture is GCN 4.0, and the NVIDIA's is Fermi. The AMD generation is "Radeon Pro Polaris (WX x100)", and the NVIDIA generation is "GeForce 500M".