AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 465 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains one direct head-to-head comparison: Geekbench OpenCL. In that test, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 465 scores 9294, while the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 scores 7333. The NVIDIA card wins with a 26.7% delta. That is a substantial margin, roughly a quarter better in raw compute throughput as measured by this workload. The GTX 465 sits at the 46th percentile among all GPUs in the database, while the WX 3100 sits at the 41st percentile. The percentile spread, 5 points, understates the score gap because the density of GPUs around those scores is high.

The AMD card does have a second benchmark entry, Geekbench Vulkan, scoring 7827. The NVIDIA card has no recorded Vulkan score in the database, so a direct comparison across that API is not possible from the available measurements. The Vulkan score is still useful context: it shows the WX 3100 is capable in a modern API, and the fact that its Vulkan score exceeds its OpenCL score by 494 points suggests the GCN architecture scales well when drivers are given explicit control. But for the single test where both cards were measured under identical conditions, the GTX 465 is clearly ahead.

Looking at the nearest rivals for each card helps interpret these numbers. The GTX 465's average benchmark score is 9294, and its closest competitors in the database are the GeForce GTX 850M at 9302 (0.1% faster), the Radeon R7 M380 at 9313 (0.2% faster), the GeForce GTX 960 at 9273 (0.2% slower), and the Radeon Vega 8 at 9221 (0.8% slower). The GTX 465 sits essentially in a dead heat with these four GPUs, within 0.8% either way. This suggests the Fermi-era card, despite its age, lands in a performance tier that remained competitive across several generations of hardware.

The WX 3100's average benchmark score is 7580. Its nearest rivals are the Radeon R7 250 at 7557 (0.3% slower), the Intel Arc A310 at 7550 (0.4% slower), the Radeon 540 at 7673 (1.2% faster), and the GeForce GTX 1650 at 7472 (1.4% slower). The WX 3100 is also tightly clustered, within 1.4% of its neighbors. The gap between the two cards in this database is therefore not just a single benchmark artifact: 9294 versus 7580 is an 1714-point difference, and the two cards occupy different neighborhoods of the performance distribution entirely. The GTX 465 competes with mid-range mobile and entry desktop parts from later generations, while the WX 3100 competes with low-end and integrated-class parts.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 465 scores 9294, a 26.7% lead over the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100's 7333.

Q: Does the AMD card have any benchmark advantage?

A: The WX 3100 has a recorded Geekbench Vulkan score of 7827, but the GTX 465 has no Vulkan score in the database, so no cross-card comparison on that API is possible.

Q: How do these cards compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The GTX 465 sits within 0.8% of the GeForce GTX 850M, Radeon R7 M380, GeForce GTX 960, and Radeon Vega 8. The WX 3100 sits within 1.4% of the Radeon R7 250, Intel Arc A310, Radeon 540, and GeForce GTX 1650.

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The GTX 465 averages 9294, while the WX 3100 averages 7580. The GTX 465 is ahead by 1714 points.

Q: What do the percentile rankings indicate?

A: The GTX 465 is at the 46th percentile of all GPUs, and the WX 3100 is at the 41st percentile. Both are below the median, but the GTX 465 ranks higher.

Q: Which card has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 achieves 19.50 GPixel/s, compared to the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 465's 13.38 GPixel/s.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different architectural eras and different design philosophies. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 465 uses the GF100 chip, built on Fermi architecture, manufactured on a 40 nm process at TSMC. The die is 529 mm² and contains 3,100 million transistors, giving a transistor density of 5.9 million transistors per square millimeter. Fermi was NVIDIA's first architecture to unify the shader cores into a single array, and the GF100 die was notably large for its time, an ambitious design that packed a high transistor count onto a process node that was comparatively mature.

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 uses the Lexa chip, built on GCN 4.0 architecture, manufactured on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The die is 103 mm² and contains 2,200 million transistors, giving a transistor density of 21.4 million transistors per square millimeter. GCN 4.0 is a mature iteration of AMD's Graphics Core Next design, and the 14 nm process allowed AMD to pack nearly as many transistors as the Fermi chip into roughly one fifth of the die area. The density difference is stark: 21.4M per mm² versus 5.9M per mm², a 3.6x advantage for the newer process.

The transistor counts tell an interesting story. The GTX 465 has 3,100 million transistors, the WX 3100 has 2,200 million. Despite having fewer transistors, the AMD card posts higher raw throughput numbers in several categories. This reflects both the process advantage and the architectural efficiency of GCN relative to Fermi. The Fermi design was known for its complexity and power hunger, while GCN was designed to scale efficiently across a wide range of products from low-end mobile to high-end desktop.

In terms of compute resources, the GTX 465 has 352 shading units, 44 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The WX 3100 has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The AMD card has 45% more shading units but 27% fewer TMUs and half the ROPs. This is a meaningful divergence: the NVIDIA card dedicates more of its silicon to rasterization and texture work at the back end, while the AMD card emphasizes shader throughput. The FP32 numbers reflect this: the WX 3100 delivers 1,248.3 GFLOPS, while the GTX 465 delivers 855.4 GFLOPS. The AMD card is 46% ahead in raw floating-point compute.

The WX 3100 also supports FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, both at 1,248.3 GFLOPS. The GTX 465 has no recorded FP16 capability in the database. This makes the AMD card more suitable for workloads that leverage half-precision arithmetic, a feature that became increasingly relevant in machine learning and compute applications after Fermi's release.

Memory architecture differs as well. The GTX 465 uses a 256-bit memory bus with 1024 MB of GDDR5 and achieves 102.7 GB/s bandwidth. The WX 3100 uses a 128-bit bus with 4 GB of GDDR5 and achieves 96.00 GB/s bandwidth. The NVIDIA card has a wider bus and slightly higher bandwidth, but the AMD card has four times the memory capacity. For workloads that need to hold large datasets in VRAM, the WX 3100's 4 GB is a decisive advantage. For bandwidth-bound tasks, the GTX 465's wider interface gives it a small edge, about 7% higher bandwidth.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every specification category. The GTX 465 uses a 40 nm TSMC process, the WX 3100 uses a 14 nm GlobalFoundries process. The GTX 465 has a die size of 529 mm², the WX 3100 has 103 mm². Transistor density is 5.9M per mm² versus 21.4M per mm². The GTX 465 has 3,100 million transistors, the WX 3100 has 2,200 million.

Clock behavior differs significantly. The GTX 465 has no recorded base or boost clock, only a memory clock of 802 MHz (3.2 Gbps effective). The WX 3100 has a base clock of 925 MHz and a boost clock of 1219 MHz, with memory at 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective). The AMD card's memory runs at nearly double the effective speed.

Memory configuration: 1024 MB on a 256-bit bus for the GTX 465, 4 GB on a 128-bit bus for the WX 3100. Bandwidth is close, 102.7 GB/s versus 96.00 GB/s. Shading units: 352 versus 512. TMUs: 44 versus 32. ROPs: 32 versus 16. Pixel rate: 13.38 GPixel/s versus 19.50 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 26.75 GTexel/s versus 39.01 GTexel/s. FP32: 855.4 GFLOPS versus 1,248.3 GFLOPS.

Power and physical dimensions are wildly different. The GTX 465 has a TDP of 200 W, requires two 6-pin power connectors, needs a 550 W suggested PSU, and occupies a dual-slot width. The WX 3100 has a TDP of 65 W, requires no power connectors, needs only a 250 W suggested PSU, and occupies a single slot. The GTX 465 is 241 mm long, the WX 3100 is 168 mm long and 69 mm tall.

Bus interface: PCIe 2.0 x16 for NVIDIA, PCIe 3.0 x8 for AMD. Display outputs: the GTX 465 offers 2x DVI and 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a; the WX 3100 offers 1x DisplayPort 1.4a and 2x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a. API support: DirectX 12 (11_0) versus DirectX 12 (12_0), both OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3 only on the AMD card; the GTX 465 has no recorded Vulkan support. The GTX 465 was released on 2010-05-30 with a launch MSRP of 279 USD. The WX 3100 was released on 2017-06-11 with a launch MSRP of 199 USD.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 465 wins in the only direct benchmark comparison available: Geekbench OpenCL, where it leads by 26.7%. It also has higher memory bandwidth (102.7 GB/s versus 96.00 GB/s) and a wider memory bus (256-bit versus 128-bit). For workloads that are sensitive to memory bandwidth, such as some compute kernels and certain rendering passes, the NVIDIA card has a measurable advantage. Its higher ROP count (32 versus 16) suggests it may handle fill-rate-bound scenarios better, though the pixel rate numbers tell a more complex story: the WX 3100 actually posts a higher pixel rate at 19.50 GPixel/s versus 13.38 GPixel/s, because its much higher clock speed compensates for fewer ROPs.

The WX 3100 wins in raw shader throughput. Its FP32 output of 1,248.3 GFLOPS is 46% higher than the GTX 465's 855.4 GFLOPS. It also has FP16 support at a 1:1 ratio, which the GTX 465 lacks entirely. Its texture rate of 39.01 GTexel/s beats the GTX 465's 26.75 GTexel/s by 46%. Its pixel rate of 19.50 GPixel/s beats the GTX 465's 13.38 GPixel/s by 46%. These numbers suggest that for compute-heavy workloads, particularly those that can use half precision, the WX 3100 is the stronger card, even though it loses the OpenCL benchmark.

The WX 3100 also wins decisively on memory capacity: 4 GB versus 1 GB. Any workload that requires loading more than 1 GB of data into VRAM will fail on the GTX 465 or spill to system memory. This is a hard constraint that no amount of bandwidth or shader throughput can overcome. For machine learning inference, rendering scenes with large texture sets, or working with high-resolution image data, the WX 3100's 4 GB capacity is a practical advantage.

Power and physical footprint favor the AMD card overwhelmingly. At 65 W TDP with no power connectors and a single-slot design, the WX 3100 can be installed in systems where the GTX 465's 200 W TDP, dual-slot width, and two 6-pin connectors would be impossible. The WX 3100 also supports modern display outputs (DisplayPort 1.4a) and Vulkan 1.3, making it functional in contemporary software environments. The GTX 465's mini-HDMI 1.3a and DVI outputs are legacy, and its lack of recorded Vulkan support limits its use in modern cross-platform applications.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear but nuanced picture. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 465 is the faster card in the one benchmark where both were measured under identical conditions, leading the WX 3100 by 26.7% in Geekbench OpenCL. It also ranks higher overall, at the 46th percentile versus the 41st. For users who care exclusively about that OpenCL score, the GTX 465 is the choice.

But the WX 3100 wins on nearly every other measurable axis. It has 46% higher FP32 throughput, 46% higher texture rate, 46% higher pixel rate, four times the memory capacity, modern API support including Vulkan 1.3, a 135 W lower TDP, no external power requirement, a single-slot form factor, and a smaller physical footprint. It was also released seven years later, which explains its architectural advantages.

The choice depends on the workload. A user running OpenCL compute tasks that fit within 1 GB of VRAM and who has a system capable of feeding a 200 W dual-slot card will get better performance from the GTX 465. A user who needs to run modern software, process larger datasets, work in a constrained chassis, or take advantage of FP16 compute should select the WX 3100. The GTX 465 wins the benchmark; the WX 3100 wins the broader specification comparison. Neither card is dominant across all categories, and the recorded data does not support a single universal recommendation.