AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost Comparison

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a clear and consistent picture: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost outperforms the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 in every head-to-head test recorded. Starting with Geekbench OpenCL, the GTX 650 Ti Boost scores 9302 against the WX 3100's 7333, a decisive 26.9% advantage. The gap widens further in Geekbench Vulkan, where the NVIDIA card reaches 10041 while the AMD card manages 7827, translating to a 28.3% lead.

These results are striking given the generational difference between the two products. The GTX 650 Ti Boost launched in March 2013 on the 28 nm Kepler architecture, while the WX 3100 arrived in June 2017 on the 14 nm GCN 4.0 architecture. Despite the newer node and architecture, the AMD card cannot close the gap in these compute-oriented workloads. The GTX 650 Ti Boost's average benchmark score of 8067 places it in the 42nd percentile of all GPUs, while the WX 3100's 7580 average lands it at the 41st percentile — a narrow overall ranking difference that belies the larger individual test margins.

Looking at the nearest rivals for each card provides additional context. The GTX 650 Ti Boost sits within 0.3% of the NVIDIA GRID K2 (8080), GeForce GTX 650 Ti (8053), GeForce GTX 880M (8040), and Quadro P5000 (8039). The WX 3100, meanwhile, is bracketed by the Radeon R7 250 (7557, +0.3%), Intel Arc A310 (7550, +0.4%), Radeon 540 (7673, -1.2%), and GeForce GTX 1650 (7472, +1.4%). The NVIDIA card's rivals cluster tightly around its score, suggesting it punches consistently at its weight class, whereas the AMD card's closest competitor, the Radeon 540, actually beats it by 1.2% — a sign that the WX 3100 is positioned near the bottom of its performance tier.

The Vulkan results are particularly telling for the GTX 650 Ti Boost. Its 10041 score represents its strongest benchmark showing across all three tests it was subjected to (OpenCL, Vulkan, and Metal). This suggests the Kepler architecture, despite its age, retains considerable compute capability in modern APIs. The WX 3100's Vulkan score of 7827 is actually its better result compared to its OpenCL figure, yet it still trails by nearly 30%. The data implies that in raw throughput terms, the older NVIDIA card simply has more headroom — its 768 shading units and 1.585 TFLOPS FP32 performance outmatch the AMD card's 512 shading units and 1,248.3 GFLOPS.

# FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the available head-to-head benchmarks?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost wins all recorded head-to-head tests. It leads by 26.9% in Geekbench OpenCL (9302 vs 7333) and by 28.3% in Geekbench Vulkan (10041 vs 7827).

Q: How does each card compare to its nearest rivals in average benchmark score?

A: The GTX 650 Ti Boost's 8067 average is nearly identical to its closest rivals, with deltas ranging from -0.2% (GRID K2) to +0.3% (GTX 880M, Quadro P5000). The WX 3100's 7580 average is slightly below the Radeon 540 (-1.2%) but above the R7 250, Arc A310, and GTX 1650 by margins of 0.3% to 1.4%.

Q: What explains the performance gap despite the AMD card being newer?

A: The GTX 650 Ti Boost has more raw compute resources: 768 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 24 ROPs versus 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs on the WX 3100. It also delivers higher FP32 throughput at 1.585 TFLOPS compared to 1,248.3 GFLOPS.

Q: Which card has better memory bandwidth?

A: The GTX 650 Ti Boost offers 144.2 GB/s on a 192-bit bus, while the WX 3100 provides 96.00 GB/s on a 128-bit bus. The NVIDIA card's bandwidth advantage is 48.2 GB/s.

Q: Are there any benchmarks where the AMD card shows a relative strength?

A: In the available data, the WX 3100 does not win any head-to-head test. However, its closer average score to the GTX 650 Ti Boost (within 6%) versus the 26-28% gap in individual tests suggests the AMD card may perform relatively better in other unlisted workloads or API paths.

Q: How do the cards' overall performance percentiles compare?

A: The GTX 650 Ti Boost sits at the 42nd percentile of all GPUs, while the WX 3100 is at the 41st percentile. This places both cards within the same broad performance tier despite the GTX 650 Ti Boost's consistent per-test wins.

# The Verdict

The data unequivocally favors the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost in raw benchmark performance. Across both shared tests, it wins by margins of 26.9% and 28.3%, which are substantial gaps by any measure. Its average benchmark score of 8067 further confirms this lead, sitting 487 points above the WX 3100's 7580.

However, the verdict is not purely about performance. The GTX 650 Ti Boost draws 134 W and requires a 6-pin power connector plus a 300 W power supply, while the WX 3100 operates at 65 W with no power connector and a 250 W suggested PSU. The AMD card also fits in a single slot and measures 168 mm in length versus the NVIDIA card's 241 mm dual-slot design. For systems constrained by space or power, the WX 3100's efficiency could be the deciding factor.

The GTX 650 Ti Boost also carries a lower launch MSRP of 169 USD compared to the WX 3100's 199 USD. For pure compute performance per dollar at launch, the NVIDIA card was the better value. Yet the WX 3100's 4 GB VRAM doubles the GTX 650 Ti Boost's 2 GB capacity, which could matter for memory-heavy workloads despite the lower bandwidth.

Users prioritizing raw benchmark scores should choose the GTX 650 Ti Boost without hesitation. Those needing lower power draw, smaller physical footprint, or greater memory capacity will find the WX 3100 more suitable, accepting a roughly 27-28% performance deficit in the tested workloads.

# Specification Differences

The two cards diverge across nearly every major specification. The GTX 650 Ti Boost uses the GK106 chip with 2,540 million transistors on a 221 mm² die, while the WX 3100 uses the Lexa chip with 2,200 million transistors on a 103 mm² die. The process nodes differ dramatically: 28 nm TSMC for NVIDIA versus 14 nm GlobalFoundries for AMD.

Clock speeds show the GTX 650 Ti Boost at 980 MHz base and 1032 MHz boost, while the WX 3100 runs at 925 MHz base and 1219 MHz boost. The AMD card's higher boost clock partially compensates for its fewer cores, but not enough to overcome the NVIDIA card's resource advantage.

Memory configurations differ in capacity and bus width. The GTX 650 Ti Boost has 2 GB GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus delivering 144.2 GB/s, whereas the WX 3100 offers 4 GB GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus at 96.00 GB/s. Both run at 1502 MHz or 1500 MHz with 6 Gbps effective speed.

Compute resources favor NVIDIA: 768 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 24 ROPs versus 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The GTX 650 Ti Boost also leads in texture rate at 66.05 GTexel/s versus 39.01 GTexel/s, though the WX 3100 has a slightly higher pixel rate at 19.50 GPixel/s versus 16.51 GPixel/s.

Power and physical specifications differ substantially. The GTX 650 Ti Boost has a 134 W TDP, dual-slot design, and 1x 6-pin connector, while the WX 3100 is rated at 65 W, single-slot, and requires no external power. The NVIDIA card is 241 mm long; the AMD card is 168 mm long and 69 mm high.

Bus interface and display outputs also vary. The GTX 650 Ti Boost uses PCIe 3.0 x16 with outputs of 2x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x DisplayPort 1.2. The WX 3100 uses PCIe 3.0 x8 with 1x DisplayPort 1.4a and 2x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a.

# Architecture Differences

The GTX 650 Ti Boost is built on NVIDIA's Kepler architecture, fabricated by TSMC at 28 nm. Kepler was designed for efficient gaming performance, and its 768 shading units are organized in a configuration that emphasizes raw throughput per clock. The architecture supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175.

The WX 3100 uses AMD's GCN 4.0 architecture on GlobalFoundries' 14 nm process. GCN 4.0 was designed for professional workloads, with features like 1:1 FP16 support (1,248.3 GFLOPS) that the Kepler card lacks entirely. The AMD card supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3, giving it a more modern API feature set.

Transistor density tells the manufacturing story: the WX 3100 packs 21.4M transistors per mm² versus the GTX 650 Ti Boost's 11.5M per mm². This 14 nm advantage allows AMD to pack nearly as many transistors (2,200 million vs 2,540 million) into less than half the die area (103 mm² vs 221 mm²).

The architectural philosophy differs fundamentally. Kepler relies on a higher core count with lower per-core efficiency, while GCN 4.0 uses fewer cores with higher clock speeds and better power efficiency. The benchmark data suggests Kepler's brute-force approach wins in compute throughput, but the WX 3100's architecture offers modern API support and FP16 capabilities that the older NVIDIA card cannot match.

# Where Each One Wins

The GTX 650 Ti Boost wins decisively in compute benchmarks. Its 26.9% OpenCL lead and 28.3% Vulkan lead indicate superior raw throughput in general-purpose workloads. The card's higher texture rate (66.05 GTexel/s) and FP32 performance (1.585 TFLOPS) suggest it excels in tasks that saturate shading units, such as rendering, physics simulations, and compute-heavy visual effects. Its 144.2 GB/s bandwidth on a wider 192-bit bus also gives it an edge in bandwidth-sensitive operations.

The WX 3100 wins in practical deployment scenarios. Its 65 W TDP means it can be powered without extra connectors, making it suitable for systems with limited power delivery. Its single-slot, 168 mm length design fits in compact chassis where the GTX 650 Ti Boost's 241 mm dual-slot form factor would not. The 4 GB VRAM capacity doubles the NVIDIA card's 2 GB, benefiting workloads that require larger working sets even if they run at lower speed.

The API support also favors AMD for longevity. The WX 3100 supports Vulkan 1.3 and DirectX 12 (12_0), while the GTX 650 Ti Boost is limited to Vulkan 1.2.175 and DirectX 12 (11_0). For users running modern applications that leverage newer API features, the AMD card offers better compatibility despite lower raw performance.

The GTX 650 Ti Boost's launch MSRP was 169 USD, undercutting the WX 3100's 199 USD. For users who found the card at that price and have adequate power and space, it delivers superior benchmark performance in both OpenCL and Vulkan. The WX 3100, meanwhile, appeals to users prioritizing efficiency, form factor, and memory capacity over raw compute scores.