AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M Comparison

# AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits cleanly between these two end-of-life mobile and workstation-oriented graphics processors. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 holds the only head-to-head benchmark victory, winning the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 7,333 against the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M's 6,946. That is a 5.6% margin in AMD's favor, and it is the sole comparative data point available. The AMD card also has a second benchmark result — a Geekbench Vulkan score of 7,827 — which the NVIDIA part cannot contest because it lacks a Vulkan entry in the fact pack.

The GTX 675M's case rests entirely on its architectural characteristics rather than direct benchmark wins, since it has zero head-to-head victories. Its average benchmark score of 6,946 places it at the 39th percentile among all GPUs, slightly below the AMD's 41st percentile. The AMD part's average across its two benchmarks is 7,580, which is 634 points higher than the NVIDIA's single average. In terms of raw compute output, the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 delivers 1,248.3 GFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the GTX 675M produces 952.3 GFLOPS — a 296 GFLOPS gap. The AMD card also supports FP16 at a 1:1 ratio (1,248.3 GFLOPS), whereas the NVIDIA part has no FP16 figure listed.

Where the GTX 675M shows relative strength is in texture and pixel throughput per compute unit. Its texture rate of 39.68 GTexel/s slightly exceeds the AMD's 39.01 GTexel/s, despite having fewer shading units (384 vs 512). Its pixel rate of 9.920 GPixel/s, however, is roughly half the AMD's 19.50 GPixel/s. The NVIDIA card's 256-bit memory bus width is double the AMD's 128-bit interface, yet both converge at 96.00 GB/s of memory bandwidth due to the AMD's faster 6 Gbps effective memory speed versus the NVIDIA's 3 Gbps.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the only direct head-to-head benchmark?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with 7,333 points against the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M's 6,946 points, a 5.6% advantage.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 has an average benchmark score of 7,580 across its two tests (OpenCL and Vulkan), while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M averages 6,946 from its single OpenCL result — a 634-point gap.

Q: Does the NVIDIA card have any benchmark advantage?

A: No. The head-to-head data shows zero wins for the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M. Its only listed benchmark score (6,946) falls short of the AMD's OpenCL score of 7,333.

Q: Which GPU has higher memory bandwidth?

A: Both cards have identical memory bandwidth at 96.00 GB/s. The NVIDIA achieves this with a 256-bit bus and 3 Gbps effective GDDR5 memory, while the AMD uses a 128-bit bus with 6 Gbps effective memory.

Q: What is the FP32 compute difference?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 delivers 1,248.3 GFLOPS of FP32 performance, which is 296 GFLOPS higher than the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M's 952.3 GFLOPS.

Q: How do their percentile rankings differ?

A: The AMD card sits at the 41st percentile among all GPUs, while the NVIDIA card sits at the 39th percentile — a two-point difference in overall standing.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single available head-to-head benchmark is Geekbench OpenCL, and the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 takes it decisively. With a score of 7,333 against the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M's 6,946, the margin is 5.6% — a meaningful gap in synthetic compute workloads. This result aligns with the raw specifications: the AMD card has 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 raster operation pipelines, versus the NVIDIA's 384 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The AMD's FP32 throughput of 1,248.3 GFLOPS outpaces the NVIDIA's 952.3 GFLOPS by roughly 31%.

The AMD card's second benchmark — Geekbench Vulkan at 7,827 — is not directly comparable to anything the NVIDIA card offers, since the GTX 675M has no Vulkan score listed. This absence is notable because it means the NVIDIA part cannot be evaluated in modern cross-platform graphics APIs. The AMD's Vulkan score is 494 points higher than its own OpenCL score, suggesting the architecture scales well with the newer API. The NVIDIA card's OpenCL score of 6,946 places it near its nearest rivals: the AMD Radeon R5 M240 (6,975, -0.4%), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M (7,023, -1.1%), and the NVIDIA T600 (7,035, -1.3%). It sits just ahead of the AMD FirePro M5100 (6,830, +1.7%). By contrast, the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100's average of 7,580 puts it 1.4% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (7,472) and 0.3% ahead of the AMD Radeon R7 250 (7,557), while trailing the AMD Radeon 540 (7,673) by 1.2%.

Looking at throughput rates, the AMD card's pixel fill rate of 19.50 GPixel/s is nearly double the NVIDIA's 9.920 GPixel/s — a consequence of the AMD's higher clock speeds and ROP configuration. The base clock of 925 MHz and boost clock of 1219 MHz on the AMD part contrast with the NVIDIA's lack of listed base or boost clocks, suggesting the GTX 675M relies on a different clocking scheme. The NVIDIA's texture rate of 39.68 GTexel/s edges out the AMD's 39.01 GTexel/s by a slim 0.67 GTexel/s, which is a minor consolation given the AMD's overwhelming lead in pixel throughput and compute.

Specification Differences

The two cards diverge sharply on nearly every specification category. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 uses a 14 nm process node from GlobalFoundries, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M uses a 40 nm node from TSMC — a two-generation gap in manufacturing technology. The AMD chip (Lexa) contains 2,200 million transistors on a 103 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 21.4 million per mm². The NVIDIA chip (GF114) packs 1,950 million transistors onto a much larger 332 mm² die, with a density of just 5.9 million per mm². This means the AMD card fits more transistors into roughly a third of the silicon area.

Memory configurations differ in capacity and bus width. The AMD offers 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, while the NVIDIA offers 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus. Both achieve 96.00 GB/s bandwidth, but through different means: the AMD uses 1500 MHz memory with 6 Gbps effective speed, while the NVIDIA uses 750 MHz with 3 Gbps effective. Clock speeds are only listed for the AMD part (925 MHz base, 1219 MHz boost); the NVIDIA has no base or boost clock figures in the data.

Power and physical specifications show a clear split. The AMD card has a 65 W TDP with a suggested PSU of 250 W, requires no power connectors, and fits in a single-slot design measuring 168 mm in length and 69 mm in height. The NVIDIA card has a 100 W TDP, uses an MXM Module form factor with MXM-B (3.0) bus interface, and lists no dimensions or suggested PSU. Display outputs also differ: the AMD provides 1x DisplayPort 1.4a and 2x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a, while the NVIDIA's outputs are described as "Portable Device Dependent." The AMD uses PCIe 3.0 x8, whereas the NVIDIA uses MXM-B (3.0).

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two is fundamental. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 is built on GCN 4.0 architecture, part of the Radeon Pro Polaris generation (WX x100 series), and uses the Lexa chip. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M uses Fermi 2.0 architecture from the GeForce 600M generation, built around the GF114 chip. These are different design philosophies from different eras: GCN 4.0 emphasizes compute scalability with 512 unified shading units, while Fermi 2.0 uses 384 CUDA cores arranged in a more traditional gaming-oriented layout.

The AMD architecture supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The NVIDIA architecture also lists DirectX 12 support, but at the 11_0 feature level, and OpenGL 4.6 — with no Vulkan support listed. This is a critical differentiator for modern workloads: the AMD card can run Vulkan applications (and indeed scores 7,827 in Geekbench Vulkan), while the NVIDIA card cannot. The AMD's 1:1 FP16 ratio (1,248.3 GFLOPS) indicates full-rate half-precision compute, which is absent entirely from the NVIDIA's specifications.

Transistor counts are similar (2,200 million vs 1,950 million), but the die size difference is dramatic: 103 mm² versus 332 mm². The AMD's 14 nm process enables a far denser design. The memory subsystem reflects this too: the AMD uses half the bus width (128-bit vs 256-bit) but doubles the effective memory speed (6 Gbps vs 3 Gbps) to match bandwidth. The AMD's 65 W TDP versus the NVIDIA's 100 W TDP further underscores the efficiency advantage of the newer process node and architecture.

The Verdict

The data points clearly toward the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 for most use cases. It wins the only head-to-head benchmark (OpenCL, 7,333 vs 6,946, +5.6%), has a higher average benchmark score (7,580 vs 6,946), sits at a higher percentile (41st vs 39th), and offers nearly double the FP32 compute (1,248.3 GFLOPS vs 952.3 GFLOPS). Its pixel rate advantage (19.50 GPixel/s vs 9.920 GPixel/s) is substantial, and it supports Vulkan, which the NVIDIA part lacks entirely. The AMD card also comes with 4 GB of memory versus 2 GB, both at the same bandwidth, and draws 35 W less power (65 W vs 100 W).

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M retains one narrow technical edge: texture fill rate (39.68 GTexel/s vs 39.01 GTexel/s) and a wider 256-bit memory bus, which could theoretically help in certain bandwidth-latency-sensitive workloads. However, since both cards deliver identical 96.00 GB/s bandwidth, the bus width advantage does not translate to a measured bandwidth win. The NVIDIA part's nearest rival comparisons show it within 1.7% of the AMD FirePro M5100 and 1.3% of the NVIDIA T600, but it trails its own sibling GTX 680M by 1.1%. The AMD card, by contrast, sits within 1.4% of the GeForce GTX 1650 and beats the Radeon R7 250 by 0.3%, placing it in a slightly more competitive bracket.

For users prioritizing compute performance, modern API support, memory capacity, and power efficiency, the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 is the clear choice. Its 14 nm process, GCN 4.0 architecture, and 4 GB frame buffer make it more future-proof despite both cards being end-of-life. The GeForce GTX 675M, with its Fermi 2.0 architecture and 40 nm process, is a legacy part that can still handle OpenGL 4.6 workloads but lacks the Vulkan capability and raw compute headroom of its AMD counterpart. The benchmark results, specification sheets, and architectural differences all converge on the same verdict: the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 is the stronger GPU by a measurable margin, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M remains a functional but dated alternative.