AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 850M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clear pattern: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 850M wins both head-to-head benchmark comparisons against the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100, though the margin varies significantly depending on the workload. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the GTX 850M scores 9,821 points against 7,333 for the Radeon Pro WX 3100, a 33.9% advantage. That is a commanding lead in compute-heavy, general-purpose parallel workloads. In the Geekbench Vulkan test, the GTX 850M scores 8,782 versus 7,827, a narrower 12.2% edge. The Vulkan result still favors the NVIDIA part, but the gap shrinks considerably, suggesting the AMD card is comparatively stronger in graphics-oriented API workloads relative to raw compute.

Looking at average benchmark scores across the database, the GTX 850M lands at 9,302 while the Radeon Pro WX 3100 sits at 7,580. That is a 19% overall difference in the aggregate metric. The GTX 850M also holds a higher percentile ranking among all GPUs: 46th percentile versus 41st for the AMD card. In practical terms, the GTX 850M is the faster card in the two tests that matter for this comparison, but the AMD part is not dramatically outclassed in every scenario.

For context on the GTX 850M side, its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 465 at 9,294 (0.1% behind), the AMD Radeon R7 M380 at 9,313 (0.1% ahead), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 at 9,273 (0.3% behind). The GTX 850M effectively trades blows with desktop cards from a higher tier, which is notable given its mobile-oriented design. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100, meanwhile, sits among rivals like the AMD Radeon R7 250 at 7,557 (0.3% behind), the Intel Arc A310 at 7,550 (0.4% behind), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 at 7,472 (1.4% behind). The WX 3100 is slightly ahead of those parts but trails the GTX 850M by a substantial margin in the aggregate.

The delta percentages tell a story of consistency. The GTX 850M wins both head-to-head tests, and its average score is buoyed by a strong OpenCL result. The Radeon Pro WX 3100's Vulkan score is closer to its OpenCL score than is the case for the NVIDIA part, which might indicate better balanced performance across APIs, but the absolute numbers still favor the GTX 850M.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different foundries and process nodes. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 850M uses the GM107 chip built on a 28 nm process at TSMC, while the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 uses the Lexa chip manufactured by GlobalFoundries on a 14 nm process. The die sizes reflect the node difference: the GTX 850M measures 148 mm² with 1,870 million transistors, giving a density of 12.6 million transistors per mm². The Radeon Pro WX 3100 packs 2,200 million transistors into a smaller 103 mm² die, achieving a higher density of 21.4 million transistors per mm². The AMD chip is denser and more modern in process terms, but that does not translate into a performance win in the benchmarks.

The GTX 850M belongs to the Maxwell architecture, part of the GeForce 800M generation, and was released in March 2014. The Radeon Pro WX 3100 uses GCN 4.0 architecture from the Radeon Pro Polaris (WX x100) generation, released in June 2017. The three-year gap shows in feature support: the GTX 850M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the Radeon Pro WX 3100 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The AMD card has a higher DirectX feature level, which matters for certain modern titles.

Shader configurations differ notably. The GTX 850M has 640 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The Radeon Pro WX 3100 has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and also 16 ROPs. Despite fewer shaders, the AMD card posts higher peak pixel and texture rates: 19.50 GPixel/s and 39.01 GTexel/s versus 14.43 GPixel/s and 36.08 GTexel/s for the NVIDIA part. The FP32 compute figures are closer than the shader counts might suggest: 1,248.3 GFLOPS for the Radeon Pro WX 3100 versus 1,154.6 GFLOPS for the GTX 850M. The AMD card also lists FP16 performance at 1,248.3 GFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, while the NVIDIA part has no FP16 figure recorded.

Memory is a major differentiator. The GTX 850M uses 2 GB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 32.03 GB/s of bandwidth. The Radeon Pro WX 3100 uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on the same 128-bit bus, but bandwidth jumps to 96.00 GB/s, triple the NVIDIA figure. The memory clock also differs: 1001 MHz (2 Gbps effective) for the GTX 850M versus 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective) for the AMD card. The Radeon Pro WX 3100 also has explicit base and boost clocks of 925 MHz and 1219 MHz, while the GTX 850M has no base or boost clock recorded in the database.

Power and physical specifications diverge as well. The GTX 850M is rated at 45 W TDP, uses no power connectors, and is designed as an IGP (integrated into a mobile platform). The Radeon Pro WX 3100 is rated at 65 W TDP, also uses no power connectors, and is a single-slot card measuring 168 mm in length and 69 mm in height, with a suggested PSU of 250 W. The bus interfaces differ: PCIe 3.0 x16 for the GTX 850M versus PCIe 3.0 x8 for the Radeon Pro WX 3100. Display outputs also differ: the mobile NVIDIA part is "Portable Device Dependent," while the AMD card offers 1x DisplayPort 1.4a and 2x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 850M wins decisively in OpenCL compute. Its 9,821 score against 7,333 is a 33.9% advantage, and that margin is large enough to matter for any workload that leans on general-purpose GPU compute. The Vulkan test is closer at 12.2% in favor of the GTX 850M, but it is still a win. If you are choosing based purely on the two recorded benchmarks, the GTX 850M is the faster GPU in both.

The Radeon Pro WX 3100 does not win any head-to-head benchmark, but the data points to areas where it is competitive. Its Vulkan score of 7,827 is only 12.2% behind the GTX 850M's 8,782, which is a much smaller gap than the OpenCL deficit. The AMD card also has higher FP32 compute (1,248.3 GFLOPS versus 1,154.6 GFLOPS), a higher pixel rate (19.50 GPixel/s versus 14.43 GPixel/s), and a higher texture rate (39.01 GTexel/s versus 36.08 GTexel/s). These raw throughput figures suggest the Radeon Pro WX 3100 might hold up better in rasterization-bound scenarios, even if the benchmark scores do not capture that directly.

Memory bandwidth is another clear AMD advantage. At 96.00 GB/s versus 32.03 GB/s, the Radeon Pro WX 3100 has three times the bandwidth of the GTX 850M. This matters for texture-heavy workloads, large framebuffers, or any compute task that streams data. The 4 GB capacity versus 2 GB also gives the AMD card more headroom for larger datasets. The GTX 850M counters with a higher average benchmark score, a higher percentile ranking, and a better Vulkan API version (1.4 versus 1.3).

The GTX 850M also wins on power efficiency in terms of performance per watt in the recorded benchmarks. At 45 W TDP, it delivers higher scores than the Radeon Pro WX 3100 at 65 W TDP. The AMD card is denser on process node and transistor count, but that does not translate into a benchmark win.

The Verdict

The data points to the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 850M as the faster GPU in the two recorded benchmarks. It wins both the OpenCL and Vulkan tests, holds a higher average score (9,302 versus 7,580), and ranks higher among all GPUs (46th percentile versus 41st). If your workload is dominated by OpenCL compute, the 33.9% lead is substantial and should drive the decision. For Vulkan workloads, the 12.2% edge is smaller but still favors the GTX 850M.

That said, the Radeon Pro WX 3100 is not without merit. It offers a more modern architecture (GCN 4.0 on 14 nm), a higher DirectX feature level (12_0 versus 11_0), triple the memory bandwidth, and double the VRAM capacity. Its higher FP32, pixel, and texture rates indicate it is not a slouch in raw throughput. The AMD card is also a standalone single-slot solution with standard display outputs, making it easier to integrate into a desktop workstation. The GTX 850M is an end-of-life mobile IGP with no standalone form factor, so its practical use case is limited to laptops that already have it installed.

Choose the GTX 850M if you already have it in a laptop and need the better benchmark performance, especially for OpenCL. Choose the Radeon Pro WX 3100 if you are building a compact workstation, need 4 GB of VRAM, require triple the memory bandwidth, or want a more modern feature set including DirectX 12_0. The GTX 850M wins on raw scores, but the Radeon Pro WX 3100 wins on specifications that matter for certain professional workloads.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 850M, with an average score of 9,302 compared to 7,580 for the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100.

Q: What is the biggest performance gap between the two cards?

A: In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the GTX 850M leads by 33.9%, scoring 9,821 versus 7,333.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 have more memory bandwidth?

A: Yes, it has 96.00 GB/s of bandwidth from 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, while the GTX 850M has 32.03 GB/s from 2 GB of DDR3 on the same bus width.

Q: Which card has a higher DirectX feature level?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 850M supports DirectX 12 (11_0).

Q: How does the GTX 850M compare to its nearest rival, the GTX 960?

A: The GTX 850M scores 0.3% higher than the GTX 960 in average benchmark score (9,302 versus 9,273).

Q: What is the launch MSRP of the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100?

A: The launch MSRP was 199 USD.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 850M | AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | Maxwell | GCN 4.0 |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 14 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | GlobalFoundries |

| Transistors | 1,870 million | 2,200 million |

| Die Size | 148 mm² | 103 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.6M / mm² | 21.4M / mm² |

| Base Clock | Not recorded | 925 MHz |

| Boost Clock | Not recorded | 1219 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1001 MHz (2 Gbps effective) | 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory Type | DDR3 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 32.03 GB/s | 96.00 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 640 | 512 |

| TMUs | 40 | 32 |

| ROPs | 16 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 14.43 GPixel/s | 19.50 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 36.08 GTexel/s | 39.01 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Compute | 1,154.6 GFLOPS | 1,248.3 GFLOPS |

| FP16 Compute | Not recorded | 1,248.3 GFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 45 W | 65 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | Single-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | None |

| Suggested PSU | Not recorded | 250 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 1x DisplayPort 1.4a, 2x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a |

| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (12_0) |

| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |

| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.3 |

| Dimensions (Length x Height) | Not recorded | 168 mm x 69 mm |

| Release Date | 2014-03-11 | 2017-06-11 |

| Production Status | End-of-life | End-of-life |