AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M and AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 are two end-of-life mobile and workstation graphics solutions that, despite their age, offer a fascinating study in architectural trade-offs. The benchmark data reveals a clear split: the GTX 950M dominates in OpenCL compute, while the WX 3100 takes a decisive lead in Vulkan performance. This is not a simple "one is faster" scenario; it is a question of which workload API matters more to the user.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking divergence appears in the Geekbench OpenCL test. Here, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M scores 9745, while the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 manages only 7333. That is a 32.9% advantage for the GTX 950M, a massive margin that speaks to the raw compute throughput of the Maxwell architecture in this specific workload. The GTX 950M’s average benchmark score of 8135 also reflects this strength, placing it in the 42nd percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rival in this metric is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980, which scores 8167, a delta of only -0.4%, suggesting the 950M is punching well above its weight class in general compute tasks.

However, the tables turn completely when the API shifts to Vulkan. In the Geekbench Vulkan test, the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 scores 7827, significantly outpacing the GTX 950M’s 6525. This is a -16.6% delta from the perspective of the NVIDIA part, meaning the WX 3100 is roughly 16.6% faster. This is a substantial reversal. The WX 3100’s average benchmark score of 7580 places it in the 41st percentile, just one point behind the GTX 950M, but its Vulkan result shows a more modern API implementation. Interestingly, the WX 3100’s nearest rival in average score is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650, which scores 7472 with a delta of 1.4%, indicating the AMD part holds its own against a much newer NVIDIA card in overall metrics.

The delta between the two wins is telling. The 32.9% OpenCL victory for NVIDIA is more than double the 16.6% Vulkan margin for AMD. This suggests that while the GTX 950M has a raw compute advantage that is difficult to overcome, the WX 3100’s Vulkan driver and architecture are far more efficient in that specific API. The data implies that if a user’s primary applications rely on OpenCL, the GTX 950M is the clear choice. If the workload is Vulkan-based, the WX 3100 offers a compelling performance uplift. The equal split of wins (1 win each) underscores that this matchup is entirely workload-dependent.

The Verdict

From the data, there is no single "winner" in absolute terms, but there is a clear recommendation for each use case. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M is the superior choice for users who prioritize OpenCL compute performance. Its 32.9% lead in that benchmark is decisive, and its higher average benchmark score (8135 vs 7580) indicates a generally stronger overall compute profile. The GTX 950M also sits in a slightly higher percentile (42nd vs 41st), which, while marginal, confirms its edge in the aggregate.

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 is the better option for Vulkan-centric workloads, and its architecture is notably more modern. It uses a 14 nm process node from GlobalFoundries, compared to the GTX 950M’s older 28 nm TSMC process, and its GCN 4.0 architecture supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the GTX 950M is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0). This means the WX 3100 is better positioned for modern API features. Its 16.6% Vulkan lead is not as large as the GTX 950M’s OpenCL lead, but it is still a significant advantage for any application that leverages Vulkan. The WX 3100 also has a lower TDP of 65 W compared to 75 W, making it more power-efficient.

For a user with a mixed workload, the decision hinges on which API dominates. The data suggests that if the user cannot avoid OpenCL, the GTX 950M’s massive lead will be difficult to ignore. If the user is gaming or using Vulkan-based rendering, the WX 3100 is the more forward-looking choice. The GTX 950M is a compute brute, while the WX 3100 is a modern API specialist.

Where Each One Wins

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M wins in scenarios that demand heavy OpenCL compute. The 32.9% advantage in the Geekbench OpenCL test is the single largest performance gap in this comparison. This suggests the GTX 950M is better suited for tasks like OpenCL-accelerated video encoding, scientific simulations, or any professional application that defaults to OpenCL for GPU acceleration. Its higher average benchmark score (8135) also implies it is the more consistent performer across a broader range of compute tasks. The GTX 950M’s specifications support this, with 640 shading units and 40 TMUs, which are higher counts than the WX 3100’s 512 shading units and 32 TMUs. Its FP32 performance of 1,438.7 GFLOPS is also higher than the WX 3100’s 1,248.3 GFLOPS, confirming its raw compute advantage.

AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 wins in Vulkan-based workloads, with a 16.6% lead in that test. This makes it the better choice for users running modern games or applications that use the Vulkan API. The WX 3100’s GCN 4.0 architecture is newer and includes explicit support for DirectX 12 (12_0), which is a higher feature level than the GTX 950M’s DirectX 12 (11_0). The WX 3100 also has a significant memory bandwidth advantage, with 96.00 GB/s GDDR5 versus the GTX 950M’s 28.80 GB/s DDR3. This is a 3.3x difference in memory bandwidth, which can be critical in memory-intensive workloads, even if the raw compute is lower. The WX 3100 also offers a higher pixel rate (19.50 GPixel/s vs 17.98 GPixel/s), which could benefit certain rendering tasks.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M has a higher average benchmark score of 8135, compared to the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100’s 7580. This places the GTX 950M in the 42nd percentile of all GPUs, one point higher than the WX 3100’s 41st percentile.

Q: How much faster is the GTX 950M in OpenCL?

A: The GTX 950M scores 9745 in the Geekbench OpenCL test, which is 32.9% higher than the WX 3100’s score of 7333. This is the largest performance gap in the head-to-head benchmarks.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 have any performance advantage?

A: Yes, the WX 3100 wins in the Geekbench Vulkan test with a score of 7827, compared to the GTX 950M’s 6525. This represents a 16.6% performance lead for the AMD part in Vulkan workloads.

Q: What are the memory specifications for each GPU?

A: The GTX 950M uses 4 GB of DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus, yielding a bandwidth of 28.80 GB/s. The WX 3100 uses 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on the same 128-bit bus, but with a much higher bandwidth of 96.00 GB/s.

Q: Which GPU has a lower power consumption requirement?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 has a lower TDP of 65 W, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M has a TDP of 75 W. The WX 3100 also suggests a 250 W PSU, while the GTX 950M does not specify one.

Q: What is the DirectX feature level difference?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), which is the higher feature level. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), a lower feature level that may lack some modern rendering features.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is significant, reflecting their different release generations. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M is built on the Maxwell architecture with the GM107 chip, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. This is an older, larger node, resulting in a die size of 148 mm² and a transistor count of 1,870 million, giving a transistor density of 12.6M / mm². The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 uses the GCN 4.0 architecture with the Lexa chip, built on a much more advanced 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. This smaller node allows for a die size of just 103 mm² while packing 2,200 million transistors, achieving a density of 21.4M / mm². The WX 3100 is clearly the more modern and denser design.

The compute unit configurations also differ. The GTX 950M has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The WX 3100 has fewer shading units (512) and TMUs (32), but the same 16 ROPs. Despite having fewer units, the WX 3100 achieves a slightly higher pixel rate of 19.50 GPixel/s versus 17.98 GPixel/s, likely due to higher boost clocks. The GTX 950M has a higher texture rate of 44.96 GTexel/s compared to 39.01 GTexel/s. In terms of FP32 compute, the GTX 950M leads with 1,438.7 GFLOPS, while the WX 3100 offers 1,248.3 GFLOPS. Notably, the WX 3100 provides FP16 performance at a 1:1 ratio (1,248.3 GFLOPS), while the GTX 950M has no listed FP16 capability, indicating a key difference in compute flexibility.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across several key specification fields. The most obvious difference is the manufacturing process: the GTX 950M uses a 28 nm TSMC node, while the WX 3100 uses a 14 nm GlobalFoundries node. The core architecture differs (Maxwell vs GCN 4.0), and the chip names are different (GM107 vs Lexa). The GTX 950M has a base clock of 993 MHz and a boost clock of 1124 MHz, whereas the WX 3100 has a lower base clock of 925 MHz but a higher boost clock of 1219 MHz. Memory configurations are starkly different: the GTX 950M uses 4 GB of DDR3 with a bandwidth of 28.80 GB/s and an effective speed of 1800 Mbps, while the WX 3100 uses 4 GB of GDDR5 with a bandwidth of 96.00 GB/s and an effective speed of 6 Gbps.

The power profiles differ as well, with the GTX 950M rated at 75 W TDP and listed as "IGP" slot width, while the WX 3100 has a 65 W TDP and is a single-slot card. The WX 3100 has a suggested PSU of 250 W, while the GTX 950M has no suggestion. The WX 3100 has physical dimensions of 168 mm in length and 69 mm in height, while the GTX 950M has no listed dimensions. The display outputs are also different: the GTX 950M is "Portable Device Dependent," while the WX 3100 offers 1x DisplayPort 1.4a and 2x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a. The API support differs in Vulkan version (1.4 for NVIDIA vs 1.3 for AMD) and DirectX feature level (11_0 vs 12_0). Finally, the release dates are distinct, with the GTX 950M launching in March 2015 and the WX 3100 in June 2017.