AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive overall performance advantage for the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960, which wins both shared benchmark tests. The most dramatic gap appears in the Geekbench OpenCL test, where the GTX 960 scores 18,925 against the Radeon Pro WX 3100's 7,333. That is a 158.1% difference, meaning the NVIDIA card delivers over two and a half times the compute throughput in this particular workload. This is not a marginal victory; it is a category-level separation.

The second shared test, Geekbench Vulkan, narrows the gap considerably but still favors the GTX 960. The NVIDIA card posts 9,231 points, while the AMD card manages 7,827. The delta here is 17.9%, a substantial but far less extreme margin than the OpenCL result. This suggests that the GTX 960's advantage is not uniform across all APIs, and the Vulkan results indicate a more competitive picture in modern, low-level graphics workloads.

Looking at the broader database, the average benchmark scores tell a similar story. The GTX 960 averages 9,273 points across its full test suite, which places it in the 45th percentile of all GPUs. The Radeon Pro WX 3100 averages 7,580 points, landing in the 41st percentile. The 1,693-point average gap is consistent with the head-to-head results, confirming that the GTX 960 is the stronger performer in the database's measurements. The GTX 960's nearest rival, the GeForce GTX 465, averages 9,294 points, only 0.2% higher. The Radeon Pro WX 3100's closest competitor, the Radeon R7 250, averages 7,557, a 0.3% difference. This shows both cards are positioned near their respective performance tiers, but the tiers themselves are far apart.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different architectural eras and process nodes. The GTX 960 uses the GM206 chip based on NVIDIA's Maxwell 2.0 architecture, built on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 2,940 million transistors into a 228 mm² die. Conversely, the Radeon Pro WX 3100 uses the Lexa chip based on AMD's GCN 4.0 architecture, fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It contains 2,200 million transistors on a much smaller 103 mm² die. This gives the AMD card a notably higher transistor density of 21.4 million per mm², versus 12.9 million per mm² for the NVIDIA chip. The newer process node clearly enables a more compact, denser design.

Memory configurations also diverge significantly. The GTX 960 offers 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, achieving a bandwidth of 112.2 GB/s. The Radeon Pro WX 3100 doubles the capacity to 4 GB of GDDR5, also on a 128-bit bus, but its bandwidth is lower at 96.00 GB/s. The GTX 960's memory clock is listed at 1,753 MHz with 7 Gbps effective speed, while the AMD card runs its memory at 1,500 MHz with 6 Gbps effective. The NVIDIA card compensates for its smaller capacity with faster memory. The AMD card prioritizes capacity over speed, which may be useful for certain workloads with large datasets.

The compute configurations are starkly different. The GTX 960 has 1,024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 32 raster operation units. The Radeon Pro WX 3100 has half the shading units at 512, half the TMUs at 32, and half the ROPs at 16. This halving of resources directly translates into lower fill rates. The GTX 960 achieves 37.70 GPixel/s pixel rate and 75.39 GTexel/s texture rate. The AMD card manages 19.50 GPixel/s and 39.01 GTexel/s, again almost exactly half. In terms of raw floating-point performance, the GTX 960 delivers 2.413 TFLOPS of FP32 compute. The Radeon Pro WX 3100 offers 1,248.3 GFLOPS, which is approximately half. Notably, the AMD card also supports FP16 at a 1:1 ratio, identical to its FP32 throughput, while the NVIDIA card has no listed FP16 capability in the database.

Other differences include the bus interface. The GTX 960 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the Radeon Pro WX 3100 uses PCIe 3.0 x8. The physical size also differs, with the GTX 960 listed at 241 mm in length and dual-slot width, while the AMD card is a much smaller single-slot unit at 168 mm. Power requirements are also distinct, but the architecture, process, and compute resource differences are the primary drivers of the performance gap.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 is overwhelmingly faster, scoring 18,925 compared to the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100's 7,333. This represents a 158.1% advantage for the NVIDIA card.

Q: How large is the performance gap in the Vulkan benchmark?

A: The Geekbench Vulkan test shows the GTX 960 scoring 9,231, while the Radeon Pro WX 3100 scores 7,827. The GTX 960 is ahead by 17.9%, a much smaller margin than the OpenCL result.

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

A: The database shows it is manufactured on a smaller 14 nm process with a higher transistor density of 21.4M / mm², compared to 28 nm and 12.9M / mm² on the GTX 960. It also has 4 GB of memory instead of 2 GB.

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The GTX 960 has an average benchmark score of 9,273 points. The Radeon Pro WX 3100 has an average of 7,580 points. The GTX 960 is approximately 18.3% higher.

Q: How do the shading unit counts compare?

A: The GTX 960 has 1,024 shading units, which is exactly double the 512 shading units found on the Radeon Pro WX 3100. The same 2:1 ratio applies to both texture units and ROPs.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The GTX 960 provides 112.2 GB/s of bandwidth, while the Radeon Pro WX 3100 provides 96.00 GB/s. The GTX 960 is ahead by roughly 16.2 GB/s.

The Verdict

The data overwhelmingly favors the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 across the board. It wins both head-to-head benchmark tests and posts a much higher average benchmark score. The 158.1% lead in OpenCL is a dominant result, indicating a substantial computing advantage in that API. The 17.9% lead in Vulkan is also a clear, if more modest, victory. For any user prioritizing raw benchmark performance, the GTX 960 is the clear choice.

However, the Radeon Pro WX 3100 is not without its merits. The data shows it has double the memory capacity at 4 GB, a major advantage for workloads that require large frame buffers or in-memory data. Its smaller 14 nm process node and higher transistor density suggest a more modern, power-efficient architecture. The 65 W TDP, single-slot design, and no external power connector requirement are significant practical advantages for compact systems.

The choice ultimately depends on whether the workload is more sensitive to raw compute throughput or to memory capacity and physical form factor. For general computing and graphics that lean on OpenCL performance, the GTX 960 is superior. For applications that are memory-capacity-bound or require a low-power, single-slot solution, the Radeon Pro WX 3100 could be a better fit, despite its lower benchmark scores. The data does not show a single best card, but rather two very different trade-offs.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 | AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 |

| :--- | :--- | :--- |

| Chip | GM206 | Lexa |

| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 | GCN 4.0 |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 14 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | GlobalFoundries |

| Transistors | 2,940 million | 2,200 million |

| Die Size | 228 mm² | 103 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.9M / mm² | 21.4M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1127 MHz | 925 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1178 MHz | 1219 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1753 MHz (7 Gbps) | 1500 MHz (6 Gbps) |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory Bandwidth | 112.2 GB/s | 96.00 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1024 | 512 |

| TMUs | 64 | 32 |

| ROPs | 32 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 37.70 GPixel/s | 19.50 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 75.39 GTexel/s | 39.01 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Compute | 2.413 TFLOPS | 1,248.3 GFLOPS |

| FP16 Compute | Not listed | 1,248.3 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 120 W | 65 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | Single-slot |

| Power Connectors | 1x 6-pin | None |

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

| Display Outputs | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.2 | 1x DisplayPort 1.4a, 2x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a |

| DirectX Support | 12 (12_1) | 12 (12_0) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.4 | 1.3 |

| Release Date | 2015-01-21 | 2017-06-11 |

| Length | 241 mm (9.5 inches) | 168 mm (6.6 inches) |

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 is the clear winner in raw computational performance. It has a massive 158.1% advantage in OpenCL, making it the obvious choice for any general-purpose compute workload that utilizes this API. It also holds a 17.9% lead in Vulkan, indicating better performance in modern game engines and graphics applications that use this low-level interface. The 2:1 advantage in shading units, TMUs, and ROPs gives it a significant edge in pixel and texture processing. For users who depend on maximum frame rates, render times, or compute throughput, the GTX 960 is the superior option.

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 wins on capacity and system integration. Its 4 GB of GDDR5 memory is double the GTX 960's allocation, making it the better choice for scenarios with large datasets or high-resolution textures where memory capacity is the bottleneck. Its physically smaller footprint, single-slot design, and lower TDP make it a superior choice for compact workstations or systems with limited expansion space. The 14 nm process node and higher transistor density suggest a more efficient design that generates less heat. While its benchmark scores are lower, it offers a different value in terms of physical form factor and memory capacity that the GTX 960 cannot match. The data shows a clear trade-off: raw performance on one hand, capacity and efficiency on the other.