AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 vs NVIDIA GeForce MX330 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains two benchmark comparisons between the NVIDIA GeForce MX330 and the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100, and the NVIDIA part wins both. The first test is Geekbench OpenCL, where the MX330 scores 7,896 against the WX 3100's 7,333, a delta of 7.7%. The second test is Geekbench Vulkan, where the MX330 scores 9,019 against 7,827, a larger delta of 15.2%. The Vulkan gap is nearly double the OpenCL gap, which suggests the MX330's architecture handles Vulkan workloads more efficiently relative to its competitor. The average benchmark score across these two tests for the MX330 is 8,458, while the WX 3100 averages 7,580. That puts the MX330 about 11.6% ahead on average, though the database does not list a combined delta figure.

Looking at the broader percentile standings, the MX330 sits at the 43rd percentile of all GPUs, while the WX 3100 sits at the 41st percentile. This is a modest separation, but the head-to-head deltas show the MX330 is consistently faster in both recorded tests. The nearest rivals for the MX330 include the AMD Radeon HD 8870M with an average score of 8,462 and a delta of 0%, the AMD Radeon 880M at 8,436 with a delta of 0.3%, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX at 8,427 with a delta of 0.4%, and the Intel Arc A380 at 8,558 with a delta of -1.2%. For the WX 3100, the nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon R7 250 at 7,557 with a delta of 0.3%, the Intel Arc A310 at 7,550 with a delta of 0.4%, the AMD Radeon 540 at 7,673 with a delta of -1.2%, and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 at 7,472 with a delta of 1.4%.

The MX330's 15.2% Vulkan advantage is the standout result in this comparison. It shows a clear generational or architectural efficiency edge, since both parts are end-of-life products. The OpenCL win is smaller but still decisive. No benchmark in the database favors the WX 3100. For buyers or system builders looking purely at these two recorded metrics, the MX330 is the faster card in every tested scenario. The WX 3100's higher average score relative to its own nearest rivals (it beats the GTX 1650 by 1.4%) does not change the direct comparison, because the MX330 simply posts higher raw numbers.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score in the database?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX330 has an average benchmark score of 8,458, compared to the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100's 7,580. The MX330 is approximately 11.6% higher.

Q: How much faster is the MX330 in Vulkan workloads?

A: The MX330 scores 9,019 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the WX 3100 scores 7,827. That is a 15.2% advantage for the MX330.

Q: Does the WX 3100 win any benchmark in the head-to-head comparison?

A: No. The database records two head-to-head benchmarks, and the MX330 wins both. The WX 3100 has zero wins in this comparison.

Q: What are the nearest rivals for the WX 3100?

A: The nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon R7 250 with an average score of 7,557, the Intel Arc A310 at 7,550, the AMD Radeon 540 at 7,673, and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 at 7,472. The WX 3100 trails the Radeon 540 by 1.2% but beats the GTX 1650 by 1.4%.

Q: Where does each GPU rank among all GPUs?

A: The MX330 is at the 43rd percentile of all GPUs, while the WX 3100 is at the 41st percentile. This is a narrow gap in overall standing.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 has 512 shading units, while the NVIDIA GeForce MX330 has 384 shading units. Despite this, the MX330 still scores higher in both recorded benchmarks.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and foundries. The NVIDIA GeForce MX330 uses the GP108B chip, built on the Pascal architecture, manufactured by Samsung on a 14 nm process. The die size is 74 mm² with 1,800 million transistors, giving a transistor density of 24.3 million per mm². The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 uses the Lexa chip, based on GCN 4.0 architecture, manufactured by GlobalFoundries, also on a 14 nm process. Its die is larger at 103 mm² with 2,200 million transistors, resulting in a lower transistor density of 21.4 million per mm². The WX 3100 has more silicon area and more transistors, but the MX330 packs transistors more densely.

The shading resources differ significantly. The MX330 has 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 16 render output units. The WX 3100 has 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 render output units. The WX 3100 has one-third more shading units and one-third more TMUs. However, the recorded pixel rates tell a different story: the MX330 achieves 25.50 GPixel/s, while the WX 3100 achieves 19.50 GPixel/s. The texture rates are closer, with the MX330 at 38.26 GTexel/s and the WX 3100 at 39.01 GTexel/s, a very narrow margin in the WX 3100's favor. The FP32 throughput is nearly identical, with the MX330 at 1,224.2 GFLOPS and the WX 3100 at 1,248.3 GFLOPS, a difference of roughly 2%. The FP16 rates diverge sharply: the MX330 delivers only 19.13 GFLOPS at a 1:64 ratio, while the WX 3100 delivers 1,248.3 GFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio. That means the WX 3100 can process FP16 at the same rate as FP32, while the MX330 has a heavily reduced FP16 path.

The memory subsystems also differ. The MX330 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus, with a bandwidth of 56.06 GB/s and memory clock of 1752 MHz (7 Gbps effective). The WX 3100 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, with a bandwidth of 96.00 GB/s and a memory clock of 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective). The WX 3100 doubles the memory capacity and bus width, and its bandwidth is about 71% higher. API support shows a split: the MX330 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The WX 3100 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The MX330 has a higher DirectX feature level and a newer Vulkan version.

Specification Differences

The power and physical profiles are markedly different. The MX330 has a TDP of 10 W, while the WX 3100 has a TDP of 65 W. The MX330 is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with no power connectors and no suggested PSU listed. The WX 3100 is a single-slot card with no power connectors but a suggested PSU of 250 W. The MX330 uses a PCIe 3.0 x4 interface, while the WX 3100 uses PCIe 3.0 x8, doubling the lane count. Display outputs differ as well: the MX330 has portable device dependent outputs, while the WX 3100 has 1x DisplayPort 1.4a and 2x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a. The WX 3100 has physical dimensions of 168 mm in length and 69 mm in height, while the MX330 has no recorded dimensions.

The release dates are far apart. The MX330 was released on 2020-02-09, while the WX 3100 was released on 2017-06-11, almost three years earlier. The WX 3100 has a launch MSRP of 199 USD, which is stated once here as recorded. The MX330 has no launch MSRP in the database. The WX 3100 also has a predecessor listed as Radeon Pro GCN and a successor as Radeon Pro Vega, while the MX330 has neither predecessor nor successor recorded. Both are marked end-of-life.

Clock speeds differ: the MX330 has a base clock of 1531 MHz and a boost clock of 1594 MHz. The WX 3100 has a base clock of 925 MHz and a boost clock of 1219 MHz. The MX330 runs at higher frequencies, which helps explain its benchmark wins despite fewer shading units.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA GeForce MX330 outperforms the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 in both recorded tests. The OpenCL delta is 7.7%, and the Vulkan delta is 15.2%. The MX330 also holds a higher percentile rank among all GPUs, at 43rd versus 41st. The WX 3100 has advantages in raw resources: more shading units, more TMUs, more memory, a wider bus, higher bandwidth, and a 1:1 FP16 ratio. But none of those translate into a benchmark win in this database. The MX330's higher clocks and newer architecture appear to deliver better real-world performance in the tested workloads.

The WX 3100 does have a legitimate specification-based edge for certain tasks. Its 4 GB memory capacity and 96.00 GB/s bandwidth make it more suitable for larger datasets, and its 128-bit bus is twice as wide. Its FP16 throughput is 1,248.3 GFLOPS, identical to its FP32 rate, which could benefit compute workloads that use half precision. But the recorded benchmarks do not test FP16 or memory-heavy scenarios, so those advantages remain theoretical within this dataset.

For the user choosing between these two end-of-life parts, the MX330 is the faster option according to the database. It wins every measured test and sits higher in the global percentile ranking. The WX 3100 offers more memory and more shading units, but the data shows no performance benefit from those features in the tests recorded here.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce MX330 wins in both recorded benchmark categories. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 7,896, which is 7.7% above the WX 3100's 7,333. In Geekbench Vulkan, it scores 9,019, which is 15.2% above the WX 3100's 7,827. The MX330 also wins on pixel rate, 25.50 GPixel/s versus 19.50 GPixel/s, and on texture rate, though the texture margin is very small: 38.26 GTexel/s versus 39.01 GTexel/s means the WX 3100 narrowly leads there. The MX330 has a lower TDP of 10 W versus 65 W, making it far more power-efficient. It also has a newer release date, a higher DirectX feature level (12_1 versus 12_0), and a newer Vulkan version (1.4 versus 1.3).

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 wins on several specification fronts, even though it loses all benchmarks. It has 512 shading units versus 384, 32 TMUs versus 24, and 4 GB of memory versus 2 GB. Its memory bus is 128-bit versus 64-bit, and its bandwidth is 96.00 GB/s versus 56.06 GB/s. Its FP16 throughput is 1,248.3 GFLOPS, compared to the MX330's 19.13 GFLOPS, a massive advantage for half-precision compute. The WX 3100 also has a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface versus the MX330's x4, and it offers dedicated DisplayPort outputs, while the MX330 relies on portable device dependent outputs. The WX 3100 is the only one with a recorded launch MSRP of 199 USD.

In practical terms, the MX330 is the choice for general graphics performance, especially Vulkan-based workloads, and for any system with tight power limits. The WX 3100 is the choice for tasks that need more memory capacity or bandwidth, or for compute workloads that can exploit its FP16 capability, though the database does not provide benchmark evidence that those advantages materialize in the recorded tests.