AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 vs NVIDIA Quadro K1200 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a fascinating split decision between these two professional workstation graphics cards. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the NVIDIA Quadro K1200 delivers a decisive victory, scoring 8,831 points against the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100's 7,333 points. That translates to a 20.4% advantage for the NVIDIA card—a substantial margin that suggests the older Maxwell architecture still holds significant compute muscle in OpenCL workloads.

However, the narrative flips when examining the Vulkan results. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 edges ahead with a score of 7,827 compared to the Quadro K1200's 7,698. While the delta is a modest 1.6%, it demonstrates that AMD's GCN 4.0 architecture handles Vulkan API workloads with slightly better efficiency. The overall benchmark average tells a similar story: the Quadro K1200 posts an average score of 8,265, while the Radeon Pro WX 3100 trails at 7,580.

Context from the nearest rivals section adds depth to these numbers. The Quadro K1200 sits just 0.7% behind the AMD Radeon R9 M375X (8,325 average) and 1.2% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 (8,167). Meanwhile, the Radeon Pro WX 3100 finds itself nearly tied with the AMD Radeon R7 250 (7,557), just 0.3% ahead, and 1.4% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (7,472). These positioning points suggest the Quadro K1200 competes in a higher performance tier overall, despite its age.

The percentile rankings reinforce this gap: the Quadro K1200 sits at the 43rd percentile among all GPUs, while the Radeon Pro WX 3100 rests at the 41st percentile. Two percentage points may seem small, but combined with the 8.6% average benchmark score difference, it indicates the NVIDIA card consistently outperforms its AMD counterpart in general compute tasks.

Interestingly, the wins are evenly split—one benchmark win each. This balance suggests that neither card is universally superior; instead, the choice depends heavily on the specific API and workload in question. The OpenCL result is particularly striking because it shows NVIDIA's Maxwell architecture, even with a lower boost clock, delivering significantly better performance in that compute framework.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K1200 leads with an average benchmark score of 8,265, while the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 trails at 7,580—a difference of approximately 685 points.

Q: How large is the OpenCL performance gap between the two cards?

A: The Quadro K1200 outperforms the Radeon Pro WX 3100 by 20.4% in Geekbench OpenCL, scoring 8,831 versus 7,333.

Q: Does the Radeon Pro WX 3100 win any benchmark?

A: Yes, the AMD card wins the Geekbench Vulkan test with 7,827 points, edging out the Quadro K1200's 7,698 by 1.6%.

Q: How do these cards compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The Quadro K1200 is 1.2% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 and 1.6% ahead of the GeForce GTX 950M, while the Radeon Pro WX 3100 is 0.4% ahead of the Intel Arc A310 and 1.4% ahead of the GeForce GTX 1650.

Q: What is the percentile ranking difference between the two cards?

A: The Quadro K1200 ranks at the 43rd percentile among all GPUs, while the Radeon Pro WX 3100 sits at the 41st percentile.

Q: Which card has better Vulkan API support?

A: The Radeon Pro WX 3100 supports Vulkan 1.3, while the Quadro K1200 supports Vulkan 1.4—though the benchmark data shows the AMD card performing slightly better in Vulkan workloads.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two workstation cards is stark. The NVIDIA Quadro K1200 utilizes the GM107 chip built on the Maxwell architecture, manufactured by TSMC on a 28 nm process node. This chip contains 1,870 million transistors packed into a 148 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.6 million per square millimeter. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100, by contrast, employs the Lexa chip based on GCN 4.0 architecture, fabricated by GlobalFoundries on a more advanced 14 nm node. AMD's chip holds 2,200 million transistors within a smaller 103 mm² die, achieving a significantly higher density of 21.4 million per square millimeter.

These architectural choices influence performance characteristics beyond raw specifications. The Maxwell architecture in the Quadro K1200 supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The GCN 4.0 architecture in the Radeon Pro WX 3100 offers DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The DirectX feature level difference—11_0 versus 12_0—could impact certain professional applications that leverage newer DirectX features.

Memory architecture reveals another distinction. Both cards feature 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, but the Radeon Pro WX 3100 delivers higher bandwidth at 96.00 GB/s compared to the Quadro K1200's 80.19 GB/s. This 19.7% bandwidth advantage stems from the AMD card's faster 6 Gbps effective memory speed versus NVIDIA's 5 Gbps. The AMD card also achieves higher pixel rate (19.50 GPixel/s versus 16.53 GPixel/s) and texture rate (39.01 GTexel/s versus 33.06 GTexel/s), suggesting better fill-rate performance in graphics-heavy tasks.

Compute capabilities further differentiate the two. The Radeon Pro WX 3100 delivers 1,248.3 GFLOPS of FP32 performance and matches that with 1,248.3 GFLOPS of FP16 (1:1 ratio). The Quadro K1200 offers 1,057.8 GFLOPS of FP32 and no FP16 capability listed. This makes the AMD card roughly 18% faster in FP32 compute and uniquely capable of FP16 workloads, which could matter for certain scientific and AI-adjacent applications.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets reveal numerous differences between these cards. The Quadro K1200 operates with a base clock of 954 MHz and a boost clock of 1,033 MHz, while the Radeon Pro WX 3100 starts lower at 925 MHz base but boosts substantially higher to 1,219 MHz—an 18% higher boost clock. Both cards share identical core configurations: 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs.

Power requirements differ notably. The Quadro K1200 draws 45 W TDP with a suggested PSU of 200 W, while the Radeon Pro WX 3100 consumes 65 W TDP with a suggested PSU of 250 W. Neither card requires additional power connectors, and both are single-slot designs. Physical dimensions are close: the Quadro measures 160 mm in length, while the Radeon extends to 168 mm; both stand 69 mm in height.

Bus interface and display outputs present clear generational differences. The Quadro K1200 uses PCIe 2.0 x16, while the Radeon Pro WX 3100 employs the newer PCIe 3.0 x8 interface. For display connectivity, the NVIDIA card offers four mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, whereas the AMD card provides one DisplayPort 1.4a and two mini-DisplayPort 1.4a connections—supporting newer display standards.

Release timing and product lineage also differ. The Quadro K1200 launched on January 27, 2015, succeeding Quadro Fermi and preceding Quadro Maxwell. The Radeon Pro WX 3100 arrived later, on June 11, 2017, following Radeon Pro GCN and preceding Radeon Pro Vega. Both cards are now end-of-life products. The Radeon Pro WX 3100 has a listed launch MSRP of 199 USD, while the Quadro K1200's launch MSRP is not specified in the data.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark results paint a clear picture of workload-specific strengths. The NVIDIA Quadro K1200 dominates in OpenCL compute, delivering a 20.4% performance advantage. This makes it the stronger choice for applications that rely heavily on OpenCL acceleration—common in certain scientific computing, video editing, and rendering workflows. The Quadro's 8,831 OpenCL score places it in strong company, just 0.7% behind the Radeon R9 M375X and comfortably ahead of several GeForce options.

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100's Vulkan victory, while narrower at 1.6%, indicates better optimization for Vulkan-based applications. This could benefit users working with modern game engines, real-time visualization tools, or emerging Vulkan-compatible professional software. The AMD card's higher boost clock and memory bandwidth likely contribute to this Vulkan edge, even though its overall average score trails.

Fill-rate focused tasks lean toward the AMD card. Its 19.50 GPixel/s pixel rate and 39.01 GTexel/s texture rate outpace the Quadro's 16.53 GPixel/s and 33.06 GTexel/s. For applications that tax pixel throughput—such as high-resolution display rendering or complex compositing—the Radeon Pro WX 3100 holds an advantage.

Compute-heavy workloads beyond OpenCL also favor AMD. The Radeon Pro WX 3100's 1,248.3 GFLOPS FP32 performance exceeds the Quadro's 1,057.8 GFLOPS, and its FP16 capability at the same rate provides flexibility for mixed-precision workloads. The higher memory bandwidth (96.00 GB/s versus 80.19 GB/s) further supports bandwidth-sensitive tasks.

For users prioritizing power efficiency, the Quadro K1200 wins decisively—45 W TDP versus 65 W, with a 200 W suggested PSU versus 250 W. This lower power draw could make the NVIDIA card preferable for compact workstations or systems with limited power budgets.

The Verdict

The data presents two distinct profiles for different professional needs. The NVIDIA Quadro K1200 is the clear choice for OpenCL-centric workloads, offering a significant 20.4% performance lead in that benchmark and a higher overall average score of 8,265. Its lower power consumption (45 W vs 65 W) and less demanding PSU requirement (200 W vs 250 W) make it an efficient option for general compute tasks. The Quadro also supports Vulkan 1.4, a newer API version than the AMD card's 1.3.

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100, despite trailing in average performance, brings compelling advantages for specific use cases. Its Vulkan benchmark win, higher boost clock (1,219 MHz), greater memory bandwidth (96.00 GB/s), and superior fill rates position it well for graphics-intensive and Vulkan-optimized workloads. The FP16 compute capability and DirectX 12_0 support add flexibility for modern applications. Its newer display outputs (DisplayPort 1.4a) and PCIe 3.0 interface also represent more current connectivity standards.

Ultimately, the choice hinges on workload priorities. Users whose applications depend on OpenCL compute should select the Quadro K1200, backed by its 20.4% benchmark advantage and higher percentile ranking. Users working with Vulkan-based tools or requiring maximum fill-rate performance would find the Radeon Pro WX 3100 more suitable, despite its lower average score. The even split in benchmark wins—one apiece—underscores that neither card is universally superior; the right pick depends entirely on the specific software environment and performance demands of the user's professional workflow.