AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 vs NVIDIA Quadro K4100M Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro K4100M and the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 are both end-of-life mobile workstation graphics solutions, but they represent vastly different eras and design philosophies. The K4100M is a high-end Kepler part from 2013, while the WX 3100 is a mid-range Polaris-based GPU from 2017. The benchmark data reveals a clear performance hierarchy, but the architectural and specification differences tell a more nuanced story for potential users.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable benchmark between the two cards is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the results heavily favor the older NVIDIA GPU. The Quadro K4100M scores 9149, while the Radeon Pro WX 3100 scores 7333. This translates to a 24.8% advantage for the NVIDIA card, a substantial margin that underscores a significant compute performance gap. In this test, the K4100M is the definitive winner.

Looking at the broader benchmark landscape, the K4100M also has a Geekbench Metal score of 6662, which the AMD card cannot match due to lack of support for that API. The WX 3100 counters with a Geekbench Vulkan score of 7827, an API that the K4100M supports only up to version 1.2.175. While the Vulkan score is strong for the AMD card, the head-to-head comparison for overall compute performance is dominated by the OpenCL result.

The average benchmark scores corroborate this finding. The K4100M has an average benchmark score of 7906, placing it in the 41st percentile of all GPUs. The WX 3100’s average score is 7580, also in the 41st percentile. Despite the similar percentile ranking, the K4100M is 4.3% ahead in average score. The nearest rivals for the K4100M include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 880M with an average score of 8040 (1.7% higher) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 Ti at 8053 (1.8% higher). The WX 3100 sits close to the AMD Radeon 540 (7673, which is 1.2% higher) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (7472, which is 1.4% lower). This data shows the K4100M performing closer to older enthusiast-class parts, while the WX 3100 is grouped with newer entry-level and mid-range options.

The Verdict

From a pure performance standpoint, the data is unambiguous. The NVIDIA Quadro K4100M is the faster GPU. Its 24.8% lead in OpenCL performance makes it the better choice for compute-heavy workloads that rely on this API. Furthermore, its higher average benchmark score of 7906 versus 7580 indicates a general performance advantage across various tasks.

The choice becomes more complex when considering the platform and feature set. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 is a single-slot, 65 W card with a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface, making it far more adaptable to modern systems. It also supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3, which are more modern API revisions than the K4100M's DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. The WX 3100 also has a higher pixel rate of 19.50 GPixel/s compared to the K4100M’s 16.94 GPixel/s, suggesting better fill-rate-bound performance in some scenarios. If your priority is a low-power, easily integrated card with modern API support and you can accept lower raw compute, the WX 3100 is the logical pick. If raw compute power is the sole metric, the K4100M is the superior choice, provided your system can accommodate an MXM module and its 100 W TDP.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL-based applications?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K4100M is significantly faster. It scores 9149 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 24.8% higher than the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100's score of 7333.

Q: How do their overall performance scores compare?

A: The Quadro K4100M has a higher average benchmark score of 7906, compared to the Radeon Pro WX 3100's 7580. Both GPUs are in the 41st percentile of all GPUs.

Q: Which card is more power-efficient?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 has a significantly lower TDP of 65 W, while the NVIDIA Quadro K4100M has a TDP of 100 W. The AMD card also suggests a 250 W power supply, whereas the NVIDIA card has no suggested PSU listed.

Q: What are the memory specifications for each card?

A: Both cards have 4 GB of GDDR5 memory. The NVIDIA Quadro K4100M uses a 256-bit bus interface, providing a bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 uses a 128-bit bus, resulting in a slightly lower bandwidth of 96.00 GB/s.

Q: Which card supports more modern graphics APIs?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3. The NVIDIA Quadro K4100M supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. This gives the AMD card a definitive edge in API compatibility.

Q: What is the physical form factor of each card?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 is a single-slot card measuring 168 mm in length, designed for a standard PCIe 3.0 x8 slot. The NVIDIA Quadro K4100M is an MXM Module using an MXM-B (3.0) interface, making it primarily suitable for specific laptops or proprietary systems.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every fundamental specification category. The NVIDIA Quadro K4100M features 1152 shading units, 96 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. In contrast, the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This indicates a vastly different internal design, with the NVIDIA card having more than double the processing resources.

Clock speeds also differ significantly. The K4100M has a static base and boost clock of 706 MHz, while the WX 3100 has a base clock of 925 MHz and a boost clock of 1219 MHz. The AMD card compensates for its lower core count with much higher clock speeds. The memory situation is a trade-off: the K4100M’s 256-bit bus provides a bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s, which is higher than the WX 3100's 96.00 GB/s, despite the latter's faster 6 Gbps effective memory speed. The NVIDIA card’s theoretical FP32 performance is 1.627 TFLOPS, which is higher than the AMD card’s 1,248.3 GFLOPS. However, the AMD card has an FP16 performance of 1,248.3 GFLOPS (1:1), a capability not listed for the NVIDIA card. The bus interface is also a major differentiator: the K4100M uses MXM-B (3.0), while the WX 3100 uses PCIe 3.0 x8. Finally, the display outputs are entirely different, with the K4100M being "Portable Device Dependent" and the WX 3100 featuring 1x DisplayPort 1.4a and 2x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is a generation apart. The NVIDIA Quadro K4100M is built on the Kepler architecture and uses the GK104 chip, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. This chip contains 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100, on the other hand, uses the GCN 4.0 architecture with the Lexa chip, built on a more advanced 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. This results in a much smaller and denser chip, with 2,200 million transistors on just 103 mm².

This process difference is the core of their design divergence. The Kepler chip has a lower transistor density of 12.0M / mm², while the GCN 4.0 chip achieves 21.4M / mm². The K4100M is a larger, more complex chip with more raw compute resources, but it is less efficient. The WX 3100 is a smaller, denser chip that achieves its performance through higher clock speeds and modern architecture features. The K4100M's successor was the Quadro Maxwell-M, while the WX 3100's predecessor was Radeon Pro GCN and its successor was Radeon Pro Vega. This places them in distinct product lineages with different design goals.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro K4100M wins in raw compute performance. Its 24.8% lead in Geekbench OpenCL and higher average benchmark score of 7906 make it the clear choice for demanding, compute-intensive professional workloads that utilize OpenCL. Its higher texture rate of 67.78 GTexel/s versus the WX 3100’s 39.01 GTexel/s also suggests an advantage in texture-heavy tasks. This card is for users who need maximum processing power in a proprietary mobile workstation chassis that supports MXM modules.

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 wins on integration and efficiency. Its 65 W TDP, single-slot design, and PCIe 3.0 x8 interface make it incredibly easy to deploy in a standard desktop or a more modern laptop with a standard PCIe slot. It offers a higher pixel rate of 19.50 GPixel/s, which could benefit specific graphics tasks. Its support for DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3 ensures better compatibility with modern software. This card is the better choice for a system builder seeking a low-profile, low-power workstation GPU with modern feature support, even if it means sacrificing raw compute power. It also has a distinct advantage in FP16 compute, offering 1,248.3 GFLOPS where the K4100M has no listed capability.