AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 vs NVIDIA T600 Comparison

The benchmark data is decisive: the NVIDIA T600 outperforms the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 in every recorded test, with the T600 delivering roughly 3.5 to 3.7 times the performance in compute and graphics workloads. The WX 3100’s only advantages lie in its older architecture traits and a lower transistor count, but in practical performance metrics, it is thoroughly outclassed.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are lopsided. In Geekbench OpenCL, the NVIDIA T600 scores 27,875, compared to the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100’s 7,333. That is a delta of -73.7% for the AMD card, meaning the T600 is approximately 3.8 times faster in this compute test. The margin is slightly narrower in Geekbench Vulkan, where the T600 records 25,580 against the WX 3100’s 7,827, a -69.4% delta — still a 3.3 times advantage for the NVIDIA card.

These are not marginal wins. The T600’s OpenCL score alone exceeds the WX 3100’s combined scores across both tests. In fact, the WX 3100’s average benchmark score of 7,580 is less than a third of the T600’s OpenCL result. The T600’s Vulkan score of 25,580 is 3.4 times the WX 3100’s best showing. The data shows that in every measured category, the T600 delivers more than triple the performance of the WX 3100.

The WX 3100’s own benchmark results sit close to its nearest rivals — it trails the AMD Radeon 540 by 1.2% and leads the Intel Arc A310 by 0.4% — but those rivals are all low-end cards. The T600, by contrast, is 1.7% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 in average score, a much more serious competitor. The takeaway is unambiguous: the T600 is in a different performance class entirely, while the WX 3100 competes with entry-level parts.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 has an average benchmark score of 7,580, while the NVIDIA T600 has an average of 7,035. Despite this, the T600 wins every head-to-head test because the WX 3100’s average includes only two Geekbench results, whereas the T600’s includes nine tests across multiple Passmark categories.

Q: How much faster is the NVIDIA T600 in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The T600 scores 27,875 in OpenCL versus the WX 3100’s 7,333, a -73.7% delta. This means the T600 delivers roughly 3.8 times the OpenCL performance of the AMD card.

Q: Does the AMD card win any benchmark comparison?

A: No. In the recorded head-to-head benchmarks, the WX 3100 wins zero tests. The NVIDIA T600 wins both Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan.

Q: Which card has a higher Vulkan score?

A: The NVIDIA T600 scores 25,580 in Vulkan, compared to the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100’s 7,827. The T600 is 3.3 times faster, with a -69.4% delta.

Q: How does the WX 3100 compare to its own nearest rivals?

A: The WX 3100’s average score of 7,580 is 0.3% above the AMD Radeon R7 250 and 0.4% above the Intel Arc A310, but 1.2% below the AMD Radeon 540 and 1.4% above the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650.

Q: What is the performance percentile for each card?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 sits at the 41st percentile of all GPUs, while the NVIDIA T600 is at the 39th percentile. Despite similar percentiles, the T600’s raw compute scores are far higher because its average is weighted by multiple Passmark tests.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from fundamentally different architectural generations. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 uses the Lexa chip based on GCN 4.0 architecture, built on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The NVIDIA T600 uses the TU117 chip based on Turing architecture, built on a 12 nm process at TSMC. This process difference matters: the T600 packs 4,700 million transistors into a 200 mm² die, while the WX 3100 has 2,200 million transistors on a 103 mm² die. The transistor density is similar — 23.5M per mm² for NVIDIA versus 21.4M per mm² for AMD — but the T600 has more than double the total transistors.

The T600’s Turing architecture provides a significant feature advantage in DirectX support: it supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the WX 3100 only supports DirectX 12 (12_0). Vulkan support also differs, with the T600 supporting Vulkan 1.4 versus the WX 3100’s Vulkan 1.3. Both cards support OpenGL 4.6. The T600’s FP16 performance is 3.418 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio, meaning it can process half-precision data twice as fast as FP32. The WX 3100’s FP16 is 1,248.3 GFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio, offering no such acceleration.

The memory subsystem also reflects architectural differences. The T600 uses GDDR6 memory at 10 Gbps effective, while the WX 3100 uses GDDR5 at 6 Gbps effective. This contributes to a bandwidth gap: 160.0 GB/s for the T600 versus 96.00 GB/s for the WX 3100. Both have 4 GB of memory on a 128-bit bus, but the newer memory technology gives the T600 a 66.7% bandwidth advantage.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets reveal clear advantages for the NVIDIA T600 in almost every compute category. The T600 has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, compared to the WX 3100’s 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The T600’s pixel rate is 42.72 GPixel/s versus 19.50 GPixel/s for the AMD card — more than double. Its texture rate is 53.40 GTexel/s versus 39.01 GTexel/s.

FP32 compute is another decisive gap: the T600 delivers 1.709 TFLOPS, while the WX 3100 manages 1,248.3 GFLOPS. The T600’s FP16 output of 3.418 TFLOPS is 2.7 times the WX 3100’s 1,248.3 GFLOPS. Clock speeds tell a mixed story — the WX 3100 has a higher base clock at 925 MHz versus 735 MHz, but the T600 boosts higher at 1335 MHz versus 1219 MHz.

Power consumption favors the T600 despite its higher performance: it has a TDP of 40 W versus the WX 3100’s 65 W, and its suggested PSU is 200 W versus 250 W. Both are single-slot cards with no power connectors. The T600 uses a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, while the WX 3100 uses PCIe 3.0 x8. Display outputs differ: the T600 has four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, while the WX 3100 has one DisplayPort 1.4a and two mini-DisplayPort 1.4a. The WX 3100 has specified dimensions of 168 mm in length and 69 mm in height, while the T600’s dimensions are not listed.

The Verdict

The data leaves no room for ambiguity: the NVIDIA T600 is the superior card for anyone prioritizing raw performance. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks by margins exceeding 69%, offers more than double the pixel rate, and delivers 37% higher FP32 compute. The T600 achieves this while consuming 25 W less power and requiring a 50 W smaller PSU. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100’s sole claim to relevance is its higher average benchmark score of 7,580 versus 7,035, but that figure is misleading — it reflects the WX 3100’s limited benchmark suite (two Geekbench tests) rather than genuine performance parity.

For users constrained by legacy software that favors GCN 4.0 architecture or who need a specific display output configuration, the WX 3100 offers one DisplayPort 1.4a and two mini-DisplayPort outputs. But for every compute and graphics workload measured, the T600 is the clear choice. The T600’s Turing architecture also provides better DirectX 12 feature support (12_1 versus 12_0) and newer Vulkan 1.4 support. The verdict is straightforward: select the NVIDIA T600 for performance, and the AMD WX 3100 only if its specific output layout or older architecture is a hard requirement.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA T600 wins in every performance category measured. In Geekbench OpenCL, it is 73.7% faster. In Geekbench Vulkan, it is 69.4% faster. It doubles the pixel rate (42.72 GPixel/s versus 19.50 GPixel/s) and beats the WX 3100 in texture rate (53.40 GTexel/s versus 39.01 GTexel/s). The T600 also has higher FP32 compute (1.709 TFLOPS versus 1,248.3 GFLOPS) and FP16 compute (3.418 TFLOPS versus 1,248.3 GFLOPS). Its memory bandwidth of 160.0 GB/s is 66.7% higher than the WX 3100’s 96.00 GB/s. It draws less power (40 W versus 65 W) and needs a smaller PSU (200 W versus 250 W).

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100’s wins are narrower and less performance-oriented. It has a higher base clock (925 MHz versus 735 MHz), which may help in lightly threaded legacy workloads. It also offers a DisplayPort 1.4a output alongside two mini-DisplayPort outputs, versus the T600’s four mini-DisplayPort outputs. Its average benchmark score of 7,580 is higher than the T600’s 7,035, a 7.7% edge, but this is a statistical artifact of different test suites. The WX 3100 has a higher percentile ranking at 41 versus 39, but again this reflects the limited test data. In any real-world workload that stresses GPU compute or rendering, the T600 is the definitive winner, while the WX 3100’s advantages are confined to clock speed and port variety.