AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 vs NVIDIA GeForce 840M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive advantage for the AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 in the two compute workloads where both GPUs have comparable measurements. In Geekbench OpenCL, the WX 4100 scores 17,642 against 5,764 for the GeForce 840M, a lead of 206.1%. In Geekbench Vulkan, the margin widens further: 18,703 versus 4,880, a 283.3% advantage. These are not narrow wins; the AMD part effectively triples the NVIDIA part's Vulkan output and more than doubles its OpenCL output.

The GeForce 840M has no recorded wins in any shared benchmark, giving the WX 4100 a clean 2-0 head-to-head sweep. The GeForce 840M's only two benchmark entries are those OpenCL and Vulkan tests, while the WX 4100 has a much broader benchmark portfolio, including Passmark DirectX 9/10/11/12, G2D, G3D, and GPU Compute tests. That portfolio yields an average benchmark score of 6,330 for the WX 4100, compared to 5,322 for the GeForce 840M. The percentile ranking also reflects this gap: the WX 4100 sits at the 37th percentile among all GPUs in the database, while the GeForce 840M sits at the 31st percentile.

Comparing each GPU to its own nearest rivals in the database puts the results in context. The WX 4100's average score is nearly identical to the AMD Radeon R7 M350 (6,327, a 0.1% delta) and the NVIDIA Quadro K620 (6,282, a 0.8% delta). It trails the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 SE and GTX 580M by 0.9% in each case, both scoring 6,389. The GeForce 840M, meanwhile, sits in a cluster of low-power mobile parts: it is 0.1% ahead of the GeForce 930A (5,317), 0.3% ahead of the GeForce GTX 980M (5,308), 0.7% ahead of the GeForce 940M (5,284), and 0.7% behind the AMD Radeon R7 M445 (5,358). The data indicates the WX 4100 competes with a different class of hardware entirely, one that includes desktop and workstation parts, while the GeForce 840M is anchored in the thin-and-light notebook segment.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different foundries and process nodes. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 uses the Baffin chip built on GCN 4.0 architecture, fabricated by GlobalFoundries on a 14 nm process. The chip packs 3,000 million transistors into a 123 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 24.4 million per square millimeter. The NVIDIA GeForce 840M uses the GM108S chip on Maxwell architecture, fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process. It contains 1,020 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, for a density of 13.2 million per square millimeter. The WX 4100's newer process node allows it to fit nearly three times as many transistors in a die that is only 60% larger.

The compute configuration diverges sharply. The WX 4100 has 1,024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 16 raster output units. The GeForce 840M has 384 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The WX 4100's pixel rate is 19.22 GPixel/s versus 8.992 GPixel/s for the GeForce 840M, and its texture rate is 76.86 GTexel/s versus 17.98 GTexel/s. Floating-point throughput follows the same pattern: the WX 4100 delivers 2.460 TFLOPS in FP32, while the GeForce 840M delivers 863.2 GFLOPS. The WX 4100 also supports FP16 at 2.460 TFLOPS (1:1), while no FP16 figure is recorded for the GeForce 840M.

Memory subsystems are fundamentally different. The WX 4100 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, providing 96.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The GeForce 840M has 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, providing just 16.02 GB/s. That is a sixfold difference in bandwidth. Clock speeds are closer, but still favor the AMD part: the WX 4100 runs at 1125 MHz base and 1201 MHz boost, with memory at 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective). The GeForce 840M runs at 1029 MHz base and 1124 MHz boost, with memory at 1001 MHz (2 Gbps effective).

Power and physical design differ as expected for their target markets. The WX 4100 has a TDP of 50 W, is a single-slot card measuring 168 mm in length and 69 mm in height, requires no power connectors, and suggests a 250 W power supply. It uses a PCIe 3.0 x8 bus interface and outputs four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a connectors. The GeForce 840M has a TDP of 33 W, is classified as an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no slot width, no dimensions, and portable-device-dependent display outputs. It also uses PCIe 3.0 x8 but has no suggested PSU. API support is similar in scope: both support DirectX 12 and OpenGL 4.6, but the WX 4100 lists DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3, while the GeForce 840M lists DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.4.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear separation in purpose and performance. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 is a workstation-oriented, single-slot card with 4 GB of GDDR5, a 128-bit bus, and compute throughput above 2.4 TFLOPS. Its benchmark results show it competing near the GTX 460 SE and GTX 580M, both desktop parts from earlier generations, and slightly above the Quadro K620. The NVIDIA GeForce 840M is a low-power mobile IGP with 2 GB of DDR3, a 64-bit bus, and sub-1 TFLOPS FP32 performance. Its nearest rivals are other low-end mobile GPUs like the GeForce 930A, 940M, and Radeon R7 M445.

For any workload that stresses compute, memory bandwidth, or sustained GPU throughput, the WX 4100 is the superior choice by a wide margin. The Geekbench OpenCL delta of 206.1% and Vulkan delta of 283.3% are not subtle; they represent different tiers of hardware. The WX 4100 also has a richer feature set for professional use: four mini-DisplayPort outputs, a single-slot form factor, and no external power connector, making it suitable for multi-display workstation setups. The GeForce 840M has no such professional ambitions, being tied to portable device hardware.

The GeForce 840M does have one advantage in the data: lower power consumption. At 33 W TDP versus 50 W, it draws less power and is designed for integrated use in laptops where the WX 4100's 168 mm board would not fit. For a user constrained to a thin laptop, the GeForce 840M is the only option of the two. But for anyone building a desktop or workstation with a PCIe slot, the WX 4100 wins every measured benchmark and offers nearly six times the memory bandwidth. The verdict is straightforward: the WX 4100 is the faster, more capable product; the GeForce 840M is the lower-power product for portable devices.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 has an average benchmark score of 6,330, while the NVIDIA GeForce 840M averages 5,322.

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

A: The WX 4100 scores 18,703 versus 4,880 for the GeForce 840M, a 283.3% advantage for the AMD part.

Q: What are the memory specifications for each GPU?

A: The WX 4100 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth. The GeForce 840M has 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus with 16.02 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has a higher transistor count?

A: The WX 4100 contains 3,000 million transistors, while the GeForce 840M contains 1,020 million transistors.

Q: Do both GPUs support DirectX 12 and OpenGL 4.6?

A: Yes, both list DirectX 12 and OpenGL 4.6 support. However, the WX 4100 lists DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3, while the GeForce 840M lists DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: What is the power draw difference?

A: The WX 4100 has a TDP of 50 W and suggests a 250 W power supply. The GeForce 840M has a TDP of 33 W and has no suggested PSU listed.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 wins in every measured compute benchmark shared with the GeForce 840M. It also wins on memory capacity (4 GB versus 2 GB), memory type (GDDR5 versus DDR3), memory bus width (128-bit versus 64-bit), memory bandwidth (96.00 GB/s versus 16.02 GB/s), shading units (1,024 versus 384), TMUs (64 versus 16), ROPs (16 versus 8), pixel rate (19.22 GPixel/s versus 8.992 GPixel/s), texture rate (76.86 GTexel/s versus 17.98 GTexel/s), FP32 throughput (2.460 TFLOPS versus 863.2 GFLOPS), and transistor density (24.4M per mm² versus 13.2M per mm²). It also has a higher process node efficiency, being built on 14 nm versus 28 nm, and offers four mini-DisplayPort outputs for multi-monitor setups.

The NVIDIA GeForce 840M wins on power consumption, with a 33 W TDP versus 50 W. It also has a smaller die size at 77 mm² versus 123 mm², though that is a function of its much smaller transistor count. It lists Vulkan 1.4 support versus Vulkan 1.3 for the WX 4100, and its IGP form factor means it can be integrated into portable devices where the WX 4100's single-slot card cannot be used. The GeForce 840M also has a lower base and boost clock (1029 MHz and 1124 MHz versus 1125 MHz and 1201 MHz), which is a minor point given its overall lower throughput.

For a workstation desktop with a PCIe 3.0 x8 slot, the WX 4100 is the clear winner on performance, memory bandwidth, and professional display connectivity. For a laptop or other portable device where power draw and integration matter more than raw throughput, the GeForce 840M is the only viable choice in this comparison. The database shows no benchmark where the GeForce 840M outperforms the WX 4100, so the use-case split is defined entirely by physical form factor and power envelope, not by measured performance.