AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 vs NVIDIA GeForce GT 1010 Comparison

The GeForce GT 1010 and Radeon Pro WX 4100 are both end-of-life, single-slot cards, but they target fundamentally different corners of the GPU market. The data shows a clear, if narrow, benchmark hierarchy: the AMD card wins the sole shared test by a decisive margin, yet the NVIDIA card holds its own in the overall percentile rankings. This analysis explores what the numbers reveal about two very different approaches to low-profile computing.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable benchmark in the database is Geekbench OpenCL, and the result is lopsided. The Radeon Pro WX 4100 scores 17,642, while the GeForce GT 1010 scores 6,698. That is a deltaPct of -62 from the perspective of the NVIDIA card, meaning the AMD card outperforms it by roughly 163% in this specific compute workload. This is not a marginal victory; it is a generational and architectural gap made visible in a single metric.

The OpenCL result aligns with the raw compute specifications. The Radeon Pro WX 4100 delivers 2.460 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput, while the GeForce GT 1010 manages only 751.6 GFLOPS. The AMD card also has a 1:1 FP16 ratio, offering 2.460 TFLOPS for half-precision work, whereas the NVIDIA card's FP16 capabilities are not listed, suggesting a lack of dedicated support. When interpreting the OpenCL delta, it is important to note that this test often favors cards with more shading units and wider memory buses, both of which are areas where the AMD card holds a substantial advantage.

However, the aggregate benchmark picture is more nuanced. The Radeon Pro WX 4100 has an average benchmark score of 6,330, while the GeForce GT 1010's average is 6,698. This is a curious inversion. Despite losing the OpenCL test by a wide margin, the NVIDIA card has a higher average score across all its benchmarks. This is partly because the GT 1010 only has a single benchmark entry (the OpenCL score), which sets its average. The WX 4100, by contrast, has a wider range of scores, including several low DirectX results (16 in DirectX 10, 24 in DirectX 11, 22 in DirectX 12, and 56 in DirectX 9) that drag its average down. Those older API tests are likely not representative of modern workloads, but they do affect the aggregate.

The percentile rankings further complicate the story. The GeForce GT 1010 sits at the 38th percentile of all GPUs, while the Radeon Pro WX 4100 is at the 37th percentile. The difference is negligible — one percentage point — and both cards are clustered in the lower-middle tier of the performance spectrum. The nearest rivals for the GT 1010 include the AMD Radeon R7 M370 (average score 6,764, deltaPct -1) and the AMD FirePro M5100 (average score 6,830, deltaPct -1.9). The WX 4100's nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon R7 M350 (average score 6,327, deltaPct 0.1) and the NVIDIA Quadro K620 (average score 6,282, deltaPct 0.8). This confirms that neither card is a performance leader; they are both entry-level or low-profile solutions competing in a similar aggregate band.

The Verdict

From the data, the Radeon Pro WX 4100 is the clear compute winner. In the only head-to-head test available, it delivers more than 2.6 times the OpenCL score of the GeForce GT 1010. If the primary use case is general-purpose GPU compute or any workload that scales with shading units and memory bandwidth, the AMD card is the obvious choice. Its 4 GB of memory and 96.00 GB/s bandwidth provide a substantial buffer for larger datasets compared to the GT 1010's 2 GB and 48.06 GB/s.

The GeForce GT 1010, however, is not without merit. Its higher average benchmark score, despite the single data point, and its slightly better percentile rank suggest that in certain legacy or driver-optimized scenarios, it can be competitive. The Pascal architecture is mature, and its DirectX 12 (12_1) support is actually a higher feature level than the WX 4100's DirectX 12 (12_0). For users whose software relies on specific Pascal-era optimizations, the GT 1010 might deliver a smoother experience despite its lower raw throughput.

The verdict is not about which card is "better" in absolute terms, but about which is better for a given task. The WX 4100's launch MSRP was 399 USD, which reflects a professional-grade positioning, while the GT 1010 had no listed launch MSRP, indicating a more budget-oriented retail channel. The data does not support a universal recommendation; it supports a workload-specific one.

Where Each One Wins

NVIDIA GeForce GT 1010 wins in the aggregate benchmark average (6,698 vs. 6,330) and in the percentile ranking (38th vs. 37th). It also holds a feature-level advantage with DirectX 12 (12_1) support, which can be relevant for certain modern games or applications that leverage that specific API tier. Its lower transistor count (1,800 million vs. 3,000 million) and smaller die size (74 mm² vs. 123 mm²) suggest it may be more efficient in very low-power or space-constrained scenarios, though the power draw difference (30 W vs. 50 W) is a small absolute gap.

AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 wins decisively in compute throughput. The OpenCL score of 17,642 dwarfs the GT 1010's 6,698. Its 1,024 shading units and 64 texture mapping units provide a 4x and 4x advantage respectively over the GT 1010's 256 and 16. The memory subsystem is also a clear win: 128-bit bus vs. 64-bit, 96.00 GB/s vs. 48.06 GB/s, and 4 GB vs. 2 GB. For any task that involves large textures, complex shaders, or data-parallel workloads, the WX 4100 is the superior tool.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GT 1010 has a higher average benchmark score of 6,698, compared to the AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100's 6,330.

Q: What is the biggest performance gap between the two cards?

A: In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 scores 17,642 versus the GeForce GT 1010's 6,698, a deltaPct of -62, representing a massive 163% advantage for the AMD card.

Q: Do both cards support the same DirectX feature level?

A: No. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 1010 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 supports DirectX 12 (12_0).

Q: How much memory does each card have?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GT 1010 has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory, while the AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory.

Q: Which card has a higher transistor density?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 has a slightly higher transistor density at 24.4M / mm², compared to the NVIDIA GeForce GT 1010's 24.3M / mm². The difference is negligible.

Q: Are these cards still in production?

A: No. Both the NVIDIA GeForce GT 1010 and the AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 have a production status of "End-of-life."

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide is stark. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 1010 is built on the Pascal architecture using the GP108 chip, manufactured on a 14 nm process at Samsung. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 uses the GCN 4.0 architecture with the Baffin chip, also on a 14 nm process but fabricated by GlobalFoundries. Both use the same transistor density (24.3M vs. 24.4M per mm²), but the AMD chip packs significantly more hardware: 3,000 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, versus 1,800 million on a 74 mm² die for NVIDIA.

The compute resources differ by a factor of four. The WX 4100 has 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The GT 1010 has 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. This explains the texture and pixel rate gaps: the WX 4100 achieves 76.86 GTexel/s and 19.22 GPixel/s, while the GT 1010 manages 23.49 GTexel/s and 11.74 GPixel/s. Neither card has ray tracing or tensor cores.

Memory architecture is another major divergence. The WX 4100 uses a 128-bit memory bus providing 96.00 GB/s, while the GT 1010 is constrained to a 64-bit bus with 48.06 GB/s. The effective memory clock is nearly identical (6 Gbps for both), but the wider bus gives AMD the clear bandwidth advantage. The WX 4100 also supports FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, a feature absent from the GT 1010's listed specs.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the two cards:

• Chip: GP108 (NVIDIA) vs. Baffin (AMD)
• Architecture: Pascal vs. GCN 4.0
• Foundry: Samsung vs. GlobalFoundries
• Transistors: 1,800 million vs. 3,000 million
• Die Size: 74 mm² vs. 123 mm²
• Base Clock: 1228 MHz vs. 1125 MHz
• Boost Clock: 1468 MHz vs. 1201 MHz
• Memory Size: 2 GB vs. 4 GB
• Memory Bus Width: 64 bit vs. 128 bit
• Memory Bandwidth: 48.06 GB/s vs. 96.00 GB/s
• Shading Units: 256 vs. 1024
• TMUs: 16 vs. 64
• ROPs: 8 vs. 16
• Pixel Rate: 11.74 GPixel/s vs. 19.22 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 23.49 GTexel/s vs. 76.86 GTexel/s
• FP32: 751.6 GFLOPS vs. 2.460 TFLOPS
• FP16: Not listed vs. 2.460 TFLOPS (1:1)
• TDP: 30 W vs. 50 W
• Suggested PSU: 200 W vs. 250 W
• Bus Interface: PCIe 3.0 x4 vs. PCIe 3.0 x8
• Display Outputs: 1x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI 2.0 vs. 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a
• Dimensions: 147 mm length vs. 168 mm length, 69 mm height
• Release Date: 2021-01-12 vs. 2016-11-09
• DirectX Support: 12 (12_1) vs. 12 (12_0)
• Vulkan Support: 1.4 vs. 1.3