AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M Comparison

The Verdict

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 is the clear winner in every recorded benchmark. It beats the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M by 704.7% in Geekbench Metal, 145.8% in Geekbench OpenCL, and 178.6% in Geekbench Vulkan. The data shows a decisive performance gap, making the WX 4100 the pick for anyone needing compute throughput or modern API support. The GTX 765M, while older and weaker, still occupies a niche: it is an MXM module, so it fits in laptops or systems that require that specific form factor. If you must use an MXM slot, the GTX 765M is your only option here. If you have a PCIe slot, take the WX 4100 without hesitation.

The WX 4100 also sits higher in the overall GPU percentile ranking: 37th percentile versus 32nd for the GTX 765M. Its average benchmark score of 6330 dwarfs the GTX 765M's 5501. The GTX 765M's nearest rivals, such as the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 (5508, -0.1%) and AMD Radeon R7 M440 (5483, +0.3%), show it is competitive only among low-end mobile parts. The WX 4100 sits near the NVIDIA Quadro K620 (6282, +0.8%) and AMD Radeon R7 M350 (6327, +0.1%), which places it in a higher performance class entirely.

Architecture Differences

The WX 4100 uses AMD's GCN 4.0 architecture on a 14 nm process from GlobalFoundries. The GTX 765M uses NVIDIA's Kepler architecture on a 28 nm process from TSMC. The process node difference is significant: 14 nm versus 28 nm means the WX 4100 packs transistors much denser, at 24.4 million per square millimeter versus 11.5 million for the GTX 765M. The WX 4100's die is 123 mm² with 3,000 million transistors, while the GTX 765M's die is 221 mm² with 2,540 million transistors. So the AMD chip is smaller physically but has more transistors.

The WX 4100 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The GTX 765M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The DirectX feature level difference matters: 12_0 versus 11_0 means the WX 4100 can use more modern rendering features. The Vulkan version is also newer on the AMD side.

The WX 4100 has 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The GTX 765M has 768 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Both have the same TMU and ROP counts, but the AMD card has 33% more shading units. The WX 4100 also has a higher base clock of 1125 MHz versus 797 MHz, and a higher boost clock of 1201 MHz versus 863 MHz.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest win for the WX 4100 is in Geekbench Metal. The AMD card scores 21018 against the GTX 765M's 2612, a delta of 704.7%. This is not a close race; the WX 4100 is over eight times faster in this test. The Metal API is Apple's low-level graphics interface, and the WX 4100's GCN architecture handles it far better than Kepler.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the WX 4100 scores 17642 versus 7176, a 145.8% advantage. OpenCL is a general-purpose compute API, and the WX 4100's higher shading unit count and faster clocks produce a clear lead. The GTX 765M's 1,325.6 GFLOPS FP32 throughput is less than half of the WX 4100's 2.460 TFLOPS.

Geekbench Vulkan shows a similar pattern: 18703 versus 6714, a 178.6% delta. Vulkan is a modern cross-platform API, and the WX 4100's newer architecture and higher bandwidth (96.00 GB/s versus 64.13 GB/s) help it pull far ahead. The GTX 765M's older Kepler design was not built for Vulkan's low-overhead model, and the benchmark results reflect that.

The WX 4100 wins all three head-to-head tests. The GTX 765M has no recorded wins in any comparison.

Specification Differences

The WX 4100 has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 96.00 GB/s bandwidth. The GTX 765M has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 64.13 GB/s. The AMD card has double the memory capacity and 50% more bandwidth. Memory clock differs too: 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective) versus 1002 MHz (4 Gbps effective).

The WX 4100 has a TDP of 50 W and is single-slot, with no power connectors required and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The GTX 765M has a TDP of 75 W and is an MXM module, also with no power connectors. The WX 4100 is 168 mm long and 69 mm tall; the GTX 765M has no recorded dimensions because it is a mobile module.

The WX 4100 uses PCIe 3.0 x8 and outputs 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a. The GTX 765M uses MXM-B (3.0) and its display outputs are described as "Portable Device Dependent," meaning they vary by laptop design. The WX 4100's FP16 throughput is 2.460 TFLOPS (1:1 with FP32), while the GTX 765M has no recorded FP16 capability.

The WX 4100 was released later (2016-11-09) versus the GTX 765M (2013-05-29). The AMD card has a launch MSRP of 399 USD. The NVIDIA card has no recorded launch MSRP. Both are end-of-life products.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in compute workloads?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 wins all recorded compute benchmarks: 704.7% ahead in Geekbench Metal, 145.8% ahead in Geekbench OpenCL, and 178.6% ahead in Geekbench Vulkan.

Q: Can the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M be used in a desktop PCIe slot?

A: No. The GTX 765M uses an MXM-B (3.0) interface and is an MXM Module form factor. The WX 4100 uses PCIe 3.0 x8, which is a standard desktop slot.

Q: Does the WX 4100 support newer graphics APIs than the GTX 765M?

A: Yes. The WX 4100 supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3, while the GTX 765M supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Q: How much memory do these cards have?

A: The WX 4100 has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth. The GTX 765M has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory with 64.13 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The WX 4100 has 1024 shading units. The GTX 765M has 768 shading units. Both have 64 TMUs and 16 ROPs.

Q: Are these cards still in production?

A: No. Both are marked end-of-life. The WX 4100 was released on 2016-11-09, and the GTX 765M was released on 2013-05-29.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 wins in every scenario where performance matters. Its 4 GB memory capacity and 96.00 GB/s bandwidth make it suitable for larger textures and compute buffers. The 2.460 TFLOPS FP32 throughput and 1:1 FP16 support give it an edge in scientific or machine learning tasks that use half-precision. The 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs allow multi-monitor professional setups, and the 50 W TDP with no auxiliary power connectors means it can run in modest systems. The 250 W suggested PSU also makes it easy to integrate into existing builds.

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M wins only in the narrow case of MXM compatibility. If you have a laptop or compact system with an MXM-B slot, the GTX 765M is the only choice here, as the WX 4100 cannot physically fit. Its 75 W TDP and lack of power connectors make it easy to install in that form factor. It also has a lower average benchmark score (5501) and 32nd percentile ranking, so there is no performance argument to favor it. The GTX 765M's nearest rivals (GeForce MX130, Radeon R7 M440, Quadro M4000, FirePro M4000) all score within a fraction of a percent, confirming it is a low-end mobile part.

For any fixed installation with a PCIe slot, the WX 4100 is the only rational pick. The data shows no category where the GTX 765M beats it, and the architectural advantages (14 nm process, GCN 4.0, more shading units, newer APIs, more memory bandwidth) all favor AMD. The GTX 765M is a legacy part for legacy systems; the WX 4100 is a capable professional card that happens to be end-of-life but still outperforms its rival by a wide margin in every recorded test.