GPU Comparison

AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 and NVIDIA Quadro P2000 are both end-of-life professional workstation cards, but they represent different design philosophies and performance tiers. The data shows a clear overall winner in raw compute and 3D graphics, yet the AMD card holds a specific advantage in one niche. The Quadro P2000 wins 8 of the 9 head-to-head benchmark comparisons, while the WX 4100 takes a single win in 2D graphics. This split means your choice depends entirely on whether your workload is primarily 3D-centric or involves mixed 2D/3D tasks.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro P2000 dominates the performance landscape across nearly every benchmark category. Its most decisive victories come in legacy DirectX workloads, where it more than doubles the AMD card's scores. In the Passmark DirectX 9 test, the P2000 scores 124 versus the WX 4100's 56, a 54.8% advantage. Similarly, in DirectX 10, the P2000 hits 34 against the WX 4100's 16, showing a 52.9% lead. These margins indicate that the Pascal architecture handles older API paths with far greater efficiency than GCN 4.0.

The P2000 also excels in modern graphics APIs and compute. In Geekbench Vulkan, it scores 23566 compared to 18703 for the WX 4100, a 20.6% gap. The OpenCL result is closer but still favors NVIDIA: 20125 versus 17642, a 12.3% difference. The biggest single-score gap appears in Passmark G3D, where the P2000's 6956 nearly doubles the WX 4100's 3699, translating to a 46.8% lead. Compute performance follows the same pattern, with the P2000 achieving 2933 in Passmark GPU Compute against the WX 4100's 1475, a 49.7% margin.

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100's lone victory comes in the Passmark G2D test, scoring 646 versus the P2000's 626. That 3.2% edge is modest but consistent with the card's design priorities. The WX 4100 also shows a higher average benchmark score of 6330 across all tests, compared to the P2000's 6049, though this is skewed by the G2D result and the different test weighting. The WX 4100's percentile rating of 37 versus the P2000's 35 suggests that despite losing most head-to-head tests, the AMD card sits in a similar overall performance class when considering the full benchmark suite.

The Verdict

For almost any 3D rendering, CAD, or GPU compute task, the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 is the stronger choice based on the data. It wins every DirectX test by at least 21.4% (DirectX 12: 28 versus 22) and leads by nearly half in DirectX 9, 10, and 11. Its G3D score of 6956 versus 3699 means roughly double the 3D rasterization performance. If your work involves OpenCL, Vulkan, or any modern graphics API, the P2000's leads of 12.3% and 20.6% respectively are substantial enough to justify the pick.

The AMD WX 4100 makes sense only if your primary concern is 2D desktop performance or if you need the specific feature set of GCN 4.0. Its G2D win is narrow at 3.2%, so this is not a compelling reason alone. The WX 4100 also offers a higher average benchmark score overall (6330 versus 6049), which could indicate better balanced performance in mixed workloads that include 2D elements. However, for professional applications that rely on 3D acceleration, the P2000's 46.8% lead in G3D is decisive. The P2000 also has the advantage in transistor count (4,400 million versus 3,000 million) and die size (200 mm² versus 123 mm²), which correlates with its higher FP32 throughput of 3.031 TFLOPS versus 2.460 TFLOPS.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most lopsided comparison is Passmark DirectX 9, where the P2000 scores 124 against the WX 4100's 56. This 54.8% deficit for AMD suggests that legacy OpenGL or DirectX 9 applications will run dramatically better on the NVIDIA card. The DirectX 10 test shows a similar story: 34 versus 16, a 52.9% gap. These are the two largest deltas in the entire comparison and highlight a fundamental architectural advantage for Pascal in older API paths.

In DirectX 11, the P2000 maintains its dominance with 47 versus 24, a 48.9% lead. DirectX 12 narrows the gap somewhat, with the P2000 at 28 and the WX 4100 at 22, a 21.4% difference. This suggests that as APIs become more modern and lower-level, the AMD card becomes relatively more competitive, though it still loses. The Geekbench Vulkan test reinforces this trend: the P2000 leads by 20.6% (23566 versus 18703), which is the smallest margin among the 3D-focused tests after DirectX 12.

Compute performance follows the 3D pattern closely. Passmark GPU Compute shows the P2000 at 2933 versus 1475, a 49.7% lead. The Geekbench OpenCL result is more favorable to AMD, with a 12.3% gap (20125 versus 17642), indicating that the WX 4100's compute capabilities are relatively stronger in OpenCL than in other APIs. The only benchmark where AMD wins is Passmark G2D, with 646 versus 626, a 3.2% margin. This single win does little to offset the P2000's comprehensive lead in every other category.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 has an average benchmark score of 6330, while the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 scores 6049. Despite this, the P2000 wins 8 of 9 head-to-head tests.

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

A: The largest delta is in Passmark DirectX 9, where the Quadro P2000 leads by 54.8% (124 versus 56). The DirectX 10 test is close behind at 52.9% (34 versus 16).

Q: Is the AMD card better for any specific workload?

A: Yes, the WX 4100 wins the Passmark G2D test with a 3.2% margin (646 versus 626), indicating slightly better 2D graphics performance. It also has a higher overall average benchmark score.

Q: How do the cards compare in compute performance?

A: The P2000 leads Passmark GPU Compute by 49.7% (2933 versus 1475) and Geekbench OpenCL by 12.3% (20125 versus 17642). The FP32 throughput is 3.031 TFLOPS for the P2000 versus 2.460 TFLOPS for the WX 4100.

Q: Which card has better Vulkan performance?

A: The Quadro P2000 wins Geekbench Vulkan with a score of 23566 versus 18703 for the WX 4100, a 20.6% lead.

Q: Do both cards support the same DirectX version?

A: No, the P2000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the WX 4100 supports DirectX 12 (12_0). The P2000 also supports Vulkan 1.4, while the WX 4100 supports Vulkan 1.3.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different foundries and process nodes. AMD uses GlobalFoundries' 14 nm process for the Baffin chip, while NVIDIA uses TSMC's 16 nm process for GP106. The AMD chip packs 3,000 million transistors into a 123 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 24.4M per mm². The NVIDIA chip is larger at 200 mm² with 4,400 million transistors, but its density is slightly lower at 22.0M per mm². This means the WX 4100 achieves higher packing efficiency, but the P2000's larger absolute transistor budget contributes to its performance advantage.

The architectures themselves differ fundamentally. AMD's GCN 4.0 is designed for compute-heavy workloads with a 1:1 FP16 to FP32 ratio, both at 2.460 TFLOPS. NVIDIA's Pascal architecture takes a different approach, with FP16 performance of just 47.36 GFLOPS at a 1:64 ratio, prioritizing FP32 throughput at 3.031 TFLOPS. This makes the WX 4100 more suitable for workloads that leverage FP16, while the P2000 is stronger in pure FP32 tasks. The pixel rate difference is stark: the P2000 achieves 59.20 GPixel/s versus 19.22 GPixel/s for the WX 4100, driven by 40 ROPs versus 16. Texture rate also favors NVIDIA at 94.72 GTexel/s against 76.86 GTexel/s, despite both having 64 TMUs.

Specification Differences

Memory configuration is a major differentiator. The WX 4100 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, providing 96.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The P2000 offers 5 GB of GDDR5 on a 160-bit bus, yielding 140.2 GB/s. This 46% bandwidth advantage helps the P2000 in memory-intensive workloads. The memory clock also differs: the P2000 runs at 1752 MHz (7 Gbps effective) versus 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective) for the WX 4100.

Clock speeds and power draw are notable. The WX 4100 has a higher base clock at 1125 MHz versus 1076 MHz, but the P2000 boosts higher to 1480 MHz versus 1201 MHz. The P2000 consumes more power at 75 W TDP versus 50 W, but both cards are single-slot with no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The P2000 uses a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, while the WX 4100 uses x8. Display outputs are similar with 4x DisplayPort 1.4a, but the WX 4100 uses mini-DisplayPort connectors. Physical dimensions favor the WX 4100 at 168 mm length and 69 mm height, versus 196 mm and 111 mm for the P2000. The WX 4100 has a launch MSRP of 399 USD; the P2000 has no listed launch MSRP.