AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M Comparison

AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M: the data presents a lopsided contest, with the professional Polaris card outperforming the mobile Maxwell part in every shared benchmark, often by a staggering margin. The AMD card wins both head-to-head tests, but the story is more nuanced when examining the raw numbers, architectural gaps, and the context of each product's intended market.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two directly comparable tests reveal a dominant performance from the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the AMD card scores 24,217 against the GTX 950M's 9,745, a delta of 148.5%. This is not a minor edge; it is a near-2.5x advantage in raw compute throughput as measured by OpenCL. The gap widens even further in the Geekbench Vulkan test, where the WX 5100 posts 26,909 versus the 950M's 6,525, resulting in a massive 312.4% delta. These results indicate that for any workload leveraging Vulkan's modern API, the AMD card is operating in an entirely different class.

It is worth noting the asymmetry in available benchmark data. The WX 5100 has ten benchmark entries, spanning Geekbench Metal, OpenCL, Vulkan, and a full Passmark suite (DirectX 9 through 12, G2D, G3D, and GPU compute). The GTX 950M only has two entries: Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan. This absence of DirectX and Passmark results for the NVIDIA part means the head-to-head comparison is limited, but the data that exists is unequivocal. The WX 5100's average benchmark score across all tests is 8,863, while the GTX 950M's average is 8,135; the AMD card holds a 9% overall lead in average score, though this figure is skewed by the different test sets. The percentile rankings are close — the WX 5100 sits at the 44th percentile of all GPUs, the 950M at the 42nd — but this metric is based on the full benchmark suite, and the dedicated head-to-head tests show a far more decisive win for AMD.

Architecture Differences

The fundamental divide between these two cards is generational and architectural. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 is built on the GCN 4.0 architecture, manufactured on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The chip, codenamed Ellesmere, packs 5,700 million transistors into a 232 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 24.6M per mm². In contrast, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M uses the Maxwell architecture, fabricated on TSMC's 28 nm process. Its GM107 chip contains just 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die, with a density of 12.6M per mm². The node advantage alone — 14 nm versus 28 nm — explains much of the performance gap, as AMD fits over three times the transistors into a die that is only 57% larger.

The compute resources are similarly lopsided. The WX 5100 features 1,792 shading units, 112 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 32 raster operations pipelines (ROPs). The GTX 950M has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This translates to a pixel rate of 34.75 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 121.6 GTexel/s for the AMD card, versus 17.98 GPixel/s and 44.96 GTexel/s for the NVIDIA part. In floating-point performance, the WX 5100 delivers 3.892 TFLOPS of FP32, while the 950M manages 1,438.7 GFLOPS — a 2.7x difference. Notably, the WX 5100 also offers FP16 performance at a 1:1 ratio (3.892 TFLOPS), while the GTX 950M has no listed FP16 capability, suggesting a significant advantage for compute workloads that can utilize half-precision.

Memory subsystems further separate the two. The WX 5100 comes with 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, providing a bandwidth of 160.0 GB/s. The GTX 950M has 4 GB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus, with just 28.80 GB/s of bandwidth. This is a 5.5x difference in memory bandwidth, which is critical for texture-heavy scenes and large data sets. The AMD card also uses a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, while the NVIDIA part is limited to PCIe 3.0 x8, halving the potential host-to-device transfer rate. Clock speeds tell a different story, however: the GTX 950M has a higher base clock (993 MHz vs 713 MHz) and boost clock (1124 MHz vs 1086 MHz), but its architectural and memory deficits overwhelm this frequency advantage.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in Geekbench Vulkan, and by how much?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 wins decisively, scoring 26,909 against the GTX 950M's 6,525. This represents a 312.4% delta, meaning the AMD card is over four times faster in this specific test.

Q: Does the GTX 950M have any benchmark where it beats the WX 5100?

A: No. In the two head-to-head benchmarks available (Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan), the WX 5100 wins both. The win count is 2 for AMD and 0 for NVIDIA. The data does not include any test where the GTX 950M outperforms the WX 5100.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The WX 5100 has an average benchmark score of 8,863 across all its tests, while the GTX 950M averages 8,135. This is a 9% difference, but it is important to note that the GTX 950M only has two benchmark results, so this average is less representative than the WX 5100's ten-test average.

Q: What is the transistor density difference, and what does it imply?

A: The WX 5100 has a transistor density of 24.6M per mm², compared to the GTX 950M's 12.6M per mm². This nearly 2x density advantage reflects the newer 14 nm process node, allowing AMD to pack significantly more compute hardware into a similar physical footprint.

Q: Does the GTX 950M support Vulkan 1.3?

A: No. The GTX 950M lists Vulkan 1.4 support in its API specifications, which is actually a newer version than the WX 5100's Vulkan 1.3. However, the Vulkan benchmark scores show the WX 5100 vastly outperforming the GTX 950M despite the newer API version on the NVIDIA part.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth advantage for the AMD card?

A: The WX 5100 offers 160.0 GB/s of bandwidth, while the GTX 950M provides only 28.80 GB/s. This is a 5.5x difference, which is substantial for any workload that is memory-bound, such as high-resolution texturing or large compute data sets.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | GCN 4.0 | Maxwell |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 28 nm |

| Foundry | GlobalFoundries | TSMC |

| Transistors | 5,700 million | 1,870 million |

| Die Size | 232 mm² | 148 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 24.6M / mm² | 12.6M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 713 MHz | 993 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1086 MHz | 1124 MHz |

| Memory Size | 8 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | DDR3 |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 160.0 GB/s | 28.80 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1792 | 640 |

| TMUs | 112 | 40 |

| ROPs | 32 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 34.75 GPixel/s | 17.98 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 121.6 GTexel/s | 44.96 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 3.892 TFLOPS | 1,438.7 GFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 3.892 TFLOPS (1:1) | Not specified |

| TDP | 75 W | 75 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | IGP |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |

| Display Outputs | 4x DisplayPort 1.4a | Portable Device Dependent |

| Vulkan API | 1.3 | 1.4 |

| Launch MSRP | 499 USD | Not specified |

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 is the superior GPU in every measurable category that matters for performance. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks, holds a 9% higher average score, and commands overwhelming advantages in memory bandwidth, compute units, and shading hardware. The GTX 950M's higher clock speeds (993 MHz base vs 713 MHz) do not compensate for its smaller architecture and narrower memory interface. The WX 5100 also offers 8 GB of GDDR5 memory versus 4 GB of DDR3, a difference that will be felt in any modern workload.

However, the GTX 950M is a mobile IGP part, designed for laptops, while the WX 5100 is a single-slot professional desktop card. The GTX 950M's portable device-dependent display outputs and IGP form factor suggest it serves a fundamentally different use case. A buyer needing a professional workstation card for compute or CAD workloads should choose the WX 5100 without hesitation. The GTX 950M is only relevant in a legacy laptop context where its lower power footprint (both are 75 W, but the NVIDIA part is integrated) and compact nature are priorities. From a pure performance standpoint, the WX 5100's data makes it the only rational choice.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 wins in compute-heavy scenarios, as evidenced by its 148.5% lead in Geekbench OpenCL and 312.4% lead in Vulkan. Its 8 GB of GDDR5 memory and 160.0 GB/s bandwidth make it suited for large datasets, high-resolution textures, and memory-intensive professional applications. The 3.892 TFLOPS FP32 output, alongside the 1:1 FP16 support, positions it for scientific computing and machine learning inference tasks. The 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs also make it a strong candidate for multi-monitor professional setups.

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M has no benchmark wins in the data, but its strengths are contextual. Its higher base and boost clocks (993 MHz and 1124 MHz) suggest it may handle lightly-threaded, clock-sensitive workloads better, though no benchmark data confirms this. As an IGP with a TDP of 75 W and no power connectors, it wins on integration simplicity — it can be embedded in a laptop without additional power cabling. The Vulkan 1.4 API support is technically newer than the WX 5100's 1.3, which could matter for future software compatibility, though the AMD card's massive Vulkan performance lead undermines any practical advantage. In a mobile, power-constrained environment where the integrated form factor is mandatory, the GTX 950M is the only option; in any scenario where performance is the metric, the WX 5100 wins outright.