AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 Comparison

The GeForce GTX 960 and the Radeon Pro WX 5100 represent two very different approaches to graphics hardware, separated by a generation of process technology and design philosophy. The data reveals a stark contrast: the GTX 960, an older gaming-oriented card, is consistently outpaced by the AMD workstation part in every comparable benchmark, yet the GTX 960 holds a slight edge in aggregate percentile ranking. This paradox—where the older card ranks higher overall but loses every head-to-head test—drives the analysis of where each card's true strengths lie.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are decisively one-sided, with the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 winning all three recorded comparisons. The largest margin appears in the Geekbench Metal test, where the WX 5100 scores 29,003 against the GTX 960's 8,773. This represents a 69.8% deficit for the NVIDIA card, making it the single most significant gap in the dataset. Such a wide delta suggests the AMD card's architecture is substantially more efficient in this Apple-centric compute API, likely benefiting from its newer GCN 4.0 design and higher raw shader count.

The Geekbench Vulkan test shows a similar, though slightly less extreme, pattern. The WX 5100 achieves 26,909 points, while the GTX 960 manages only 9,231, a 65.7% difference. This consistency across both Metal and Vulkan indicates that the AMD card's advantage is not tied to a single vendor-specific API but rather reflects a broader compute throughput superiority. The GTX 960's Maxwell 2.0 architecture, while competent for its era, appears to lack the parallel processing muscle needed to keep pace in these modern, low-level API workloads.

The closest contest occurs in Geekbench OpenCL, where the WX 5100 scores 24,217 versus the GTX 960's 18,925. The 21.9% delta here is the smallest of the three, yet it still represents a clear and unambiguous win for the AMD card. Interestingly, this narrower margin in OpenCL—an API that both cards support natively—suggests that while the GTX 960 is relatively more competitive in this legacy environment, it still cannot bridge the fundamental architectural gap. The data shows zero wins for the GTX 960 across all head-to-head tests, confirming the AMD card's dominance in every measured compute scenario.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the benchmark data, the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 is the superior compute performer. It wins 100% of the head-to-head comparisons, with margins ranging from 21.9% to 69.8%. For any workload that relies on Metal, Vulkan, or OpenCL compute acceleration, the data unequivocally favors the AMD card. The GTX 960's only statistical consolation is its average benchmark score of 9,273 against the WX 5100's 8,863, a 4.4% advantage in the aggregate metric. However, this aggregate figure is skewed by the GTX 960 having four benchmark entries, all of which are compute-focused, while the WX 5100's average is dragged down by several low-scoring Passmark legacy tests (DirectX 9, 10, 11, and 12 scores ranging from 26 to 88).

The percentile rankings tell a more nuanced story: the GTX 960 sits at the 45th percentile of all GPUs, while the WX 5100 sits at the 44th. This one-percentile difference is negligible in practical terms, but it does highlight that neither card is a top-tier performer. The nearest rival data reinforces this—the GTX 960's closest competitor is the GTX 465 (0.2% lower average score), while the WX 5100's closest is the R9 M265X (0.1% higher). In essence, the GTX 960 is a slightly above-average card in legacy compute, while the WX 5100 is a specialized workstation tool that excels in modern APIs but struggles in older DirectX tests. Pick the GTX 960 only if your workload is exclusively legacy DirectX compute; pick the WX 5100 for everything else.

Architecture Differences

The two cards are built on fundamentally different architectures from different process generations. The GTX 960 uses the GM206 chip, based on Maxwell 2.0, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. This older node packs 2,940 million transistors into a 228 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.9 million per square millimeter. The WX 5100, by contrast, uses the Ellesmere chip with GCN 4.0 architecture, built on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. This newer node allows AMD to pack 5,700 million transistors into a slightly larger 232 mm² die, achieving a dramatically higher density of 24.6 million per square millimeter—nearly double that of the NVIDIA chip.

This architectural gulf manifests directly in shader resources. The WX 5100 features 1,792 shading units, 112 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The GTX 960 has 1,024 shading units and 64 TMUs, but also 32 ROPs. The AMD card thus has 75% more shading units and 75% more TMUs, while matching the ROP count. The compute throughput reflects this: the WX 5100 delivers 3.892 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the GTX 960 manages 2.413 TFLOPS. The AMD card also offers FP16 at a 1:1 ratio (3.892 TFLOPS), whereas the GTX 960 has no listed FP16 capability at all, marking a significant feature divergence for half-precision workloads.

The memory subsystems differ as well, though both use GDDR5. The GTX 960 has 2 GB on a 128-bit bus, yielding 112.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The WX 5100 has 8 GB on a 256-bit bus, delivering 160.0 GB/s. The AMD card's larger frame buffer and wider bus are typical of workstation requirements, where large datasets and high-resolution textures are common. Power characteristics also diverge sharply: the GTX 960 has a 120 W TDP and requires a 6-pin power connector, while the WX 5100 has a 75 W TDP and requires no external power connector at all, evidence of the efficiency gains of the 14 nm process.

Specification Differences

Focusing on the fields where the two cards differ, the most striking contrast is in memory capacity and bandwidth. The GTX 960 offers 2 GB, while the WX 5100 offers 8 GB—a fourfold difference. The bus width also differs, with the GTX 960 at 128-bit and the WX 5100 at 256-bit, leading to the bandwidth gap between 112.2 GB/s and 160.0 GB/s. Clock speeds tell a different story: the GTX 960 runs at 1127 MHz base and 1178 MHz boost, while the WX 5100 has a lower 713 MHz base but a higher 1086 MHz boost. The effective memory clocks are 7 Gbps for NVIDIA and 5 Gbps for AMD, though the AMD card's wider bus compensates for the lower clock rate.

Physical dimensions and power delivery also separate the pair. The GTX 960 is 241 mm long (9.5 inches) and dual-slot, while the WX 5100 is 173 mm long (6.8 inches) and single-slot, with a height of 112 mm (4.4 inches). The power connectors differ—the GTX 960 needs a 6-pin, while the WX 5100 has none—and the suggested PSU ratings are 300 W for NVIDIA and 250 W for AMD. Display outputs vary as well: the GTX 960 provides one DVI, one HDMI 2.0, and three DisplayPort 1.2 connectors, while the WX 5100 offers four DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, reflecting its professional multi-monitor orientation. API support shows minor differences, with both supporting DirectX 12, but the GTX 960 at feature level 12_1 versus the WX 5100 at 12_0; both support OpenGL 4.6, but the GTX 960 supports Vulkan 1.4 versus the WX 5100's Vulkan 1.3.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher raw compute performance?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100, with 3.892 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, compared to the GTX 960's 2.413 TFLOPS, a 61% advantage.

Q: What is the largest benchmark margin between the two?

A: The largest is in Geekbench Metal, where the WX 5100 scores 29,003 versus the GTX 960's 8,773, a 69.8% difference.

Q: Does the GTX 960 win any head-to-head benchmark?

A: No. The data shows the WX 5100 wins all three head-to-head tests, with zero wins for the GTX 960.

Q: How do their frame buffer sizes compare?

A: The WX 5100 has 8 GB of GDDR5, while the GTX 960 has 2 GB, a fourfold difference in capacity.

Q: Which card requires less power from the system?

A: The WX 5100, with a 75 W TDP and no external power connector, versus the GTX 960's 120 W TDP and 6-pin connector.

Q: Are they in the same performance percentile?

A: Nearly so. The GTX 960 is at the 45th percentile of all GPUs, while the WX 5100 is at the 44th, a one-percentile difference.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 is the clear winner in every modern compute scenario. Its 8 GB memory capacity and 160.0 GB/s bandwidth make it suitable for large datasets and high-resolution textures common in professional applications. The 1:1 FP16 performance (3.892 TFLOPS) is a feature the GTX 960 lacks entirely, giving the AMD card an edge in AI inference and half-precision compute tasks. Its single-slot design and 75 W TDP with no power connector make it ideal for dense workstation builds or systems with limited power delivery. The four DisplayPort 1.4a outputs support modern high-resolution multi-monitor setups, and Vulkan 1.3 support ensures compatibility with current cross-platform compute frameworks.

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960's advantages are more subtle and rooted in legacy compatibility. Its DirectX 12 (12_1) feature level is higher than the WX 5100's 12_0, which could matter for specific titles that use those features. The Vulkan 1.4 support is also newer than the AMD card's 1.3, potentially offering better performance in newly optimized Vulkan applications. Its higher base clock of 1127 MHz versus 713 MHz might provide an edge in lightly threaded or latency-sensitive workloads that don't scale with shader count. The GTX 960's slightly higher average benchmark score (9,273 vs 8,863) and 45th percentile ranking, while not reflecting head-to-head wins, suggest it may be more consistent across a broader range of legacy tests, particularly the low-scoring Passmark DirectX 9 and 10 scenarios where the WX 5100's scores are notably weak (88 and 29, respectively). For users running exclusively older DirectX 9/10/11 applications, the GTX 960's architecture may be better optimized, though the data is limited to aggregate scores rather than direct comparisons in those specific tests.