AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The direct comparison between the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 is lopsided in raw win count — NVIDIA takes 8 of the 10 head-to-head benchmarks, but the two AMD victories are the most striking outliers in the entire dataset. The WX 5100 wins Geekbench Metal by a staggering 91.3% (29003 vs 15163) and Geekbench Vulkan by 19.4% (26909 vs 22543). That Metal result is not a marginal edge; it is nearly double the NVIDIA score, suggesting the AMD architecture has a fundamental advantage in Apple's compute API that transcends raw shader output.

Yet everywhere else, the GTX 980 asserts dominance with crushing margins. In Passmark G3D, the NVIDIA card scores 11095 against 5496 — a 50.5% deficit for the AMD card. The compute gap is even wider: Passmark GPU Compute shows 4753 vs 2053, a 56.8% difference. NVIDIA also wins every DirectX test decisively: DirectX 9 (164 vs 88, -46.3%), DirectX 10 (53 vs 29, -45.3%), DirectX 11 (83 vs 36, -56.6%), and DirectX 12 (46 vs 26, -43.5%). Even the 2D test, Passmark G2D, goes NVIDIA's way, albeit narrowly at 792 vs 777 (-1.9%).

The pattern is clear: the GTX 980 is a brute-force performer in traditional rasterization and compute workloads, while the WX 5100's wins are concentrated in modern, low-level API contexts. Geekbench OpenCL is the sole exception to this narrative — NVIDIA wins 34676 vs 24217 (-30.2%), showing that even in cross-vendor compute, the Maxwell architecture holds a significant edge. The data suggests the WX 5100's Metal and Vulkan strengths are real but narrow; they do not compensate for the 50%+ deficits in DirectX and G3D workloads.

Architecture Differences

The two cards represent fundamentally different design philosophies from different eras. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 uses the Ellesmere chip built on GCN 4.0 architecture, fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It packs 5,700 million transistors into a 232 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 24.6M per mm². The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 uses the GM204 chip on Maxwell 2.0 architecture, built on TSMC's 28 nm process, with 5,200 million transistors spread across a much larger 398 mm² die — a density of just 13.1M per mm².

The process node difference is stark: 14 nm vs 28 nm. This explains why the AMD card achieves higher density on a smaller die, yet the NVIDIA card still delivers superior raw performance in most tests. Clock speeds tell part of the story — the GTX 980 runs at 1127 MHz base and 1216 MHz boost, while the WX 5100 is clocked at 713 MHz base and 1086 MHz boost. The NVIDIA card's higher base clock, combined with more shading units (2048 vs 1792), more TMUs (128 vs 112), and double the ROPs (64 vs 32), gives it a structural advantage in pixel throughput.

Memory configurations differ significantly. The WX 5100 offers 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus at 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective), yielding 160.0 GB/s bandwidth. The GTX 980 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on the same 256-bit bus but at 1753 MHz (7 Gbps effective), delivering 224.4 GB/s — 40% more bandwidth despite half the capacity. The AMD card compensates with FP16 support at 3.892 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio), while the GTX 980 lists no FP16 capability. FP32 output favors NVIDIA: 4.981 TFLOPS vs 3.892 TFLOPS.

Power and physical design diverge sharply. The WX 5100 sips 75 W TDP with no power connectors and a single-slot cooler, measuring 173 mm long. The GTX 980 demands 165 W, requires two 6-pin connectors, occupies a dual-slot width, and stretches to 267 mm. Display outputs also differ: AMD provides 4x DisplayPort 1.4a, while NVIDIA offers 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 3x DisplayPort 1.2. Both support DirectX 12, but NVIDIA's implementation is 12_1 vs AMD's 12_0; both list OpenGL 4.6, while Vulkan support shows NVIDIA at 1.4 vs AMD at 1.3.

The Verdict

The benchmark data paints an unambiguous picture for most workloads: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 is the superior performer in the majority of tests, and often by wide margins. In Passmark G3D, GPU Compute, and every DirectX variant, the GTX 980 leads by 43% to 57%. Its 4.981 TFLOPS FP32 throughput, 77.82 GPixel/s pixel rate, and 155.6 GTexel/s texture rate all dwarf the WX 5100's 3.892 TFLOPS, 34.75 GPixel/s, and 121.6 GTexel/s. For anyone prioritizing raw DirectX gaming performance or general compute, the data unreservedly favors NVIDIA.

However, the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 wins the two benchmarks that matter most for certain professional ecosystems. The 91.3% Metal advantage is not a marginal win — it is a total knockout that suggests the WX 5100 is dramatically better suited for macOS-centric workflows or any Metal-accelerated application. Its 19.4% Vulkan win also indicates modern API efficiency. The 8 GB memory capacity, double the GTX 980's 4 GB, further positions it for larger datasets, even if bandwidth is lower.

The verdict hinges on context. For DirectX 12_1 gaming, compute-heavy tasks, or legacy API workloads, the GTX 980 is the clear pick — its 43rd percentile ranking vs the WX 5100's 44th percentile is nearly identical overall, but the per-test deltas are huge. For Metal-based professional rendering, Vulkan development, or power-constrained environments (75 W vs 165 W TDP, single-slot vs dual-slot), the WX 5100's architecture is purpose-built. The GTX 980's nearest rivals include the GTX 950M and Radeon R9 M360 (within 0.5%), while the WX 5100 sits near the RTX 3050 A Mobile and GTX 460 v2 — but these aggregate comparisons obscure the dramatic workload-specific divergences.

FAQ

Q: Which card wins more head-to-head benchmarks?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 wins 8 of 10 head-to-head tests, while the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 wins 2.

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

A: The AMD card's 91.3% lead in Geekbench Metal (29003 vs 15163) is the largest delta. The NVIDIA card's biggest win is 56.8% in Passmark GPU Compute (4753 vs 2053).

Q: How do their memory capacities and bandwidths compare?

A: The WX 5100 has 8 GB GDDR5 with 160.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the GTX 980 has 4 GB GDDR5 with 224.4 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What API support differs between them?

A: The GTX 980 supports DirectX 12_1 and Vulkan 1.4, while the WX 5100 supports DirectX 12_0 and Vulkan 1.3. Both list OpenGL 4.6.

Q: Which card has higher FP32 throughput?

A: The GTX 980 delivers 4.981 TFLOPS FP32, compared to the WX 5100's 3.892 TFLOPS. The WX 5100 also lists FP16 at 3.892 TFLOPS (1:1), which the GTX 980 does not specify.

Q: What are the power consumption differences?

A: The WX 5100 has a 75 W TDP with no power connectors and a suggested 250 W PSU, while the GTX 980 has a 165 W TDP, requires 2x 6-pin connectors, and suggests a 450 W PSU.

Where Each One Wins

AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 wins in: Metal-accelerated environments (91.3% ahead), Vulkan workloads (19.4% ahead), and scenarios requiring large memory buffers (8 GB vs 4 GB). Its 75 W TDP and single-slot design make it suitable for compact or power-limited systems where the GTX 980's 165 W dual-slot footprint would be prohibitive. The 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs also position it for multi-display professional setups.

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 wins in: Every DirectX test (9 through 12, with margins from 43.5% to 56.6%), OpenCL compute (30.2% ahead), Passmark G3D (50.5% ahead), GPU compute (56.8% ahead), and even 2D performance (1.9% ahead). Its 224.4 GB/s bandwidth, 4.981 TFLOPS FP32, 77.82 GPixel/s pixel rate, and 155.6 GTexel/s texture rate provide the raw throughput that dominates traditional rasterization. The higher base clock (1127 MHz vs 713 MHz) and boost clock (1216 MHz vs 1086 MHz) further reinforce its lead in sustained workloads.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 |

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

| Architecture | GCN 4.0 | Maxwell 2.0 |

| Process Node | 14 nm (GlobalFoundries) | 28 nm (TSMC) |

| Transistors | 5,700 million | 5,200 million |

| Die Size | 232 mm² | 398 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 24.6M / mm² | 13.1M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 713 MHz | 1127 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1086 MHz | 1216 MHz |

| Memory Size | 8 GB GDDR5 | 4 GB GDDR5 |

| Memory Clock | 1250 MHz (5 Gbps) | 1753 MHz (7 Gbps) |

| Memory Bandwidth | 160.0 GB/s | 224.4 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1792 | 2048 |

| TMUs | 112 | 128 |

| ROPs | 32 | 64 |

| Pixel Rate | 34.75 GPixel/s | 77.82 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 121.6 GTexel/s | 155.6 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 3.892 TFLOPS | 4.981 TFLOPS |

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

| TDP | 75 W | 165 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | 2x 6-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | 450 W |

| Display Outputs | 4x DisplayPort 1.4a | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.2 |

| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 (12_1) |

| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.4 |

| Length | 173 mm (6.8 in) | 267 mm (10.5 in) |

| Height | 112 mm (4.4 in) | 111 mm (4.4 in) |

| Width | Not specified | 40 mm (1.6 in) |

| Launch MSRP | 499 USD | 549 USD |