AMD Radeon Pro WX 7100 vs NVIDIA T1000 8 GB Comparison

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 7100 and the NVIDIA T1000 8 GB are both end-of-life single-slot workstation cards with 8 GB of VRAM, but the recorded data shows they sit in clearly different performance and power classes. The WX 7100 holds an 82nd percentile ranking across all GPUs in the database versus 79 for the T1000, and in the single head-to-head benchmark available, the Vulkan Geekbench test, the WX 7100 wins by 14.8 percent (39683 versus 34561). The T1000's case is efficiency and physical compactness: a 50 W TDP with no auxiliary power connector versus the WX 7100's 130 W TDP fed by a 6-pin connector. Picking between them comes down to whether the workload rewards raw compute throughput or a slot-powered, low-profile-friendly card.

The Verdict

The data points to the WX 7100 for anyone whose priority is benchmark throughput. It is faster in the one directly comparable test, it posts a higher average benchmark score (40063 versus 34561), and it carries substantially more raw compute and memory resources: 2304 shading units versus 896, 5.728 TFLOPS FP32 versus 2.500, and 224 GB/s of memory bandwidth versus 160. The T1000 8 GB is the pick where power and space constraints dominate. It draws 50 W, needs no power connector, and its 156 mm length and 69 mm height make it dramatically easier to fit than the WX 7100's 241 mm by 112 mm frame. Both cards are end-of-life, so availability and condition matter more than usual when sourcing either.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in benchmarks?

A: The WX 7100. In the Geekbench Vulkan test the two share, it scores 39683 against the T1000's 34561, a 14.8 percent advantage. Its average benchmark score across the database is 40063 versus 34561 for the T1000.

Q: Do both cards have 8 GB of memory?

A: Yes, both ship with 8 GB, but the types differ. The WX 7100 uses GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus for 224 GB/s of bandwidth; the T1000 uses GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus for 160 GB/s.

Q: Which one needs a power connector?

A: The T1000 does not. It runs entirely on slot power with a 50 W TDP and a suggested 250 W PSU. The WX 7100 requires one 6-pin connector, carries a 130 W TDP, and carries a 300 W suggested PSU rating.

Q: How do they compare in percentile ranking?

A: The WX 7100 sits at the 82nd percentile versus all GPUs in the database; the T1000 8 GB sits at the 79th percentile.

Q: Which card is smaller?

A: The T1000 by a wide margin. It measures 156 mm long and 69 mm tall, versus 241 mm long and 112 mm tall for the WX 7100. Both are single-slot cards.

Q: What FP16 performance do they offer?

A: The WX 7100 delivers 5.728 TFLOPS FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32. The T1000 delivers 5.000 TFLOPS FP16 at a 2:1 ratio, meaning it doubles its FP32 rate for half-precision work. The WX 7100 still holds the edge in absolute FP16 throughput.

Architecture Differences

These cards come from different eras and design philosophies. The WX 7100 is AMD's Ellesmere chip, built on the GCN 4.0 architecture at GlobalFoundries on a 14 nm process, part of the Radeon Pro Polaris (WX x100) generation. It packs 5700 million transistors onto a 232 mm² die, giving a density of 24.6M transistors per mm². The T1000 8 GB uses NVIDIA's TU117 chip, the Turing architecture, part of the Quadro Turing (Tx000) generation, manufactured by TSMC on a 12 nm process. Its die is smaller at 200 mm² with 4700 million transistors and a density of 23.5M per mm².

Notably, neither card has RT cores or tensor cores listed in the database, so despite the T1000 belonging to the Turing generation, the recorded data does not attribute it dedicated ray tracing or AI acceleration hardware. The WX 100's lineage is the Radeon Pro GCN before it and Radeon Pro Vega after; the T1000 follows Quadro Volta and precedes Workstation Ampere. Release timing is far apart: the WX 7100 arrived in November 2016 with a launch MSRP of 799 USD, while the T1000 8 GB arrived in May 2021 with no launch MSRP recorded.

API support slightly favors the T1000 on paper: it lists Vulkan 1.4 against the WX 7100's Vulkan 1.3, and DirectX 12 feature level 12_1 versus 12_0. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Specification Differences

The core counts diverge sharply. The WX 7100 has 2304 shading units, 144 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The T1000 has 896 shading units, 56 TMUs, and the same 32 ROPs. That equal ROP count shows up in the pixel rate: the T1000 actually posts the higher pixel fillrate at 44.64 GPixel/s versus 39.78 GPixel/s, thanks to its higher boost clock. The texture rate tells the opposite story, with the WX 7100 at 179.0 GTexel/s against 78.12 GTexel/s for the T1000, a direct consequence of the much larger TMU count.

Clock behavior differs. The WX 7100 runs a tight 1188 MHz base and 1243 MHz boost range. The T1000 starts lower at 1065 MHz but boosts higher, to 1395 MHz. Memory clocks differ as well: the WX 7100's GDDR5 runs at 1750 MHz (7 Gbps effective) while the T1000's GDDR6 runs at 1250 MHz (10 Gbps effective) despite the narrower bus.

FP32 compute goes heavily to the WX 7100: 5.728 TFLOPS versus 2.500 TFLOPS, a gap of more than two to one. FP16 narrows but does not close it, at 5.728 TFLOPS versus 5.000 TFLOPS. Physical and power characteristics split the other way, as covered above. Display outputs are functionally equivalent, four DisplayPort 1.4a connections on both, with the T1000 using the mini variant. Both use PCIe 3.0 x16.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Only one test appears in both cards' records: Geekbench Vulkan. The WX 7100 scored 39683; the T1000 8 GB scored 34561. The WX 7100 wins by 14.8 percent. That margin is consistent with the compute and bandwidth gaps in the spec sheet, roughly double the shading resources and 40 percent more memory bandwidth.

Context from each card's full record reinforces the picture. The WX 7100 also recorded 40357 in Geekbench Metal and 40148 in Geekbench OpenCL, alongside its Vulkan result, for an average of 40063. Its closest rivals in the database include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 at 40377 (just 0.8 percent ahead) and the AMD Radeon Pro 580 at 40318 (0.6 percent ahead), while it sits 1.3 percent above both the NVIDIA RTX A500 Mobile and the Radeon Pro 575. In other words, the WX 7100 trades blows with a modern GeForce card in these aggregate scores.

The T1000's average of 34561 places it in humbler company. Its nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon HD 7970 at 34541 (essentially tied at 0.1 percent), the NVIDIA A2 at 34690 (0.4 percent ahead), the NVIDIA TITAN V at 34355 (0.6 percent behind), and the NVIDIA RTX A1000 at 34207 (1 percent behind). Clustered among low-power entry workstation parts and a much older flagship, the T1000's scores describe a card designed for efficiency, not throughput.

The head-to-head tally is one win for the WX 7100 and zero for the T1000, though the sample is small: one shared test.

Where Each One Wins

The WX 7100 wins wherever GPU compute and memory throughput drive results. Its 14.8 percent Vulkan benchmark lead, 5.728 TFLOPS of FP32, 179.0 GTexel/s texture rate, and 224 GB/s bandwidth make it the stronger card for rendering, simulation, and any workload where shading units and bandwidth are the bottleneck. Its FP16 rate matches its FP32 rate exactly, and its 1:1 ratio means half-precision code runs at full speed rather than at a doubled-rate compromise. Workstations with a 6-pin connector available, room for a 241 mm card, and a 300 W-class PSU can use it straightforwardly.

The T1000 8 GB wins on deployability. At 50 W with no power connector, it drops into systems that cannot feed the WX 7100's 130 W draw, and its 156 mm by 69 mm dimensions fit enclosures where the WX 7100 physically cannot. Its higher pixel fillrate (44.64 versus 39.78 GPixel/s) suggests it holds its own for display-heavy, light-compute scenarios like multi-monitor output, since both cards drive four DisplayPort 1.4a displays. The T1000 also brings the newer API support (Vulkan 1.4, DirectX 12_1) and GDDR6 memory, which may matter for driver and software compatibility in newer environments. For slot-power-only workstations and compact professional builds, the T1000's modest benchmark standing is the price paid for its remarkably low power and size.