AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100 vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Mobile Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score in the database?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100 records an average benchmark score of 64,212, while the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Mobile averages 43,667. The AMD card sits at the 89th percentile of all GPUs, compared to the NVIDIA card's 84th percentile.

Q: How do the two cards compare in Geekbench OpenCL performance?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Mobile scores 180,831 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 63.2% higher than the AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100's score of 66,605.

Q: What is the difference in Vulkan performance?

A: In Geekbench Vulkan, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Mobile scores 170,774 versus 54,711 for the AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100, a 68% advantage for the NVIDIA part.

Q: Which GPU has a higher transistor density?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Mobile is built on a 5 nm process with 121.1 million transistors per square millimeter, while the AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100 uses a 14 nm process with 25.3 million transistors per square millimeter.

Q: What are the memory types and capacities of each card?

A: Both cards have 16 GB of memory. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100 uses HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus with 483.8 GB/s bandwidth, while the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Mobile uses GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus with 576.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What is the production status of each GPU?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100 is end-of-life, released in July 2017, while the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Mobile is active, released in January 2023.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent fundamentally different design philosophies and fabrication approaches. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100 uses the Vega 10 chip built on GCN 5.0 architecture, manufactured by GlobalFoundries on a 14 nm process. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Mobile uses the AD103 chip built on Ada Lovelace architecture, manufactured by TSMC on a 5 nm process. This process node difference is stark: the NVIDIA chip packs 45,900 million transistors into a 379 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 121.1 million per square millimeter. The AMD chip contains 12,500 million transistors on a 495 mm² die, yielding 25.3 million per square millimeter.

The NVIDIA architecture includes dedicated hardware features that the AMD part lacks entirely. The GeForce RTX 4090 Mobile has 76 ray tracing cores and 304 tensor cores, while the Radeon Pro WX 9100 has no such units listed. This reflects the generation gap: the AMD card predates the widespread adoption of dedicated ray tracing and AI acceleration hardware, while the NVIDIA card is built around these capabilities.

Shader resources differ substantially. The NVIDIA card has 9,728 shading units, 304 texture mapping units, and 112 ROPs. The AMD card has 4,096 shading units, 256 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. This nearly 2.4x difference in shading units drives a large gap in raw compute throughput.

The memory subsystems also diverge. The AMD card uses HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus, a wide but slower interface, delivering 483.8 GB/s. The NVIDIA card uses GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, which is narrower but faster per pin, delivering 576.0 GB/s. Both have 16 GB capacity, but the bandwidth advantage goes to NVIDIA.

Compute precision handling also differs. The AMD card delivers 12.29 TFLOPS FP32 and 24.58 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1 ratio). The NVIDIA card delivers 32.98 TFLOPS FP32 and 32.98 TFLOPS FP16 (1:1 ratio). The NVIDIA card's FP16 performance matches its FP32, indicating a different approach to half-precision workloads.

API support shows a generational shift. The AMD card supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The NVIDIA card supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA card's DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4 support reflect its newer architecture.

Physical characteristics differ as well. The AMD card is a dual-slot design, 267 mm long and 111 mm tall, with 1x 6-pin and 1x 8-pin power connectors and a 230 W TDP. The NVIDIA card is an IGP (integrated graphics package) with no power connectors and a 120 W TDP, designed for mobile integration.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records two direct head-to-head benchmark comparisons between these GPUs, and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Mobile wins both. The first is Geekbench OpenCL, where the NVIDIA card scores 180,831 against the AMD card's 66,605. This represents a 63.2% advantage for the NVIDIA part. The raw score difference is 114,226 points, which is substantial by any measure.

The second head-to-head test is Geekbench Vulkan, where the NVIDIA card scores 170,774 against the AMD card's 54,711. This is a 68% advantage for NVIDIA, an even larger gap than in OpenCL. The score difference here is 116,063 points.

These results align with the architectural differences. The NVIDIA card's higher shading unit count, newer process node, and dedicated tensor and ray tracing cores contribute to its compute advantage. The AMD card, while competitive within its own generation, cannot match the raw throughput of the newer NVIDIA architecture.

The AMD card's average benchmark score of 64,212 places it in the 89th percentile of all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA CMP 30HX (average score 63,842, 0.6% difference), AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT LP (63,830, 0.6%), AMD Radeon RX 7600M (63,775, 0.7%), and AMD Radeon Pro Vega 56 (63,693, 0.8%). This indicates the WX 9100 performs within a tight cluster of GPUs around its performance level.

The NVIDIA card's average benchmark score of 43,667 places it in the 84th percentile. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Quadro M6000 (average score 43,301, 0.8% difference), NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5050 Mobile (43,268, 0.9%), NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB (43,262, 0.9%), and NVIDIA RTX A6000 (44,075, -0.9%). The RTX A6000 is actually 0.9% ahead of the RTX 4090 Mobile in average score, showing that the mobile part sits just below a top-tier workstation card.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every specification category. The process node differs: 14 nm for AMD versus 5 nm for NVIDIA. The foundry differs: GlobalFoundries for AMD versus TSMC for NVIDIA. Transistor count differs: 12,500 million for AMD versus 45,900 million for NVIDIA. Die size differs: 495 mm² for AMD versus 379 mm² for NVIDIA. Transistor density differs: 25.3M / mm² for AMD versus 121.1M / mm² for NVIDIA.

Clock speeds differ. The AMD card has a 1200 MHz base clock and 1500 MHz boost clock. The NVIDIA card has a 1335 MHz base clock and 1695 MHz boost clock. Memory clocks also differ: the AMD card runs at 945 MHz (1890 Mbps effective), while the NVIDIA card runs at 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective).

Memory type differs: HBM2 for AMD versus GDDR6 for NVIDIA. Bus width differs: 2048 bit for AMD versus 256 bit for NVIDIA. Bandwidth differs: 483.8 GB/s for AMD versus 576.0 GB/s for NVIDIA.

Compute resources differ: 4,096 shading units, 256 TMUs, and 64 ROPs for AMD versus 9,728 shading units, 304 TMUs, and 112 ROPs for NVIDIA. The NVIDIA card has 76 ray tracing cores and 304 tensor cores, while the AMD card has none.

Pixel and texture rates differ: 96.00 GPixel/s and 384.0 GTexel/s for AMD versus 189.8 GPixel/s and 515.3 GTexel/s for NVIDIA. FP32 performance differs: 12.29 TFLOPS for AMD versus 32.98 TFLOPS for NVIDIA. FP16 performance differs: 24.58 TFLOPS (2:1) for AMD versus 32.98 TFLOPS (1:1) for NVIDIA.

TDP differs: 230 W for AMD versus 120 W for NVIDIA. Slot width differs: dual-slot for AMD versus IGP for NVIDIA. Power connectors differ: 1x 6-pin and 1x 8-pin for AMD versus none for NVIDIA. The AMD card has a suggested PSU of 550 W, while the NVIDIA card has no such specification.

Bus interface differs: PCIe 3.0 x16 for AMD versus PCIe 4.0 x16 for NVIDIA. Display outputs differ: 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a for AMD versus portable device dependent for NVIDIA. DirectX support differs: 12 (12_1) for AMD versus 12 Ultimate (12_2) for NVIDIA. Vulkan support differs: 1.3 for AMD versus 1.4 for NVIDIA.

Production status differs: end-of-life for AMD versus active for NVIDIA. Release dates differ: July 2017 for AMD versus January 2023 for NVIDIA. The AMD card has a launch MSRP of 1,599 USD, while the NVIDIA card has no launch MSRP recorded.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Mobile outperforms the AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100 by 63.2% in Geekbench OpenCL and by 68% in Geekbench Vulkan. The NVIDIA card wins both head-to-head tests, giving it a 2-0 record in the database.

However, the average benchmark scores tell a more nuanced story. The AMD card has a higher average benchmark score (64,212) than the NVIDIA card (43,667). This discrepancy arises because the two cards have different benchmark suites recorded. The AMD card has three Geekbench scores, while the NVIDIA card has nine scores, including PassMark tests that pull its average down. Users should consider which workloads matter most: the NVIDIA card dominates compute-heavy tests, while the AMD card's recorded benchmark set is more consistent.

The AMD card sits at the 89th percentile versus the NVIDIA card's 84th percentile. This is notable because the AMD card, despite being older and slower in head-to-head tests, ranks higher among all GPUs in the database. This suggests the AMD card's benchmark suite favors its strengths, while the NVIDIA card's suite includes tests where it performs relatively less well.

For raw compute performance, the NVIDIA card is the clear choice. Its 32.98 TFLOPS FP32 and 32.98 TFLOPS FP16, combined with 32.98 TFLOPS of tensor performance, make it a more capable compute platform. The AMD card's 12.29 TFLOPS FP32 and 24.58 TFLOPS FP16 are respectable but lower.

For workstation use, the AMD card offers 16 GB of HBM2 memory with a 2048-bit bus, which may be advantageous for certain memory-bound workloads. The NVIDIA card offers 16 GB of GDDR6 with higher bandwidth at 576.0 GB/s.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Mobile wins in compute-intensive benchmarks. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 180,831 versus 66,605 for the AMD card, a 63.2% advantage. In Geekbench Vulkan, it scores 170,774 versus 54,711, a 68% advantage. These wins are driven by its 9,728 shading units, 76 ray tracing cores, 304 tensor cores, and 32.98 TFLOPS FP32 performance. The NVIDIA card also has a higher pixel rate (189.8 GPixel/s versus 96.00 GPixel/s) and texture rate (515.3 GTexel/s versus 384.0 GTexel/s).

The NVIDIA card is also the more power-efficient option. Its 120 W TDP is nearly half the AMD card's 230 W TDP, while delivering significantly higher performance. Its IGP form factor with no power connectors makes it suitable for mobile integration, whereas the AMD card requires a dual-slot design with 1x 6-pin and 1x 8-pin power connectors and a 550 W suggested PSU.

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100 wins in the broader comparison of average benchmark scores. Its average of 64,212 exceeds the NVIDIA card's 43,667. It also ranks higher in percentile, at 89 versus 84. The AMD card's nearest rivals are all within 0.8% of its average score, indicating it is closely matched with a cluster of GPUs around its performance level. The NVIDIA card's nearest rivals include the RTX A6000, which is 0.9% ahead, showing the NVIDIA card is slightly below a top-tier workstation part.

For users prioritizing memory bandwidth, the AMD card's 2048-bit HBM2 interface provides 483.8 GB/s, though this is lower than the NVIDIA card's 576.0 GB/s. The AMD card's 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs make it suitable for multi-display workstation setups, while the NVIDIA card's outputs are portable device dependent.

For users needing ray tracing or tensor core acceleration, the NVIDIA card is the only option of the two. For users needing a workstation card with multiple display outputs and a 1,599 USD launch MSRP, the AMD card has the advantage. For mobile applications, the NVIDIA card's IGP form factor and 120 W TDP make it the only feasible choice.