AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100 vs NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation Comparison

FAQ

Q: How does the NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation compare to the AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100 in average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA card records an average benchmark score of 117,088, while the AMD card averages 64,212. That is a lead of roughly 82% for the NVIDIA part, and the head-to-head Geekbench results reinforce the gap.

Q: Which card wins in Geekbench OpenCL, and by how much?

A: The NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation wins Geekbench OpenCL with a score of 124,812 versus 66,605 for the AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100. The recorded delta is 87.4% in favor of NVIDIA.

Q: What about Geekbench Vulkan performance?

A: NVIDIA also takes Vulkan, scoring 109,364 against AMD’s 54,711. The delta here is even larger at 99.9%, meaning the NVIDIA card nearly doubles the AMD card’s Vulkan result.

Q: Does the AMD card have any benchmark win at all?

A: In the recorded head-to-head data, the AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100 has zero wins. NVIDIA leads in both shared tests (OpenCL and Vulkan). The AMD card does have an additional Geekbench Metal score of 71,319, but there is no corresponding Metal result for the NVIDIA card in the database.

Q: How do the two cards rank against all GPUs?

A: The NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation sits at the 95th percentile, while the AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100 sits at the 89th percentile. The NVIDIA card’s nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GB10 (delta -0.3%) and AMD Radeon PRO W7700 (delta -1.6%), showing it is tightly clustered with modern workstation parts.

Q: What are the key architectural differences between the two?

A: The NVIDIA card uses the Ada Lovelace architecture on a 5 nm TSMC process with 35,800 million transistors, while the AMD card uses GCN 5.0 on a 14 nm GlobalFoundries process with 12,500 million transistors. The NVIDIA chip (AD104) is smaller in die size at 294 mm² versus AMD’s 495 mm², but it packs far more transistors per mm².

The Verdict

The data points to a clear choice for most modern workstation workloads: the NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation. It wins both shared benchmark tests decisively, holds a much higher average score, and operates at a fraction of the power draw. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100, by contrast, is an older, end-of-life design with lower raw scores and a much higher power requirement.

For users prioritizing compute performance in OpenCL or Vulkan, the NVIDIA card is the obvious pick. Its 87.4% and 99.9% deltas in those two tests are not marginal improvements; they represent near-doubling or better in some cases. The AMD card does offer a Metal benchmark score, which may matter for macOS-oriented workflows, but the database shows no comparable NVIDIA Metal result, so that remains a niche consideration rather than a general recommendation.

For those constrained by physical space, the NVIDIA card is also the better fit. It measures 168 mm in length and 69 mm in height, while the AMD card extends to 267 mm in length and 111 mm in height. The NVIDIA card draws 70 W and requires no power connectors, whereas the AMD card draws 230 W and needs both a 6-pin and an 8-pin connector. The suggested power supply for NVIDIA is 250 W, compared to 550 W for AMD.

The verdict is straightforward: if the workload is covered by OpenCL or Vulkan, the NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation is the superior choice. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100 only makes sense for legacy environments or specific Metal-based applications where its 71,319 score is relevant and no NVIDIA equivalent is available.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two shared tests paint a consistent picture. In Geekbench OpenCL, the NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation scores 124,812 versus 66,605 for the AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100. That is a delta of 87.4%, meaning NVIDIA delivers nearly 1.9 times the AMD card’s score. The gap is not subtle; it is a full generational leap in compute throughput.

Geekbench Vulkan shows an even wider margin. NVIDIA scores 109,364, while AMD manages 54,711. The delta is 99.9%, effectively doubling the AMD result. This suggests the NVIDIA card’s architecture handles Vulkan’s compute and graphics workloads with far greater efficiency, likely due to its newer design and feature set.

The average benchmark scores corroborate the head-to-head results. NVIDIA’s 117,088 average is well above AMD’s 64,212, and the percentile rankings reflect that: 95th versus 89th. Notably, the AMD card’s nearest rivals are all within a 0.8% range (NVIDIA CMP 30HX, AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT LP, AMD Radeon RX 7600M, AMD Radeon Pro Vega 56), which means it sits in a cluster of mid-range parts. NVIDIA, on the other hand, is bracketed by the NVIDIA GB10 and AMD Radeon PRO W7700, both of which are within 1.6% of its score, indicating it competes with much newer and higher-performing hardware.

There is no recorded test where the AMD card wins. The database shows two wins for NVIDIA and zero for AMD. The only AMD-specific data point is the Metal score of 71,319, which is not part of the head-to-head comparison because NVIDIA has no Metal result in the pack. Even that Metal number is lower than NVIDIA’s OpenCL and Vulkan scores, suggesting that AMD’s best available metric still trails NVIDIA’s worst shared test.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every major specification. The NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation has 20 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 160-bit bus, delivering 280.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100 has 16 GB of HBM2 memory on a 2048-bit bus, delivering 483.8 GB/s. AMD’s memory bandwidth is higher, but the NVIDIA card’s compute results do not reflect a disadvantage in the recorded benchmarks.

Clock speeds differ substantially. NVIDIA runs at a 720 MHz base and 1560 MHz boost, while AMD runs at 1200 MHz base and 1500 MHz boost. The AMD card has a higher base clock, but NVIDIA’s boost clock is higher. Memory clocks also diverge: NVIDIA’s memory runs at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective), while AMD’s runs at 945 MHz (1890 Mbps effective).

The compute units favor NVIDIA. The NVIDIA card has 6144 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The AMD card has 4096 shading units, 256 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. NVIDIA has more shading units, while AMD has more TMUs. Pixel rates are close (99.84 GPixel/s for NVIDIA versus 96.00 GPixel/s for AMD), but texture rates favor AMD (384.0 GTexel/s versus 299.5 GTexel/s). FP32 throughput favors NVIDIA at 19.17 TFLOPS versus 12.29 TFLOPS. FP16 is a mixed story: NVIDIA offers 19.17 TFLOPS (1:1), while AMD offers 24.58 TFLOPS (2:1).

Power and physical specs are starkly different. NVIDIA’s TDP is 70 W with no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 250 W. AMD’s TDP is 230 W with a 6-pin and 8-pin connector and a suggested PSU of 550 W. Both are dual-slot, but NVIDIA is much smaller: 168 mm by 69 mm versus 267 mm by 111 mm. The bus interface also differs: NVIDIA uses PCIe 4.0 x16, while AMD uses PCIe 3.0 x16.

Display outputs are similar in type but differ in count: NVIDIA has 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a, while AMD has 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a. API support favors NVIDIA: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) versus DirectX 12 (12_1), and Vulkan 1.4 versus 1.3. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The NVIDIA card also includes 48 RT cores and 192 tensor cores, while the AMD card has none.

Architecture Differences

The NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation is built on the Ada Lovelace architecture, using the AD104 chip. It is fabricated on a 5 nm TSMC process, which is a significant leap over the AMD card’s 14 nm GlobalFoundries process. The transistor counts reflect this: NVIDIA packs 35,800 million transistors into a 294 mm² die, yielding a density of 121.8M transistors per mm². AMD’s Vega 10 chip has 12,500 million transistors on a 495 mm² die, yielding just 25.3M per mm².

The NVIDIA card includes dedicated hardware for ray tracing (48 RT cores) and AI acceleration (192 tensor cores). The AMD card has no RT cores and no tensor cores, meaning it lacks the specialized units that modern workloads increasingly rely on. This is a fundamental architectural difference: NVIDIA’s design is built for hybrid compute and graphics workloads, while AMD’s GCN 5.0 is a more traditional, compute-oriented design without those accelerators.

The memory architecture also differs fundamentally. NVIDIA uses GDDR6 with a 160-bit bus, while AMD uses HBM2 with a 2048-bit bus. AMD’s memory bandwidth is nearly double (483.8 GB/s versus 280.0 GB/s), but the NVIDIA card compensates with a higher FP32 throughput and larger memory pool (20 GB versus 16 GB). The process node advantage (5 nm versus 14 nm) likely explains NVIDIA’s ability to achieve higher performance at a fraction of the power draw.

The AMD card’s generation is listed as “Radeon Pro Polaris (WX x100)” and it uses the Vega 10 chip, which is part of the GCN 5.0 architecture. Its predecessor is “Radeon Pro GCN” and its successor is “Radeon Pro Vega.” The NVIDIA card is part of the “Workstation Ada” generation, with a predecessor of “Workstation Ampere” and a successor of “Blackwell PRO W.” Production status also differs: NVIDIA is active, while AMD is end-of-life.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation wins in every shared benchmark category. It dominates OpenCL with an 87.4% lead and Vulkan with a 99.9% lead. Its average benchmark score of 117,088 places it in the 95th percentile, which is higher than AMD’s 89th percentile. The NVIDIA card also wins on power efficiency (70 W versus 230 W), physical size (168 mm versus 267 mm), and modern feature support (RT cores, tensor cores, PCIe 4.0, DirectX 12 Ultimate, Vulkan 1.4).

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100 has no recorded benchmark wins. Its only unique advantage is the Geekbench Metal score of 71,319, which may be relevant in Apple-centric environments. It also offers more display outputs (6 versus 4), higher memory bandwidth (483.8 GB/s versus 280.0 GB/s), and a higher FP16 throughput (24.58 TFLOPS versus 19.17 TFLOPS). Its texture rate is higher (384.0 GTexel/s versus 299.5 GTexel/s), which could benefit certain texturing-heavy workloads.

In practical terms, the NVIDIA card is the right choice for modern compute, ray tracing, and AI-accelerated tasks. The AMD card is only preferable where Metal compatibility is required or where its higher memory bandwidth and texture rate are the deciding factors. For everything else, the benchmark data shows NVIDIA is ahead by a wide margin.