AMD Radeon PRO WX 2100 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M

Comparative analysis of AMD Radeon PRO WX 2100 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory, Technologies. Benchmark videocards performance analysis: PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark, Geekbench - OpenCL, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps), 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score.

 

Differences

Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon PRO WX 2100

• Videocard is newer: launch date 2 year(s) 2 month(s) later
• Around 1% higher core clock speed: 925 MHz vs 914 MHz
• Around 8% higher boost clock speed: 1219 MHz vs 1124 MHz
• A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 14 nm vs 28 nm
• Around 15% lower typical power consumption: 65 Watt vs 75 Watt
• 2.8x more memory clock speed: 7000 MHz vs 1000 or 2500 MHz
• Around 86% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 402 vs 216
• Around 7% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 10216 vs 9543
• Around 17% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 438.581 vs 373.644
• Around 19% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 46.988 vs 39.412

Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M

• Around 15% higher texture fill rate: 44.96 GTexel / s vs 39.01 GTexel / s
• Around 25% higher pipelines: 640 vs 512
• Around 15% better floating-point performance: 1,439 gflops vs 1,248 gflops
• 2x more maximum memory size: 4 GB vs 2 GB
• Around 41% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 2586 vs 1832
• Around 37% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 42.396 vs 30.848
• Around 12% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 2.54 vs 2.268
• Around 28% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 4148 vs 3241
• Around 28% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 4148 vs 3241

Compare benchmarks

GPU 1: AMD Radeon PRO WX 2100
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M

PassMark - G3D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	1832 2586
PassMark - G2D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	402 216
Geekbench - OpenCL	GPU 1 GPU 2	10216 9543
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	30.848 42.396
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	438.581 373.644
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	2.268 2.54
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	46.988 39.412
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	139.235 139.158
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3241 4148
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3709 3715
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3350 3358
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3241 4148
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3709 3715
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3350 3358

Compare specifications (specs)