AMD Radeon PRO WX 3100 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 Ti

Comparative analysis of AMD Radeon PRO WX 3100 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 Ti 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 3100

• Videocard is newer: launch date 3 year(s) 3 month(s) later
• Around 12% higher boost clock speed: 1219 MHz vs 1085 MHz
• A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 14 nm vs 28 nm
• 2x more maximum memory size: 4 GB vs 2 GB
• 1200x more memory clock speed: 6000 MHz vs 5.4 GB/s
• Around 34% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 864.134 vs 642.715
• Around 86% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 49.305 vs 26.532
• Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3359 vs 3329
• Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3359 vs 3329

Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 Ti

• Around 10% higher core clock speed: 1020 MHz vs 925 MHz
• Around 11% higher texture fill rate: 43.4 GTexel / s vs 39.01 GTexel / s
• Around 25% higher pipelines: 640 vs 512
• Around 11% better floating-point performance: 1,389 gflops vs 1,248 gflops
• Around 8% lower typical power consumption: 60 Watt vs 65 Watt
• Around 51% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 3898 vs 2587
• Around 20% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 517 vs 432
• Around 9% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 11512 vs 10571
• Around 42% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 42.463 vs 29.959
• Around 1% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 2.933 vs 2.893
• Around 9% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 133.458 vs 122.245
• Around 6% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 4843 vs 4551
• Around 2% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3683 vs 3607
• Around 6% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 4843 vs 4551
• Around 2% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3683 vs 3607

Compare benchmarks

GPU 1: AMD Radeon PRO WX 3100
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 Ti

PassMark - G3D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	2587 3898
PassMark - G2D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	432 517
Geekbench - OpenCL	GPU 1 GPU 2	10571 11512
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	29.959 42.463
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	864.134 642.715
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	2.893 2.933
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	49.305 26.532
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	122.245 133.458
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	4551 4843
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3607 3683
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3359 3329
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	4551 4843
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3607 3683
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3359 3329

Compare specifications (specs)