AMD Radeon PRO WX 3100 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M

Comparative analysis of AMD Radeon PRO WX 3100 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M 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 2 year(s) 5 month(s) later
• Around 28% higher boost clock speed: 1219 MHz vs 950 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
• 2.4x more memory clock speed: 6000 MHz vs 2500 MHz
• Around 27% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 428 vs 337
• Around 20% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 864.134 vs 720.592
• Around 41% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3607 vs 2566
• Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3359 vs 3337
• Around 41% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3607 vs 2566
• Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3359 vs 3337

Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M

• Around 2% higher core clock speed: 944 MHz vs 925 MHz
• Around 89% higher texture fill rate: 73.6 GTexel / s vs 39.01 GTexel / s
• 2x more pipelines: 1024 vs 512
• Around 89% better floating-point performance: 2,355 gflops vs 1,248 gflops
• Around 30% lower typical power consumption: 50 Watt vs 65 Watt
• Around 48% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 3794 vs 2557
• Around 38% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 14528 vs 10513
• 2.3x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 67.59 vs 29.959
• Around 35% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 3.903 vs 2.893
• Around 18% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 57.947 vs 49.305
• Around 83% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 223.296 vs 122.245
• Around 27% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 5783 vs 4551
• Around 27% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 5783 vs 4551

Compare benchmarks

GPU 1: AMD Radeon PRO WX 3100
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M

PassMark - G3D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	2557 3794
PassMark - G2D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	428 337
Geekbench - OpenCL	GPU 1 GPU 2	10513 14528
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	29.959 67.59
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	864.134 720.592
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	2.893 3.903
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	49.305 57.947
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	122.245 223.296
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	4551 5783
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3607 2566
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3359 3337
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	4551 5783
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3607 2566
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3359 3337

Compare specifications (specs)