AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 vs NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GX2
Comparative analysis of AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 and NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GX2 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).
Differences
Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100
- Videocard is newer: launch date 8 year(s) 8 month(s) later
- Around 58% higher texture fill rate: 121.6 GTexel / s vs 76.8 billion / sec
- 7x more pipelines: 1792 vs 2x 128
- 5.1x better floating-point performance: 3,892 gflops vs 2x 384.0 gflops
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 14 nm vs 65 nm
- 2.6x lower typical power consumption: 75 Watt vs 197 Watt
- 8x more maximum memory size: 8 GB vs 2x 512 MB
- 5x more memory clock speed: 5000 MHz vs 1000 MHz
- 7x better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 5558 vs 798
- Around 49% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 773 vs 518
Specifications (specs) | |
Launch date | 18 November 2016 vs 18 March 2008 |
Texture fill rate | 121.6 GTexel / s vs 76.8 billion / sec |
Pipelines | 1792 vs 2x 128 |
Floating-point performance | 3,892 gflops vs 2x 384.0 gflops |
Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm vs 65 nm |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 75 Watt vs 197 Watt |
Maximum memory size | 8 GB vs 2x 512 MB |
Memory clock speed | 5000 MHz vs 1000 MHz |
Benchmarks | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 5558 vs 798 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 773 vs 518 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GX2
- 2.1x more core clock speed: 1500 MHz vs 713 MHz
- 2.1x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3238 vs 1565
- 2.1x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3238 vs 1565
Specifications (specs) | |
Core clock speed | 1500 MHz vs 713 MHz |
Benchmarks | |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3238 vs 1565 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3238 vs 1565 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GX2
PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
Name | AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 | NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GX2 |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 5558 | 798 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 773 | 518 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 25596 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 87.861 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1362.14 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 6.025 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 106.141 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 250.267 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 5579 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1691 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 1565 | 3238 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 5579 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1691 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 1565 | 3238 |
Compare specifications (specs)
AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 | NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GX2 | |
---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
Architecture | GCN 4.0 | Tesla |
Code name | Ellesmere | G92 |
Launch date | 18 November 2016 | 18 March 2008 |
Launch price (MSRP) | $499 | $599 |
Place in performance rating | 486 | 488 |
Price now | $349.99 | |
Type | Workstation | Desktop |
Value for money (0-100) | 19.34 | |
Technical info |
||
Boost clock speed | 1086 MHz | |
Core clock speed | 713 MHz | 1500 MHz |
Floating-point performance | 3,892 gflops | 2x 384.0 gflops |
Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 65 nm |
Pipelines | 1792 | 2x 128 |
Texture fill rate | 121.6 GTexel / s | 76.8 billion / sec |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 75 Watt | 197 Watt |
Transistor count | 5,700 million | 754 million |
CUDA cores | 256 (128 per GPU) | |
Maximum GPU temperature | 105 °C | |
Video outputs and ports |
||
Display Connectors | 4x DisplayPort | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, HDMIDual Link DVI |
Audio input for HDMI | S / PDIF | |
HDMI | ||
Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | |
Multi monitor support | ||
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
Supplementary power connectors | None | 6-pin & 8-pin |
Length | 10.5" (26.7 cm) | |
SLI options | Quad | |
API support |
||
DirectX | 12.0 (12_0) | 10.0 |
OpenGL | 4.5 | 2.1 |
Memory |
||
Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 2x 512 MB |
Memory bandwidth | 160.0 GB / s | 128 (64 per GPU) |
Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 512 Bit |
Memory clock speed | 5000 MHz | 1000 MHz |
Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR3 |
Technologies |
||
3D Vision | ||
CUDA | ||
SLI |