Radeon PRO WX 3100 vs GeForce GTX TITAN Z
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX TITAN Z with Radeon PRO WX 3100, including specs and performance data.
TITAN Z outperforms PRO 3100 by a whopping 240% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 311 | 642 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.12 | 1.46 |
| Power efficiency | 4.41 | 7.50 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) |
| GPU code name | GK110B | Lexa |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Release date | 28 May 2014 (12 years ago) | 12 June 2017 (9 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $2,999 | $199 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
PRO WX 3100 has 30% better value for money than GTX TITAN Z.
Performance to price scatter graph
Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 5760 ×2 | 512 |
| Core clock speed | 705 MHz | 925 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 876 MHz | 1219 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 7,080 million | 2,200 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 375 Watt | 65 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 210.2 ×2 | 39.01 |
| Floating-point processing power | 5.046 TFLOPS ×2 | 1.248 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 48 ×2 | 16 |
| TMUs | 240 ×2 | 32 |
| L1 Cache | 240 KB | 128 KB |
| L2 Cache | 1536 KB | 512 KB |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).
| Bus support | PCI Express 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
| Length | 267 mm | 145 mm |
| Height | 4.376" (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 3-slot | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 8-pin | None |
VRAM capacity and type
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 12 GB ×2 | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 768-bit (384-bit per GPU) ×2 | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 7.0 GB/s | 1500 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 672 GB/s ×2 | 96 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | One Dual Link DVI-I, One Dual Link DVI-D, One HDMI, One DisplayPort | 1x DisplayPort, 2x mini-DisplayPort |
| Multi monitor support | 4 displays | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
| HDCP | + | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Blu Ray 3D | + | - |
| 3D Gaming | + | - |
| 3D Vision | + | - |
| 3D Vision Live | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 12 (12_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | + | - |
Synthetic benchmarks
Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark score.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.
3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.
GeekBench 5 OpenCL
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.
GeekBench 5 Vulkan
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses Vulkan API by AMD & Khronos Group.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| Full HD | 45−50
+221%
| 14 |
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 66.64 | 14.21
+78.7%
|
- PRO WX 3100 has 79% lower cost per frame in 1080p
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35 | 30−35 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14 | 12−14 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 12−14 | 12−14 |
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 10−12 | 10−12 |
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30 | 27−30 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35 | 30−35 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14 | 12−14 |
| Far Cry 5 | 20−22 | 20−22 |
| Fortnite | 35−40 | 35−40 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30 | 27−30 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 12−14 | 12−14 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24 | 21−24 |
| Valorant | 70−75 | 70−75 |
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30 | 27−30 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35 | 30−35 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 100−110 | 100−110 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14 | 12−14 |
| Dota 2 | 50−55 | 50−55 |
| Far Cry 5 | 20−22 | 20−22 |
| Fortnite | 35−40 | 35−40 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30 | 27−30 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 21−24 | 21−24 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 12−14 | 12−14 |
| Metro Exodus | 12−14 | 12−14 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24 | 21−24 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12 | 12 |
| Valorant | 70−75 | 70−75 |
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30 | 27−30 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14 | 12−14 |
| Dota 2 | 50−55 | 50−55 |
| Far Cry 5 | 20−22 | 20−22 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30 | 27−30 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 12−14 | 12−14 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24 | 21−24 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7 | 7 |
| Valorant | 70−75 | 70−75 |
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 35−40 | 35−40 |
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14 | 12−14 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 45−50 | 45−50 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 7−8 | 7−8 |
| Metro Exodus | 6−7 | 6−7 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40 | 35−40 |
| Valorant | 60−65 | 60−65 |
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 10−12 | 10−12 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6 | 5−6 |
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14 | 12−14 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16 | 14−16 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 6−7 | 6−7 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9 | 8−9 |
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 12−14 | 12−14 |
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18 | 16−18 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 2−3 | 2−3 |
| Metro Exodus | 1−2 | 1−2 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5 | 4−5 |
| Valorant | 27−30 | 27−30 |
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6 | 5−6 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3 | 2−3 |
| Dota 2 | 21−24 | 21−24 |
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6 | 5−6 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11 | 10−11 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 2−3 | 2−3 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 6−7 | 6−7 |
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 6−7 | 6−7 |
This is how GTX TITAN Z and PRO WX 3100 compete in popular games:
- GTX TITAN Z is 221% faster in 1080p
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 63 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 21.22 | 6.25 |
| Recency | 28 May 2014 | 12 June 2017 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 12 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 375 Watt | 65 Watt |
GTX TITAN Z has a 240% higher aggregate performance score, and a 200% higher maximum VRAM amount.
PRO WX 3100, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 3 years, a 50% more advanced lithography process, and 83% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX TITAN Z is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon PRO WX 3100 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX TITAN Z is a desktop graphics card while Radeon PRO WX 3100 is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
