Radeon Pro WX 7100 vs GeForce RTX 2070 Mobile
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce RTX 2070 Mobile with Radeon Pro WX 7100, including specs and performance data.
RTX 2070 Mobile outperforms Pro 7100 by an impressive 70% 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 | 206 | 343 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 3.22 |
| Power efficiency | 21.19 | 11.03 |
| Architecture | Turing (2018−2022) | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) |
| GPU code name | TU106B | Ellesmere |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 29 January 2019 (7 years ago) | 10 November 2016 (9 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $799 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
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 | 2304 | 2304 |
| Core clock speed | 1305 MHz | 1188 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1485 MHz | 1243 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 10,800 million | 5,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 115 Watt | 130 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 213.8 | 179.0 |
| Floating-point processing power | 6.843 TFLOPS | 5.728 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 32 |
| TMUs | 144 | 144 |
| Tensor Cores | 288 | no data |
| Ray Tracing Cores | 36 | no data |
| L1 Cache | 2.3 MB | 576 KB |
| L2 Cache | 4 MB | 2 MB |
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).
| Laptop size | large | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 241 mm |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 6-pin |
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 | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1750 MHz | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 448.0 GB/s | 224.0 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 | No outputs | 4x DisplayPort |
| G-SYNC support | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| FreeSync | - | + |
| VR Ready | + | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_1) | 12 (12_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | 7.5 | - |
| DLSS | + | - |
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 | 121 | 70−75
−42.1%
|
| 1440p | 77
+71.1%
| 45−50 |
| 4K | 49
+81.5%
| 27−30 |
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 11.41 |
| 1440p | no data | 17.76 |
| 4K | no data | 29.59 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 90−95
+84%
|
50−55 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 170−180
+69.5%
|
100−110 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 70−75
+80%
|
40−45 |
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 80−85
+92.9%
|
40−45 |
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 90−95
+84%
|
50−55 |
| Battlefield 5 | 120
+53.8%
|
75−80 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 170−180
+69.5%
|
100−110 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 70−75
+80%
|
40−45 |
| Far Cry 5 | 122
+96.8%
|
60−65 |
| Fortnite | 188
+88%
|
100−105 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 113
+46.8%
|
75−80 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 196
+176%
|
70−75 |
| Valorant | 234
+67.1%
|
140−150 |
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 90−95
+84%
|
50−55 |
| Battlefield 5 | 134
+71.8%
|
75−80 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 170−180
+69.5%
|
100−110 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+21.1%
|
220−230 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 70−75
+80%
|
40−45 |
| Dota 2 | 124
+14.8%
|
100−110 |
| Far Cry 5 | 113
+82.3%
|
60−65 |
| Fortnite | 149
+49%
|
100−105 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 112
+45.5%
|
75−80 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 115
+64.3%
|
70−75 |
| Metro Exodus | 69
+72.5%
|
40−45 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 173
+144%
|
70−75 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 142
+173%
|
50−55 |
| Valorant | 230
+64.3%
|
140−150 |
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 121
+55.1%
|
75−80 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 70−75
+80%
|
40−45 |
| Dota 2 | 117
+8.3%
|
100−110 |
| Far Cry 5 | 106
+71%
|
60−65 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 94
+22.1%
|
75−80 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 130
+83.1%
|
70−75 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 74
+42.3%
|
50−55 |
| Valorant | 154
+10%
|
140−150 |
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 141
+41%
|
100−105 |
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 75−80
+97.4%
|
35−40 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 220−230
+64%
|
130−140 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 60−65
+96.9%
|
30−35 |
| Metro Exodus | 42
+75%
|
24−27 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+5.4%
|
160−170 |
| Valorant | 229
+40.5%
|
160−170 |
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 92
+70.4%
|
50−55 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+94.4%
|
18−20 |
| Far Cry 5 | 76
+81%
|
40−45 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 85−90
+83%
|
45−50 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 55−60
+100%
|
27−30 |
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 94
+119%
|
40−45 |
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 24−27
+66.7%
|
14−16 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+106%
|
16−18 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 65−70
+91.2%
|
30−35 |
| Metro Exodus | 26
+73.3%
|
14−16 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 50
+85.2%
|
27−30 |
| Valorant | 202
+106%
|
95−100 |
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 52
+85.7%
|
27−30 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+106%
|
16−18 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+114%
|
7−8 |
| Dota 2 | 95−100
+49.2%
|
65−70 |
| Far Cry 5 | 40
+90.5%
|
21−24 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+75.8%
|
30−35 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 46
+142%
|
18−20 |
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 46
+142%
|
18−20 |
This is how RTX 2070 Mobile and Pro WX 7100 compete in popular games:
- RTX 2070 Mobile is 73% faster in 1080p
- RTX 2070 Mobile is 71% faster in 1440p
- RTX 2070 Mobile is 81% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the RTX 2070 Mobile is 176% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, RTX 2070 Mobile surpassed Pro WX 7100 in all 62 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 31.30 | 18.42 |
| Recency | 29 January 2019 | 10 November 2016 |
| Chip lithography | 12 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 115 Watt | 130 Watt |
RTX 2070 Mobile has a 70% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 14% more advanced lithography process, and 12% lower power consumption.
The GeForce RTX 2070 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon Pro WX 7100 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce RTX 2070 Mobile is a notebook graphics card while Radeon Pro WX 7100 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.
