GeForce 6800 GS vs Radeon PRO WX 3100
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon PRO WX 3100 with GeForce 6800 GS, including specs and performance data.
PRO 3100 outperforms 6800 GS by a whopping 1265% 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 | 635 | 1329 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.49 | 0.01 |
| Power efficiency | 7.47 | no data |
| Architecture | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) | Curie (2003−2013) |
| GPU code name | Lexa | NV41 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 12 June 2017 (9 years ago) | 7 November 2005 (20 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $199 | $249 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
PRO WX 3100 has 14800% better value for money than 6800 GS.
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 | 512 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 925 MHz | 425 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1219 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 2,200 million | 190 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 130 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 39.01 | 5.100 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.248 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 16 | 8 |
| TMUs | 32 | 12 |
| L1 Cache | 128 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB | no data |
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).
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 1.0 x16 |
| Length | 145 mm | no data |
| Width | 1-slot | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 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 | GDDR5 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 256 MB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1500 MHz | 500 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 96 GB/s | 32 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 | 1x DisplayPort, 2x mini-DisplayPort | 1x DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-Video |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 9.0c (9_3) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 3.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 2.0 (full) 2.1 (partial) |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | N/A |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | N/A |
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.
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 | 14
+1300%
| 1−2
−1300%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 14.21
+1652%
| 249.00
−1652%
|
- PRO WX 3100 has 1652% lower cost per frame in 1080p
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+1450%
|
2−3
−1450%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 10−12 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
+2600%
|
1−2
−2600%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+1450%
|
2−3
−1450%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Escape from Tarkov | 24−27
+2400%
|
1−2
−2400%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 20−22
+1900%
|
1−2
−1900%
|
| Fortnite | 35−40
+1800%
|
2−3
−1800%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
+1350%
|
2−3
−1350%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
+2200%
|
1−2
−2200%
|
| Valorant | 70−75
+1300%
|
5−6
−1300%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
+2600%
|
1−2
−2600%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+1450%
|
2−3
−1450%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 100−110
+1386%
|
7−8
−1386%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 50−55
+1600%
|
3−4
−1600%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 24−27
+2400%
|
1−2
−2400%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 20−22
+1900%
|
1−2
−1900%
|
| Fortnite | 35−40
+1800%
|
2−3
−1800%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
+1350%
|
2−3
−1350%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 21−24
+2100%
|
1−2
−2100%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
+2200%
|
1−2
−2200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 70−75
+1300%
|
5−6
−1300%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
+2600%
|
1−2
−2600%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 50−55
+1600%
|
3−4
−1600%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 24−27
+2400%
|
1−2
−2400%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 20−22
+1900%
|
1−2
−1900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
+1350%
|
2−3
−1350%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
+2200%
|
1−2
−2200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 70−75
+1300%
|
5−6
−1300%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 35−40
+1800%
|
2−3
−1800%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 45−50
+1533%
|
3−4
−1533%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
+1850%
|
2−3
−1850%
|
| Valorant | 65−70
+1525%
|
4−5
−1525%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 10−12 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Escape from Tarkov | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+1400%
|
1−2
−1400%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9 | 0−1 |
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 12−14 | 0−1 |
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+1600%
|
1−2
−1600%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 27−30
+2600%
|
1−2
−2600%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 21−24
+2200%
|
1−2
−2200%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 6−7 | 0−1 |
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 6−7 | 0−1 |
This is how PRO WX 3100 and 6800 GS compete in popular games:
- PRO WX 3100 is 1300% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 6.28 | 0.46 |
| Recency | 12 June 2017 | 7 November 2005 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 256 MB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 130 nm |
PRO WX 3100 has a 1265% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, a 1500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 829% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon PRO WX 3100 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 6800 GS in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon PRO WX 3100 is a workstation graphics card while GeForce 6800 GS is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
