GeForce RTX 3060 vs Radeon Pro WX 4130
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon Pro WX 4130 with GeForce RTX 3060, including specs and performance data.
RTX 3060 outperforms Pro 4130 by a whopping 785% 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 | 713 | 118 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 2 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 54.37 |
| Power efficiency | 7.09 | 18.45 |
| Architecture | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) | Ampere (2020−2025) |
| GPU code name | Baffin | GA106 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 1 March 2017 (9 years ago) | 12 January 2021 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $329 |
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 | 640 | 3584 |
| Core clock speed | 1002 MHz | 1320 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1053 MHz | 1777 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,000 million | 12,000 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 170 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 42.12 | 199.0 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.348 TFLOPS | 12.74 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 48 |
| TMUs | 40 | 112 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 112 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 28 |
| L1 Cache | 160 KB | 3.5 MB |
| L2 Cache | 1024 KB | 3 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 | medium sized | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 242 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 1x 12-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 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 12 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 192 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1500 MHz | 1875 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 96 GB/s | 360.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
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 | 1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a |
| HDMI | - | + |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| FreeSync | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.7 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.3 |
| CUDA | - | 8.6 |
| DLSS | - | + |
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 | 12−14
−792%
| 107
+792%
|
| 1440p | 6−7
−900%
| 60
+900%
|
| 4K | 4−5
−900%
| 40
+900%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 3.07 |
| 1440p | no data | 5.48 |
| 4K | no data | 8.23 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 10−12
−1027%
|
120−130
+1027%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 20−22
−1020%
|
220−230
+1020%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
−778%
|
79
+778%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 10−12
−1027%
|
120−130
+1027%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
−621%
|
130−140
+621%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 20−22
−1020%
|
220−230
+1020%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
−767%
|
78
+767%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
−943%
|
146
+943%
|
| Fortnite | 27−30
−552%
|
170−180
+552%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
−614%
|
150−160
+614%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 12−14
−854%
|
124
+854%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
−778%
|
150−160
+778%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
−316%
|
240−250
+316%
|
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 10−12
−1027%
|
120−130
+1027%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
−621%
|
130−140
+621%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 20−22
−1020%
|
220−230
+1020%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 80−85
−248%
|
270−280
+248%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
−733%
|
75
+733%
|
| Dota 2 | 40−45
−290%
|
156
+290%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
−864%
|
135
+864%
|
| Fortnite | 27−30
−552%
|
170−180
+552%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
−614%
|
150−160
+614%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 12−14
−746%
|
110
+746%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−840%
|
141
+840%
|
| Metro Exodus | 8−9
−913%
|
81
+913%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
−778%
|
150−160
+778%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
−1277%
|
179
+1277%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
−316%
|
240−250
+316%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
−621%
|
130−140
+621%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
−611%
|
64
+611%
|
| Dota 2 | 40−45
−268%
|
147
+268%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
−807%
|
127
+807%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
−614%
|
150−160
+614%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
−778%
|
150−160
+778%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
−569%
|
87
+569%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
−316%
|
240−250
+316%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 27−30
−552%
|
170−180
+552%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−1078%
|
100−110
+1078%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 35−40
−723%
|
280−290
+723%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 3−4
−2600%
|
81
+2600%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
−1567%
|
50
+1567%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
−400%
|
170−180
+400%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
−500%
|
270−280
+500%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
−3333%
|
100−110
+3333%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−1200%
|
39
+1200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
−1075%
|
94
+1075%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
−973%
|
110−120
+973%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−1100%
|
72
+1100%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 9−10
−1111%
|
100−110
+1111%
|
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 3−4
−1000%
|
30−35
+1000%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
−413%
|
82
+413%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−6400%
|
65
+6400%
|
| Valorant | 20−22
−1155%
|
250−260
+1155%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−6500%
|
65−70
+6500%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−1700%
|
18
+1700%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−619%
|
115
+619%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
−1500%
|
48
+1500%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−1217%
|
75−80
+1217%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 5−6
−1040%
|
55−60
+1040%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 5−6
−980%
|
50−55
+980%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 32
+0%
|
32
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
This is how Pro WX 4130 and RTX 3060 compete in popular games:
- RTX 3060 is 792% faster in 1080p
- RTX 3060 is 900% faster in 1440p
- RTX 3060 is 900% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Battlefield 5, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the RTX 3060 is 6500% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RTX 3060 performs better in 60 tests (95%)
- there's a draw in 3 tests (5%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 4.58 | 40.53 |
| Recency | 1 March 2017 | 12 January 2021 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 12 GB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 170 Watt |
Pro WX 4130 has 240% lower power consumption.
RTX 3060, on the other hand, has a 785% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 200% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 75% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce RTX 3060 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon Pro WX 4130 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon Pro WX 4130 is a mobile workstation graphics card while GeForce RTX 3060 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.
