Radeon PRO WX 2100 vs GeForce GTX 1050 Mobile
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 1050 Mobile with Radeon PRO WX 2100, including specs and performance data.
GTX 1050 Mobile outperforms PRO WX 2100 by a whopping 144% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 409 | 638 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 4.06 |
| Power efficiency | 10.73 | 9.43 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) |
| GPU code name | GP107B | Lexa |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 3 January 2017 (7 years ago) | 4 June 2017 (7 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $149 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 640 | 512 |
| Core clock speed | 1354 MHz | 925 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1493 MHz | 1219 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,300 million | 2,200 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 35 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 97 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 59.72 | 39.01 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.911 TFLOPS | 1.248 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 16 |
| TMUs | 40 | 32 |
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 |
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
| Length | no data | 168 mm |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 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 | 4000 MB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 7008 MHz | 1500 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 112 GB/s | 48 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.
| Display Connectors | DP 1.4, HDMI 2.0b, Dual Link-DVI | 1x DisplayPort, 2x mini-DisplayPort |
| Multi monitor support | + | no data |
| HDCP | 2.2 | - |
| G-SYNC support | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| FreeSync | - | + |
| GameStream | + | - |
| GPU Boost | 3.0 | no data |
| Ansel | + | - |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (12_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | + | - |
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:
| 900p | 73
+170%
| 27−30
−170%
|
| Full HD | 46
+156%
| 18−20
−156%
|
| 1440p | 24
+167%
| 9−10
−167%
|
| 4K | 15
+150%
| 6−7
−150%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 8.28 |
| 1440p | no data | 16.56 |
| 4K | no data | 24.83 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 37
+185%
|
12−14
−185%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 51
+325%
|
12−14
−325%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 40
+300%
|
10−11
−300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 39
+290%
|
10−11
−290%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 38
+192%
|
12−14
−192%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55
+83.3%
|
30−33
−83.3%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 27
+108%
|
12−14
−108%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 33
+94.1%
|
16−18
−94.1%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 30
+131%
|
12−14
−131%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 44
+267%
|
12−14
−267%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 33
+230%
|
10−11
−230%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 36
+260%
|
10−11
−260%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 37
+185%
|
12−14
−185%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 52
+73.3%
|
30−33
−73.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 19
+72.7%
|
10−12
−72.7%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 14
+7.7%
|
12−14
−7.7%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 29
+70.6%
|
16−18
−70.6%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 39
+129%
|
16−18
−129%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 18
+38.5%
|
12−14
−38.5%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 37
+164%
|
14−16
−164%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 33
+230%
|
10−11
−230%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 33
+175%
|
12−14
−175%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 37
+23.3%
|
30−33
−23.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 22
+29.4%
|
16−18
−29.4%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 18
+157%
|
7−8
−157%
|
| Metro Exodus | 11
+175%
|
4−5
−175%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 18−20
+171%
|
7−8
−171%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 17
+183%
|
6−7
−183%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 13
+225%
|
4−5
−225%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 26
+160%
|
10−11
−160%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21
+320%
|
5−6
−320%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 24
+167%
|
9−10
−167%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 26
+189%
|
9−10
−189%
|
4K
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 10
+150%
|
4−5
−150%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 10−12
+175%
|
4−5
−175%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 8
+167%
|
3−4
−167%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 7
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 13
+160%
|
5−6
−160%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 11
+450%
|
2−3
−450%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 11
+175%
|
4−5
−175%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 15
+275%
|
4−5
−275%
|
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 30−33
+0%
|
30−33
+0%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
This is how GTX 1050 Mobile and PRO WX 2100 compete in popular games:
- GTX 1050 Mobile is 170% faster in 900p
- GTX 1050 Mobile is 156% faster in 1080p
- GTX 1050 Mobile is 167% faster in 1440p
- GTX 1050 Mobile is 150% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 1050 Mobile is 900% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- GTX 1050 Mobile is ahead in 30 tests (44%)
- there's a draw in 38 tests (56%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 11.63 | 4.77 |
| Recency | 3 January 2017 | 4 June 2017 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4000 MB | 2 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 35 Watt |
GTX 1050 Mobile has a 143.8% higher aggregate performance score, and a 95.3% higher maximum VRAM amount.
PRO WX 2100, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 5 months, and 114.3% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 1050 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon PRO WX 2100 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 1050 Mobile is a notebook card while Radeon PRO WX 2100 is a workstation one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
