Radeon Pro WX 4150 vs GeForce GTX 960

#ad
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregated performance score

GTX 960
2015
4096 MB GDDR5
15.68
+140%

GeForce GTX 960 outperforms Radeon Pro WX 4150 by a whopping 140% based on our aggregated benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in performance ranking318534
Place by popularity57not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation2.170.46
ArchitectureMaxwell (2014−2018)Polaris (2016−2019)
GPU code nameGM206Polaris 11
Market segmentDesktopMobile workstation
Release date22 January 2015 (9 years ago)1 March 2017 (7 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$199 no data
Current price$440 (2.2x MSRP)$2000

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GTX 960 has 372% better value for money than Pro WX 4150.

Detailed specifications

General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores1024896
CUDA cores1024no data
Core clock speed1127 MHzno data
Boost clock speed1178 MHz1053 MHz
Number of transistors2,940 million3,000 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)120 Watt50 Watt
Texture fill rate72 billion/sec58.97
Floating-point performance2,413 gflopsno data

Form factor & compatibility

Information on GeForce GTX 960 and Radeon Pro WX 4150 compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.

Laptop sizeno datamedium sized
Bus supportPCI Express 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x8
Length9.5" (24.1 cm)no data
Height4.376" (11.1 cm)no data
Width2-slotno data
Recommended system power (PSU)400 Wattno data
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pinsNone
SLI options+no data

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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount4 GB4 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed7.0 GB/s7000 MHz
Memory bandwidth112 GB/s96 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 ConnectorsDual Link DVI-I, HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.2No outputs
Multi monitor support4 displaysno data
HDMI+no data
HDCP+no data
Maximum VGA resolution2048x1536no data
G-SYNC support+no data
Audio input for HDMIInternalno data

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

FreeSyncno data+
GameStream+no data
GeForce ShadowPlay+no data
GPU Boost2.0no data
GameWorks+no data

API compatibility

List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 (12_1)12 (12_0)
Shader Model6.46.4
OpenGL4.44.6
OpenCL1.22.0
Vulkan+1.2.131
CUDA+no data

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

GTX 960 15.68
+140%
Pro WX 4150 6.53

GeForce GTX 960 outperforms Radeon Pro WX 4150 by 140% based on our aggregated benchmark results.


Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.

Benchmark coverage: 25%

GTX 960 6067
+140%
Pro WX 4150 2528

GeForce GTX 960 outperforms Radeon Pro WX 4150 by 140% in Passmark.

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 HD65
+141%
27−30
−141%
4K29
+142%
12−14
−142%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
+140%
10−11
−140%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 30−35
+154%
12−14
−154%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 27−30
+238%
8−9
−238%
Battlefield 5 50−55
+152%
21−24
−152%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 40−45
+111%
18−20
−111%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
+140%
10−11
−140%
Far Cry 5 40−45
+173%
14−16
−173%
Far Cry New Dawn 40−45
+169%
16−18
−169%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
+150%
21−24
−150%
Hitman 3 40−45
+187%
14−16
−187%
Horizon Zero Dawn 30−35
+154%
12−14
−154%
Red Dead Redemption 2 24−27
+117%
12−14
−117%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 30−35
+120%
14−16
−120%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−33
+200%
10−11
−200%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 30−35
+154%
12−14
−154%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 27−30
+238%
8−9
−238%
Battlefield 5 50−55
+152%
21−24
−152%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 40−45
+111%
18−20
−111%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
+140%
10−11
−140%
Far Cry 5 40−45
+173%
14−16
−173%
Far Cry New Dawn 40−45
+169%
16−18
−169%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
+150%
21−24
−150%
Hitman 3 40−45
+187%
14−16
−187%
Horizon Zero Dawn 30−35
+154%
12−14
−154%
Metro Exodus 24−27
+167%
9−10
−167%
Red Dead Redemption 2 24−27
+117%
12−14
−117%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 30−35
+120%
14−16
−120%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 50
+285%
12−14
−285%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−33
+200%
10−11
−200%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 30−35
+154%
12−14
−154%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 27−30
+238%
8−9
−238%
Battlefield 5 50−55
+152%
21−24
−152%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
+140%
10−11
−140%
Far Cry 5 40−45
+173%
14−16
−173%
Far Cry New Dawn 40−45
+169%
16−18
−169%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
+150%
21−24
−150%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 28
+115%
12−14
−115%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−33
+200%
10−11
−200%

1440p
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 21−24
+130%
10−11
−130%
Hitman 3 24−27
+150%
10−11
−150%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
+75%
12−14
−75%
Metro Exodus 14−16
+180%
5−6
−180%
Red Dead Redemption 2 10−12
+175%
4−5
−175%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 20−22
+122%
9−10
−122%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 16−18
+220%
5−6
−220%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 12−14
+1200%
1−2
−1200%
Battlefield 5 30−35
+450%
6−7
−450%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+167%
3−4
−167%
Far Cry 5 24−27
+160%
10−11
−160%
Far Cry New Dawn 27−30
+263%
8−9
−263%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
+210%
10−11
−210%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
+167%
6−7
−167%
Watch Dogs: Legion 10−11
+400%
2−3
−400%

4K
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 10−12
+175%
4−5
−175%
Hitman 3 14−16
+133%
6−7
−133%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−12
+37.5%
8−9
−37.5%
Metro Exodus 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
Red Dead Redemption 2 8−9
+167%
3−4
−167%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−11
+400%
2−3
−400%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
+400%
3−4
−400%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
+200%
3−4
−200%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 8−9
+300%
2−3
−300%
Battlefield 5 16−18
+750%
2−3
−750%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Far Cry 5 12−14
+100%
6−7
−100%
Far Cry New Dawn 14−16
+87.5%
8−9
−87.5%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+267%
6−7
−267%
Watch Dogs: Legion 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%

This is how GTX 960 and Pro WX 4150 compete in popular games:

  • GTX 960 is 141% faster in 1080p
  • GTX 960 is 142% faster in 4K

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Assassin's Creed Valhalla, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 960 is 1200% faster than the Pro WX 4150.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Without exception, GTX 960 surpassed Pro WX 4150 in all 68 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 15.68 6.53
Recency 22 January 2015 1 March 2017
Chip lithography 28 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 120 Watt 50 Watt

The GeForce GTX 960 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon Pro WX 4150 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 960 is a desktop card while Radeon Pro WX 4150 is a mobile workstation one.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960
GeForce GTX 960
AMD Radeon Pro WX 4150
Radeon Pro WX 4150

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


4 3370 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 960 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6 19 votes

Rate Radeon Pro WX 4150 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.