Radeon PRO WX 2100 vs GeForce GTX 980M SLI

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 980M SLI with Radeon PRO WX 2100, including specs and performance data.


GTX 980M SLI
2014
2x 8 GB GDDR5, 200 Watt
24.87
+451%

980M SLI outperforms PRO 2100 by a whopping 451% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking255703
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data1.02
Power efficiency9.589.92
ArchitectureMaxwell (2014−2017)GCN 4.0 (2016−2020)
GPU code nameno dataLexa
Market segmentLaptopWorkstation
Release date7 October 2014 (11 years ago)4 June 2017 (8 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$149

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

no data

Performance to price scatter graph

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 cores3072512
Core clock speed1038 MHz925 MHz
Boost clock speed1127 MHz1219 MHz
Number of transistors2x 5200 Million2,200 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)200 Watt35 Watt
Texture fill rateno data39.01
Floating-point processing powerno data1.248 TFLOPS
ROPsno data16
TMUsno data32
L1 Cacheno data128 KB
L2 Cacheno data256 KB

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 sizelargeno data
Interfaceno dataPCIe 3.0 x8
Lengthno data168 mm
Widthno data1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone
SLI options+-

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 amount2x 8 GB2 GB
Memory bus width2x 256 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed5000 MHz1500 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data48 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 Connectorsno data1x DisplayPort, 2x mini-DisplayPort

Supported technologies

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

FreeSync-+
Optimus+-

API and SDK support

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12_112 (12_0)
Shader Modelno data6.4
OpenGLno data4.6
OpenCLno data2.0
Vulkan+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:

900p135
+463%
24−27
−463%
Full HD110
+511%
18−20
−511%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data8.28

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 140−150
+620%
20−22
−620%
Cyberpunk 2077 55−60
+511%
9−10
−511%
Resident Evil 4 Remake 60−65
+757%
7−8
−757%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 95−100
+450%
18−20
−450%
Counter-Strike 2 140−150
+620%
20−22
−620%
Cyberpunk 2077 55−60
+511%
9−10
−511%
Far Cry 5 80−85
+486%
14−16
−486%
Fortnite 120−130
+356%
27−30
−356%
Forza Horizon 4 100−105
+376%
21−24
−376%
Forza Horizon 5 80−85
+567%
12−14
−567%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 100−105
+456%
18−20
−456%
Valorant 170−180
+197%
55−60
−197%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 95−100
+450%
18−20
−450%
Counter-Strike 2 140−150
+620%
20−22
−620%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 260−270
+233%
75−80
−233%
Cyberpunk 2077 55−60
+511%
9−10
−511%
Dota 2 120−130
+213%
40−45
−213%
Far Cry 5 80−85
+486%
14−16
−486%
Fortnite 120−130
+356%
27−30
−356%
Forza Horizon 4 100−105
+376%
21−24
−376%
Forza Horizon 5 80−85
+567%
12−14
−567%
Grand Theft Auto V 90−95
+513%
14−16
−513%
Metro Exodus 55−60
+600%
8−9
−600%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 100−105
+456%
18−20
−456%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 75−80
+492%
12−14
−492%
Valorant 170−180
+197%
55−60
−197%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 95−100
+450%
18−20
−450%
Cyberpunk 2077 55−60
+511%
9−10
−511%
Dota 2 120−130
+213%
40−45
−213%
Far Cry 5 80−85
+486%
14−16
−486%
Forza Horizon 4 100−105
+376%
21−24
−376%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 100−105
+456%
18−20
−456%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 75−80
+492%
12−14
−492%
Valorant 170−180
+197%
55−60
−197%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 120−130
+356%
27−30
−356%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 55−60
+511%
9−10
−511%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 170−180
+411%
35−40
−411%
Grand Theft Auto V 45−50
+1500%
3−4
−1500%
Metro Exodus 30−35
+1033%
3−4
−1033%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+415%
30−35
−415%
Valorant 200−210
+327%
45−50
−327%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 70−75
+2233%
3−4
−2233%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
+767%
3−4
−767%
Far Cry 5 55−60
+544%
9−10
−544%
Forza Horizon 4 65−70
+500%
10−12
−500%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 40−45
+583%
6−7
−583%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 60−65
+578%
9−10
−578%

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2 24−27
+525%
4−5
−525%
Grand Theft Auto V 45−50
+200%
16−18
−200%
Metro Exodus 21−24
+633%
3−4
−633%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 35−40 0−1
Valorant 150−160
+552%
21−24
−552%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 35−40
+3800%
1−2
−3800%
Counter-Strike 2 24−27
+525%
4−5
−525%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−12
+1000%
1−2
−1000%
Dota 2 80−85
+447%
14−16
−447%
Far Cry 5 30−33
+900%
3−4
−900%
Forza Horizon 4 45−50
+650%
6−7
−650%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 27−30
+460%
5−6
−460%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 27−30
+460%
5−6
−460%

This is how GTX 980M SLI and PRO WX 2100 compete in popular games:

  • GTX 980M SLI is 463% faster in 900p
  • GTX 980M SLI is 511% faster in 1080p

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

  • in Battlefield 5, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 980M SLI is 3800% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Without exception, GTX 980M SLI surpassed PRO WX 2100 in all 56 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 24.87 4.51
Recency 7 October 2014 4 June 2017
Chip lithography 28 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 200 Watt 35 Watt

GTX 980M SLI has a 451% higher aggregate performance score.

PRO WX 2100, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 471% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 980M SLI is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon PRO WX 2100 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 980M SLI is a notebook graphics card while Radeon PRO WX 2100 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.

Community ratings

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


3.3 57 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 980M SLI on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 57 votes

Rate Radeon PRO WX 2100 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce GTX 980M SLI or Radeon PRO WX 2100, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.