FirePro V3900 vs Radeon PRO WX 2100

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon PRO WX 2100 and FirePro V3900, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

PRO WX 2100
2017
2 GB GDDR5, 35 Watt
4.79
+189%

PRO WX 2100 outperforms V3900 by a whopping 189% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking644948
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation3.77no data
Power efficiency9.422.29
ArchitectureGCN 4.0 (2016−2020)TeraScale 2 (2009−2015)
GPU code nameLexaTurks
Market segmentWorkstationWorkstation
Release date4 June 2017 (7 years ago)7 February 2012 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$149 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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 cores512480
Core clock speed925 MHz650 MHz
Boost clock speed1219 MHzno data
Number of transistors2,200 million716 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt199 Watt
Texture fill rate39.0115.60
Floating-point processing power1.248 TFLOPS0.624 TFLOPS
ROPs168
TMUs3224

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).

Bus supportno dataPCIe 2.1 x16
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x8PCIe 2.0 x16
Length168 mm168 mm
Width1-slot1-slot
Form factorno datahalf height / half length
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone

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 typeGDDR5GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount2 GB1 GB
Memory bus width64 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1500 MHz900 MHz
Memory bandwidth48 GB/s28 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 Connectors1x DisplayPort, 2x mini-DisplayPort1x DVI, 1x DisplayPort
DisplayPort countno data1
Dual-link DVI support-+
HD сomponent video output-+

Supported technologies

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

FreeSync+-

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_0)11.2 (11_0)
Shader Model6.45.0
OpenGL4.64.4
OpenCL2.01.2
Vulkan1.2.131N/A

Synthetic benchmark performance

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. 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.

PRO WX 2100 4.79
+189%
FirePro V3900 1.66

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.

PRO WX 2100 1841
+188%
FirePro V3900 640

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 12−14
+200%
4−5
−200%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−11
+233%
3−4
−233%
Elden Ring 12−14
+200%
4−5
−200%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 14−16
+250%
4−5
−250%
Counter-Strike 2 12−14
+200%
4−5
−200%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−11
+233%
3−4
−233%
Forza Horizon 4 20−22
+233%
6−7
−233%
Metro Exodus 10−12
+267%
3−4
−267%
Red Dead Redemption 2 14−16
+200%
5−6
−200%
Valorant 10−12
+267%
3−4
−267%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 14−16
+250%
4−5
−250%
Counter-Strike 2 12−14
+200%
4−5
−200%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−11
+233%
3−4
−233%
Dota 2 14−16
+200%
5−6
−200%
Elden Ring 12−14
+200%
4−5
−200%
Far Cry 5 24−27
+200%
8−9
−200%
Fortnite 27−30
+211%
9−10
−211%
Forza Horizon 4 20−22
+233%
6−7
−233%
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+200%
5−6
−200%
Metro Exodus 10−12
+267%
3−4
−267%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 40−45
+193%
14−16
−193%
Red Dead Redemption 2 14−16
+200%
5−6
−200%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
+220%
5−6
−220%
Valorant 10−12
+267%
3−4
−267%
World of Tanks 75−80
+193%
27−30
−193%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 14−16
+250%
4−5
−250%
Counter-Strike 2 12−14
+200%
4−5
−200%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−11
+233%
3−4
−233%
Dota 2 14−16
+200%
5−6
−200%
Far Cry 5 24−27
+200%
8−9
−200%
Forza Horizon 4 20−22
+233%
6−7
−233%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 40−45
+193%
14−16
−193%
Valorant 10−12
+267%
3−4
−267%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Elden Ring 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%
Grand Theft Auto V 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
+220%
10−11
−220%
Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
World of Tanks 30−35
+240%
10−11
−240%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 7−8
+250%
2−3
−250%
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+200%
3−4
−200%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Far Cry 5 10−11
+233%
3−4
−233%
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
+200%
2−3
−200%
Metro Exodus 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
+200%
2−3
−200%
Valorant 12−14
+225%
4−5
−225%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2 16−18
+240%
5−6
−240%
Elden Ring 2−3 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 16−18
+220%
5−6
−220%
Metro Exodus 0−1 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 14−16
+250%
4−5
−250%
Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
+220%
5−6
−220%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3 0−1
Dota 2 16−18
+240%
5−6
−240%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%
Fortnite 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Valorant 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 4.79 1.66
Recency 4 June 2017 7 February 2012
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 1 GB
Chip lithography 14 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 35 Watt 199 Watt

PRO WX 2100 has a 188.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 185.7% more advanced lithography process, and 468.6% lower power consumption.

The Radeon PRO WX 2100 is our recommended choice as it beats the FirePro V3900 in performance tests.


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.


AMD Radeon PRO WX 2100
Radeon PRO WX 2100
AMD FirePro V3900
FirePro V3900

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.


3.6 50 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4 96 votes

Rate FirePro V3900 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.