GeForce RTX 2080 Ti vs Radeon PRO WX 2100
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon PRO WX 2100 with GeForce RTX 2080 Ti, including specs and performance data.
RTX 2080 Ti outperforms PRO WX 2100 by a whopping 1087% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
Place in performance ranking | 617 | 37 |
Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 8.54 | 22.79 |
Architecture | Polaris (2016−2019) | Turing (2018−2022) |
GPU code name | Polaris 12 | Turing TU102 |
Market segment | Mobile workstation | Desktop |
Release date | 21 March 2018 (6 years ago) | 27 August 2018 (5 years ago) |
Launch price (MSRP) | $149 | $999 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
RTX 2080 Ti has 167% better value for money than PRO WX 2100.
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 cores | 512 | 4352 |
Core clock speed | no data | 1350 MHz |
Boost clock speed | 1219 MHz | 1545 MHz |
Number of transistors | 2,200 million | 18,600 million |
Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 12 nm |
Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 270 Watt |
Texture fill rate | 39.01 | 420.2 |
Floating-point performance | 1,248 gflops | no data |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on Radeon PRO WX 2100 and GeForce RTX 2080 Ti 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 size | large | no data |
Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
Length | no data | 267 mm |
Width | no data | 2-slot |
Supplementary power connectors | None | 2x 8-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 | 2 GB | 11 GB |
Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 352 Bit |
Memory clock speed | 6000 MHz | 14000 MHz |
Memory bandwidth | 48 GB/s | 616.0 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 | 1x DisplayPort, 2x mini-DisplayPort | 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort, 1x USB Type-C |
HDMI | no data | + |
G-SYNC support | no data | + |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
FreeSync | + | no data |
VR Ready | no data | + |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_1) |
Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.5 |
OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
OpenCL | 2.0 | 2.0 |
Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.2.131 |
CUDA | - | 7.5 |
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.
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.
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 | 14−16
−1100%
| 168
+1100%
|
1440p | 10−12
−1090%
| 119
+1090%
|
4K | 7−8
−1200%
| 91
+1200%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
−1225%
|
100−110
+1225%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 12−14
−862%
|
125
+862%
|
Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 5−6
−2040%
|
107
+2040%
|
Battlefield 5 | 12−14
−1933%
|
244
+1933%
|
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 10−11
−970%
|
100−110
+970%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
−1225%
|
100−110
+1225%
|
Far Cry 5 | 10−11
−1530%
|
163
+1530%
|
Far Cry New Dawn | 12−14
−1415%
|
197
+1415%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 30−33
−1053%
|
346
+1053%
|
Hitman 3 | 10−11
−1510%
|
161
+1510%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 30−35
−819%
|
285
+819%
|
Metro Exodus | 10−12
−1209%
|
144
+1209%
|
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 12−14
−715%
|
106
+715%
|
Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 16−18
−1171%
|
216
+1171%
|
Watch Dogs: Legion | 45−50
−491%
|
266
+491%
|
Full HD
High Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 12−14
−1292%
|
181
+1292%
|
Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 5−6
−1720%
|
91
+1720%
|
Battlefield 5 | 12−14
−1767%
|
224
+1767%
|
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 10−11
−970%
|
100−110
+970%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
−1225%
|
100−110
+1225%
|
Far Cry 5 | 10−11
−1220%
|
132
+1220%
|
Far Cry New Dawn | 12−14
−1069%
|
152
+1069%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 30−33
−970%
|
321
+970%
|
Hitman 3 | 10−11
−1460%
|
156
+1460%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 30−35
−761%
|
267
+761%
|
Metro Exodus | 10−12
−1209%
|
144
+1209%
|
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 12−14
−769%
|
110−120
+769%
|
Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 16−18
−1224%
|
220−230
+1224%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
−588%
|
110−120
+588%
|
Watch Dogs: Legion | 45−50
−467%
|
255
+467%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 12−14
−531%
|
82
+531%
|
Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 5−6
−1500%
|
80
+1500%
|
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 10−11
−930%
|
103
+930%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
−1225%
|
100−110
+1225%
|
Far Cry 5 | 10−11
−810%
|
91
+810%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 30−33
−460%
|
168
+460%
|
Hitman 3 | 10−11
−1290%
|
139
+1290%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 30−35
−552%
|
202
+552%
|
Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 16−18
−1224%
|
220−230
+1224%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
−694%
|
135
+694%
|
Watch Dogs: Legion | 45−50
−100%
|
90
+100%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 12−14
−700%
|
104
+700%
|
1440p
High Preset
Battlefield 5 | 9−10
−1744%
|
166
+1744%
|
Far Cry New Dawn | 7−8
−1500%
|
112
+1500%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 4−5
−1700%
|
72
+1700%
|
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 4−5
−1950%
|
82
+1950%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−2600%
|
50−55
+2600%
|
Far Cry 5 | 5−6
−1580%
|
84
+1580%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
−3378%
|
313
+3378%
|
Hitman 3 | 9−10
−1011%
|
100
+1011%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 10−12
−1373%
|
162
+1373%
|
Metro Exodus | 2−3
−4800%
|
98
+4800%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−2250%
|
90−95
+2250%
|
Watch Dogs: Legion | 30−33
−737%
|
251
+737%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 9−10
−1067%
|
105
+1067%
|
4K
High Preset
Battlefield 5 | 3−4
−2800%
|
87
+2800%
|
Far Cry New Dawn | 3−4
−2100%
|
66
+2100%
|
Hitman 3 | 1−2
−5800%
|
59
+5800%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 5−6
−2500%
|
130
+2500%
|
Metro Exodus | 1−2
−11000%
|
111
+11000%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−9700%
|
98
+9700%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 3−4
−1567%
|
50
+1567%
|
Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 2−3
−2200%
|
46
+2200%
|
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 2−3
−2500%
|
52
+2500%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 24−27 |
Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−2400%
|
50
+2400%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−2575%
|
107
+2575%
|
Watch Dogs: Legion | 1−2
−4300%
|
44
+4300%
|
4K
Epic Preset
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 5−6
−1360%
|
73
+1360%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 67
+0%
|
67
+0%
|
Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 80−85
+0%
|
80−85
+0%
|
This is how PRO WX 2100 and RTX 2080 Ti compete in popular games:
- RTX 2080 Ti is 1100% faster in 1080p
- RTX 2080 Ti is 1090% faster in 1440p
- RTX 2080 Ti is 1200% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Metro Exodus, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the RTX 2080 Ti is 11000% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RTX 2080 Ti is ahead in 68 tests (96%)
- there's a draw in 3 tests (4%)
Pros & cons summary
Performance score | 4.75 | 56.39 |
Recency | 21 March 2018 | 27 August 2018 |
Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 11 GB |
Chip lithography | 14 nm | 12 nm |
Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 270 Watt |
PRO WX 2100 has 440% lower power consumption.
RTX 2080 Ti, on the other hand, has a 1087.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 months, a 450% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 16.7% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce RTX 2080 Ti is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon PRO WX 2100 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon PRO WX 2100 is a mobile workstation card while GeForce RTX 2080 Ti is a desktop 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.