Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
Radeon PRO WX 2100 vs Quadro P3000 Mobile
Aggregated performance score
P3000 Mobile
2017
6GB GDDR5
19.19
+306%
PRO WX 2100
2018
2048 MB GDDR5
4.73
Quadro P3000 Mobile outperforms Radeon PRO WX 2100 by 306% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
General info
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 270 | 609 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Value for money | 9.88 | 3.02 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | Polaris (2016−2019) |
| GPU code name | N17E-Q1 | Polaris 12 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 11 January 2017 (7 years old) | 21 March 2018 (6 years old) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $149 |
| Current price | $537 | $343 (2.3x MSRP) |
Value for money
P3000 Mobile has 227% better value for money than PRO WX 2100.
Technical specs
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 | 1280 | 512 |
| Core clock speed | 1088 MHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 1215 MHz | 1219 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 7,200 million | 2,200 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 16 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 50 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 97.20 | 39.01 |
| Floating-point performance | 3,110 gflops | 1,248 gflops |
Size and compatibility
Information on Quadro P3000 Mobile and Radeon PRO WX 2100 compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. 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 | large |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
Memory
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 | 6 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 192 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 7008 MHz | 6000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 168 GB/s | 48 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Video outputs and ports
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 | No outputs | 1x DisplayPort, 2x mini-DisplayPort |
| Display Port | 1.4 | no data |
Technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| FreeSync | no data | + |
| Optimus | + | no data |
| 3D Stereo | + | no data |
| Mosaic | + | no data |
| nView Display Management | + | no data |
| Optimus | + | no data |
API support
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 | 12 (12_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | 6.1 | no data |
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 | 64
+357%
| 14−16
−357%
|
| 4K | 28
+367%
| 6−7
−367%
|
Performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−33
+275%
|
8−9
−275%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 35−40
+333%
|
9−10
−333%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 30−35
+725%
|
4−5
−725%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65
+357%
|
14−16
−357%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 50−55
+213%
|
16−18
−213%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−33
+275%
|
8−9
−275%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
+400%
|
10−11
−400%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 50−55
+420%
|
10−11
−420%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 65−70
+340%
|
14−16
−340%
|
| Hitman 3 | 55−60
+450%
|
10−11
−450%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 40−45
+356%
|
9−10
−356%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 30−35
+256%
|
9−10
−256%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 40−45
+242%
|
12−14
−242%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 35−40
+517%
|
6−7
−517%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 35−40
+333%
|
9−10
−333%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 30−35
+725%
|
4−5
−725%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65
+357%
|
14−16
−357%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 50−55
+213%
|
16−18
−213%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−33
+275%
|
8−9
−275%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
+400%
|
10−11
−400%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 50−55
+420%
|
10−11
−420%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 65−70
+340%
|
14−16
−340%
|
| Hitman 3 | 55−60
+450%
|
10−11
−450%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 40−45
+356%
|
9−10
−356%
|
| Metro Exodus | 30−35
+343%
|
7−8
−343%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 30−35
+256%
|
9−10
−256%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 40−45
+242%
|
12−14
−242%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 63
+530%
|
10−11
−530%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 35−40
+517%
|
6−7
−517%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 35−40
+333%
|
9−10
−333%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 30−35
+725%
|
4−5
−725%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65
+357%
|
14−16
−357%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−33
+275%
|
8−9
−275%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
+400%
|
10−11
−400%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 50−55
+420%
|
10−11
−420%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 65−70
+340%
|
14−16
−340%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 33
+230%
|
10−11
−230%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 35−40
+517%
|
6−7
−517%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 27−30
+314%
|
7−8
−314%
|
| Hitman 3 | 30−35
+288%
|
8−9
−288%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 24−27
+136%
|
10−12
−136%
|
| Metro Exodus | 18−20
+500%
|
3−4
−500%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 14−16
+367%
|
3−4
−367%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 24−27
+213%
|
8−9
−213%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 20−22
+567%
|
3−4
−567%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 18−20
+350%
|
4−5
−350%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+320%
|
10−11
−320%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−12
+450%
|
2−3
−450%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
+357%
|
7−8
−357%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 35−40
+825%
|
4−5
−825%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+550%
|
6−7
−550%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
+425%
|
4−5
−425%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 12−14 | 0−1 |
4K
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 14−16
+367%
|
3−4
−367%
|
| Hitman 3 | 18−20
+350%
|
4−5
−350%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 12−14
+50%
|
8−9
−50%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−12
+450%
|
2−3
−450%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 10−11
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 12−14
+1200%
|
1−2
−1200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 22
+2100%
|
1−2
−2100%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 12−14
+500%
|
2−3
−500%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 10−11
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
+340%
|
5−6
−340%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
+200%
|
5−6
−200%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 18−20
+157%
|
7−8
−157%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
+800%
|
3−4
−800%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 8−9 | 0−1 |
This is how P3000 Mobile and PRO WX 2100 compete in popular games:
1080p resolution:
- P3000 Mobile is 357% faster than PRO WX 2100
4K resolution:
- P3000 Mobile is 367% faster than PRO WX 2100
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 P3000 Mobile is 2100% faster than the PRO WX 2100.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, P3000 Mobile surpassed PRO WX 2100 in all 61 of our tests.
Advantages and disadvantages
| Performance score | 19.19 | 4.73 |
| Recency | 11 January 2017 | 21 March 2018 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | 2 GB |
| Chip lithography | 16 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 50 Watt |
The Quadro P3000 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon PRO WX 2100 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar GPU comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
