GeForce RTX 2080 vs Radeon PRO WX 9100
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon PRO WX 9100 with GeForce RTX 2080, including specs and performance data.
RTX 2080 outperforms PRO 9100 by an impressive 52% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 219 | 94 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 4.00 | 22.26 |
| Power efficiency | 9.77 | 15.94 |
| Architecture | GCN 5.0 (2017−2020) | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | Vega 10 | TU104 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 10 July 2017 (8 years ago) | 20 September 2018 (7 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $1,599 | $699 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
RTX 2080 has 457% better value for money than PRO WX 9100.
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 cores | 4096 | 2944 |
| Core clock speed | 1200 MHz | 1515 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1500 MHz | 1710 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 12,500 million | 13,600 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 230 Watt | 215 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 384.0 | 314.6 |
| Floating-point processing power | 12.29 TFLOPS | 10.07 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 64 |
| TMUs | 256 | 184 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 368 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 46 |
| L1 Cache | 1 MB | 2.9 MB |
| L2 Cache | 4 MB | 4 MB |
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).
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 267 mm | 267 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | 1x 6-pin + 1x 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 | HBM2 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 16 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 2048 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 945 MHz | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 483.8 GB/s | 448.0 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 Connectors | 6x mini-DisplayPort | 1x HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a, 1x USB Type-C |
| HDMI | - | + |
| G-SYNC support | - | + |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| VR Ready | no data | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.125 | 1.3 |
| CUDA | - | 7.5 |
| DLSS | - | + |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
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.
GeekBench 5 OpenCL
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.
GeekBench 5 Vulkan
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses Vulkan API by AMD & Khronos Group.
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 | 90−95
−58.9%
| 143
+58.9%
|
| 1440p | 65−70
−55.4%
| 101
+55.4%
|
| 4K | 45−50
−60%
| 72
+60%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 17.77
−263%
| 4.89
+263%
|
| 1440p | 24.60
−255%
| 6.92
+255%
|
| 4K | 35.53
−266%
| 9.71
+266%
|
- RTX 2080 has 263% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- RTX 2080 has 255% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- RTX 2080 has 266% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 240−250
+0%
|
240−250
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 163
+0%
|
163
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 240−250
+0%
|
240−250
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 121
+0%
|
121
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 117
+0%
|
117
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 199
+0%
|
199
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 156
+0%
|
156
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 209
+0%
|
209
+0%
|
| Valorant | 263
+0%
|
263
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 155
+0%
|
155
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 240−250
+0%
|
240−250
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+0%
|
270−280
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 121
+0%
|
121
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 112
+0%
|
112
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 173
+0%
|
173
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 153
+0%
|
153
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 131
+0%
|
131
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 90
+0%
|
90
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 188
+0%
|
188
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 181
+0%
|
181
+0%
|
| Valorant | 254
+0%
|
254
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 145
+0%
|
145
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 121
+0%
|
121
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 106
+0%
|
106
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 132
+0%
|
132
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 169
+0%
|
169
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 106
+0%
|
106
+0%
|
| Valorant | 223
+0%
|
223
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 156
+0%
|
156
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 60
+0%
|
60
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Valorant | 247
+0%
|
247
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 125
+0%
|
125
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 117
+0%
|
117
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 99
+0%
|
99
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 118
+0%
|
118
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 128
+0%
|
128
+0%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 107
+0%
|
107
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 39
+0%
|
39
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 76
+0%
|
76
+0%
|
| Valorant | 234
+0%
|
234
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 76
+0%
|
76
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 55
+0%
|
55
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 59
+0%
|
59
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 81
+0%
|
81
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 69
+0%
|
69
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 65
+0%
|
65
+0%
|
This is how PRO WX 9100 and RTX 2080 compete in popular games:
- RTX 2080 is 59% faster in 1080p
- RTX 2080 is 55% faster in 1440p
- RTX 2080 is 60% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 64 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 29.15 | 44.44 |
| Recency | 10 July 2017 | 20 September 2018 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 16 GB | 8 GB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 230 Watt | 215 Watt |
PRO WX 9100 has a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.
RTX 2080, on the other hand, has a 52.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, a 16.7% more advanced lithography process, and 7% lower power consumption.
The GeForce RTX 2080 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon PRO WX 9100 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon PRO WX 9100 is a workstation graphics card while GeForce RTX 2080 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
