GeForce GTX 765M vs Radeon Pro WX 4150

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon Pro WX 4150 with GeForce GTX 765M, including specs and performance data.

Pro WX 4150
2017
4 GB GDDR5, 50 Watt
6.90
+32.7%

Pro WX 4150 outperforms GTX 765M by a substantial 33% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking558619
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency9.474.76
ArchitectureGCN 4.0 (2016−2020)Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code nameBaffinGK106
Market segmentMobile workstationLaptop
Release date1 March 2017 (7 years ago)30 May 2013 (11 years ago)

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 cores896768
Core clock speed1002 MHz850 MHz
Boost clock speed1053 MHz863 MHz
Number of transistors3,000 million2,540 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)50 Watt75 Watt
Texture fill rate58.9755.23
Floating-point processing power1.887 TFLOPS1.326 TFLOPS
ROPs1616
TMUs5664

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 sizemedium sizedlarge
Bus supportno dataPCI Express 3.0, PCI Express 2.0
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x8MXM-B (3.0)
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno data
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 amount4 GB2 GB
Standard memory configurationno dataGDDR5
Memory bus width128 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1500 MHz2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth96 GB/s64.0 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 ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs
eDP 1.2 signal supportno dataUp to 3840x2160
LVDS signal supportno dataUp to 1920x1200
VGA аnalog display supportno dataUp to 2048x1536
DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) supportno dataUp to 3840x2160
HDMI-+
HDCP content protection-+
7.1 channel HD audio on HDMI-+
TrueHD and DTS-HD audio bitstreaming-+

Supported technologies

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

FreeSync+-
Blu-Ray 3D Support-+
H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder-+
Optimus-+
3D Vision / 3DTV Play-+

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_0)12 API
Shader Model6.45.1
OpenGL4.64.5
OpenCL2.01.1
Vulkan1.2.1311.1.126
CUDA-+

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 4150 6.90
+32.7%
GTX 765M 5.20

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 4150 2658
+32.8%
GTX 765M 2001

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:

900p65−70
+27.5%
51
−27.5%
Full HD50−55
+28.2%
39
−28.2%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 10−12
+22.2%
9−10
−22.2%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 16−18
+21.4%
14−16
−21.4%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 9−10
+80%
5−6
−80%
Battlefield 5 18−20
+46.2%
12−14
−46.2%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 14−16
+27.3%
10−12
−27.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−12
+22.2%
9−10
−22.2%
Far Cry 5 14−16
+36.4%
10−12
−36.4%
Far Cry New Dawn 18−20
+35.7%
14−16
−35.7%
Forza Horizon 4 45−50
+36.4%
30−35
−36.4%
Hitman 3 12−14
+18.2%
10−12
−18.2%
Horizon Zero Dawn 40−45
+21.2%
30−35
−21.2%
Metro Exodus 18−20
+58.3%
12−14
−58.3%
Red Dead Redemption 2 18−20
+35.7%
14−16
−35.7%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 21−24
+27.8%
18−20
−27.8%
Watch Dogs: Legion 50−55
+12.8%
45−50
−12.8%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 16−18
+21.4%
14−16
−21.4%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 9−10
+80%
5−6
−80%
Battlefield 5 18−20
+46.2%
12−14
−46.2%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 14−16
+27.3%
10−12
−27.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−12
+22.2%
9−10
−22.2%
Far Cry 5 14−16
+36.4%
10−12
−36.4%
Far Cry New Dawn 18−20
+35.7%
14−16
−35.7%
Forza Horizon 4 45−50
+36.4%
30−35
−36.4%
Hitman 3 12−14
+18.2%
10−12
−18.2%
Horizon Zero Dawn 40−45
+21.2%
30−35
−21.2%
Metro Exodus 18−20
+58.3%
12−14
−58.3%
Red Dead Redemption 2 18−20
+35.7%
14−16
−35.7%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 21−24
+27.8%
18−20
−27.8%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 21−24
+16.7%
18−20
−16.7%
Watch Dogs: Legion 50−55
+12.8%
45−50
−12.8%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 16−18
+21.4%
14−16
−21.4%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 9−10
+80%
5−6
−80%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 14−16
+27.3%
10−12
−27.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−12
+22.2%
9−10
−22.2%
Far Cry 5 14−16
+36.4%
10−12
−36.4%
Forza Horizon 4 45−50
+36.4%
30−35
−36.4%
Hitman 3 12−14
+18.2%
10−12
−18.2%
Horizon Zero Dawn 40−45
+21.2%
30−35
−21.2%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 21−24
+27.8%
18−20
−27.8%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 21−24
+16.7%
18−20
−16.7%
Watch Dogs: Legion 50−55
+12.8%
45−50
−12.8%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 18−20
+35.7%
14−16
−35.7%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 12−14
+30%
10−11
−30%
Far Cry New Dawn 10−11
+25%
8−9
−25%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 2−3 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Far Cry 5 8−9
+33.3%
6−7
−33.3%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+91.7%
12−14
−91.7%
Hitman 3 10−11
+11.1%
9−10
−11.1%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
+25%
12−14
−25%
Metro Exodus 7−8
+133%
3−4
−133%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
+30.3%
30−35
−30.3%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14
+33.3%
9−10
−33.3%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
Far Cry New Dawn 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%
Hitman 3 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Horizon Zero Dawn 20−22
+150%
8−9
−150%
Metro Exodus 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1
Far Cry 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 7−8
+75%
4−5
−75%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 1−2 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%

This is how Pro WX 4150 and GTX 765M compete in popular games:

  • Pro WX 4150 is 27% faster in 900p
  • Pro WX 4150 is 28% faster in 1080p

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

  • in Hitman 3, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the Pro WX 4150 is 200% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Pro WX 4150 is ahead in 67 tests (99%)
  • there's a draw in 1 test (1%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 6.90 5.20
Recency 1 March 2017 30 May 2013
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 2 GB
Chip lithography 14 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 50 Watt 75 Watt

Pro WX 4150 has a 32.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 50% lower power consumption.

The Radeon Pro WX 4150 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 765M in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon Pro WX 4150 is a mobile workstation card while GeForce GTX 765M is a mobile workstation one.


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 4150
Radeon Pro WX 4150
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M
GeForce GTX 765M

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


3.8 21 vote

Rate Radeon Pro WX 4150 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 74 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 765M 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.