Interestingly, the WX 3100 is the higher-clocked part of the two, peaking 36MHz higher.In its marketing slides, AMD pits its WX 3100 (I unfortunately do not have a Quadro P600 to test AMD’s latest cards against, but there is a huge amount of performance information nonetheless that should prove useful in helping you figure out which one of the lower-end options are best for you.Before jumping into the performance results, I’d encourage you to look over our system specs and basic testing methodologies:On the following pages, I’ll be putting AMD’s Radeon Pro WX 3100 through a gauntlet of real-world and synthetic tests, utilizing apps from Autodesk, Adobe, SPEC, SiSoftware, and a handful of others (including light gaming tests for good measure).All tests are run at least twice to produce an accurate result, and if for some reason an odd result creeps up, I do a third run. We’re about to give the fastest model, the Radeon Pro WX 7100, a real workout.It's time to explore performance using a number of real-world applications and just a handful of synthetics. So on page 4, SPECviewperf helps us gain an understanding of viewport performance across 9 different applications, while SPECwpc breaks down each GPU’s benefits across five scenarios.
Here, the HP Z640 with the ATI WX 3100 showed decent performance, coming in below the M2000, but for the half the price.AMD bills the new Radeon Pro WX 2100 and WX 3100 as graphics cards that meet entry-level performance needs. Both of these cards are entry-level, but you’ll need to ask yourself whether or not that 2GB framebuffer would become an impedance in your workflow before choosing it over the WX 3100.That all said, cutting the VRAM on the WX 2100 also reduces its power consumption, bringing the TDP from “up to” 50W down to 35W. Not only did they act upon our feedback in Creo 3.0, but they also solved more recent issues with SolidWorks and FSAA. The WX 3100 includes three outputs (1xDP, 2x mini DP 1.4) capable of driving three 4K displays at 60Hz or one 5K 30Hz.To test the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100, we installed it in our desktop workstation, an Looking at drawtime, the WX measured 9.31 seconds, compared to 6.262 seconds of the M2000. Page 3 is home to an encode and CAD test, thanks to Adobe’s Premiere Pro CC 2017 and two 4K projects, and also Autodesk’s AutoCAD 2016, exercised through the use of the excellent Cadalyst benchmark.SPEC produces so many benchmarks worthy of inclusion in our workstation GPU content, that it’s earned itself its own page. NY 10036.
Not just in terms of the $199 MSRP for the WX 3100, but also the fact that they offer a three year warranty (7 optional) with 24/7 local language support and a commitment to quarterly feature, performance and stability improvements. SPECapc 3ds Max 2015 and Maya 2012 finish the page up with exhaustive tests in their namesake Autodesk products.Like SPEC, Sandra’s test suite is large, so page 5 is dedicated to four of its tests: Cryptography, Financial Analysis, Scientific Analysis, as well as memory bandwidth. One example is SolidWorks 2016, which we tested both with and without FSAA in the SPECapc workload:Whether you use anti-aliasing or not, the differences between a Radeon Pro WX 7100 and Quadro M4000 are small. Even though I'm working with very limited space and power delivery, I don't want to give up on games altogether, since I still fire up one here or there. Those could be compared to results of other cards.
You will receive a verification email shortly.There was a problem. PLEASE WHITELIST US. It’s the beefier of the two cards we’re taking a look at here – a low-profile option that sips little power, and sits quiet while it works away.Last month, AMD filled out its Polaris-based Radeon Pro line with the WX 3100 and WX 2100.
Our suite chews up nearly 11 hours per card, since we run each test three times. Aside from a handful of hardware-accelerated filters or plug-ins, the answer is almost certainly no, since these numbers reflect a host processing bottleneck that keeps all four contenders close to each other.This relative balance is reflected in the individual application results, which compose the overall score.SPECviewperf 12 is based on real-world tasks, but it's somewhat synthetic because uncertainties and unpredictable workloads are excluded. Benchmarks are helpful, but not the whole story. These nearly identical cards differ themselves by their framebuffer: 4GB vs. 2GB. The going gets tough at 5K, though; here, the cards will handle just a single monitor, limited to 30Hz. Maybe (most likely) not to the same extent as the RX series, but still.Unfortunately, I was unable to find any information regarding actual gaming performance or benchmarks in general. And… Back to the WX 3100. AMD says that its WX 3100 redefines entry-level workstation graphics, whereas the WX 2100 is a good complement to those just beginning their “journey” into pro graphics. If it weren’t for … This wasn't always the case. If you’re at all familiar with the Radeon Pro line, then you’ll know right away that these are both low-end workstation graphics cards – something further backed by their pricing: $199 for the WX 3100, and $149 for the WX 2100.On the surface, the WX 3100 and WX 2100 look identical, and the same can be said for most of their specs.