GeForce GTX 295 vs Radeon PRO WX 2100
Find out if it is worth upgrading your current GPU setup by comparing GeForce GTX 295 and Radeon PRO WX 2100. Here you can take a closer look at graphics cards specs, such as core clock speed, memory type and size, display connectors, etc. The price, overall benchmark and gaming performances are usually defining factors when it comes to choosing between GeForce GTX 295 and Radeon PRO WX 2100. Make sure that the graphics card has compatible dimensions and will properly fit in your new or current computer case. Also these graphics cards may have different system power recommendations, so take that into consideration and upgrade your PSU if necessary.
GeForce GTX 295
Radeon PRO WX 2100 is a Laptop Graphics Card
Note: Radeon PRO WX 2100 is only used in laptop graphics. It has lower GPU clock speed compared to the desktop variant, which results in lower power consumption, but also 10-30% lower gaming performance. Check available laptop models with Radeon PRO WX 2100 here:
Main Specs
| GeForce GTX 295 | Radeon PRO WX 2100 | |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 289 Watt | 35 Watt |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
| Supplementary power connectors | 6-pin & 8-pin | None |
| Memory type | GDDR3 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1792 MB | 2 GB |
| Display Connectors | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI | 1x DisplayPort, 2x mini-DisplayPort |
| Check Price |
- GeForce GTX 295 has 725% more power consumption, than Radeon PRO WX 2100.
- GeForce GTX 295 is connected by PCIe 2.0 x16, and Radeon PRO WX 2100 uses PCIe 3.0 x8 interface.
- GeForce GTX 295 has 1790 GB more memory, than Radeon PRO WX 2100.
- GeForce GTX 295 is used in Desktops, and Radeon PRO WX 2100 - in Mobile workstations.
- GeForce GTX 295 is build with Tesla 2.0 architecture, and Radeon PRO WX 2100 - with Polaris.
- GeForce GTX 295 is manufactured by 55 nm process technology, and Radeon PRO WX 2100 - by 14 nm process technology.
- Memory clock speed of Radeon PRO WX 2100 is 5001 MHz higher, than GeForce GTX 295.
Game benchmarks
| high / 1080p | 3−4 | 7−8 |
| ultra / 1080p | 2−3 | 4−5 |
| QHD / 1440p | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| low / 720p | 14−16 | 18−20 |
| medium / 1080p | 5−6 | 9−10 |
| The average gaming FPS of Radeon PRO WX 2100 in Assassin's Creed Odyssey is 66% more, than GeForce GTX 295. | ||
| high / 1080p | − | 12−14 |
| ultra / 1080p | 7−8 | 10−12 |
| QHD / 1440p | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| low / 720p | 18−20 | 27−30 |
| medium / 1080p | 8−9 | 14−16 |
| The average gaming FPS of Radeon PRO WX 2100 in Battlefield 5 is 63% more, than GeForce GTX 295. | ||
| low / 768p | 45−50 | 45−50 |
| high / 1080p | 30−35 | 45−50 |
| QHD / 1440p | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| The average gaming FPS of Radeon PRO WX 2100 in Call of Duty: Warzone is 17% more, than GeForce GTX 295. | ||
| low / 768p | 120−130 | 140−150 |
| medium / 768p | 90−95 | 110−120 |
| ultra / 1080p | 40−45 | 55−60 |
| QHD / 1440p | 24−27 | 30−35 |
| 4K / 2160p | 18−20 | 27−30 |
| high / 768p | 65−70 | 85−90 |
| The average gaming FPS of Radeon PRO WX 2100 in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive is 24% more, than GeForce GTX 295. | ||
| low / 768p | 80−85 | 55−60 |
| ultra / 1080p | 14−16 | 21−24 |
| medium / 1080p | 40−45 | 45−50 |
| The average gaming FPS of GeForce GTX 295 in Cyberpunk 2077 is 9% more, than Radeon PRO WX 2100. | ||
| low / 768p | 75−80 | 85−90 |
| medium / 768p | 50−55 | 60−65 |
| ultra / 1080p | 27−30 | 35−40 |
| The average gaming FPS of Radeon PRO WX 2100 in Dota 2 is 19% more, than GeForce GTX 295. | ||
| high / 1080p | 5−6 | 9−10 |
| ultra / 1080p | − | 8−9 |
| 4K / 2160p | 2−3 | 4−5 |
| low / 720p | 14−16 | 21−24 |
| medium / 1080p | 6−7 | 10−11 |
| The average gaming FPS of Radeon PRO WX 2100 in Far Cry 5 is 57% more, than GeForce GTX 295. | ||
| high / 1080p | 12−14 | 16−18 |
| ultra / 1080p | 7−8 | 10−12 |
| low / 720p | 50−55 | 65−70 |
| medium / 1080p | 14−16 | 24−27 |
| The average gaming FPS of Radeon PRO WX 2100 in Fortnite is 36% more, than GeForce GTX 295. | ||
| high / 1080p | 7−8 | 14−16 |
| ultra / 1080p | − | 12−14 |
| QHD / 1440p | 0−1 | 2−3 |
| low / 720p | 20−22 | 27−30 |
| medium / 1080p | 9−10 | 14−16 |
| The average gaming FPS of Radeon PRO WX 2100 in Forza Horizon 4 is 58% more, than GeForce GTX 295. | ||
| low / 768p | 45−50 | 55−60 |
| medium / 768p | − | 50−55 |
| high / 1080p | 8−9 | 14−16 |
| ultra / 1080p | 5−6 | 7−8 |
| QHD / 1440p | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| medium / 720p | 40−45 | − |
| The average gaming FPS of Radeon PRO WX 2100 in Grand Theft Auto V is 30% more, than GeForce GTX 295. | ||
| high / 1080p | 3−4 | 5−6 |
| ultra / 1080p | 1−2 | 3−4 |
| 4K / 2160p | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| low / 720p | 8−9 | 14−16 |
| medium / 1080p | 4−5 | 7−8 |
| The average gaming FPS of Radeon PRO WX 2100 in Metro Exodus is 75% more, than GeForce GTX 295. | ||
| low / 768p | 85−90 | 95−100 |
| high / 1080p | 85−90 | 90−95 |
| ultra / 1080p | 80−85 | 80−85 |
| medium / 1080p | 85−90 | 95−100 |
| The average gaming FPS of Radeon PRO WX 2100 in Minecraft is 6% more, than GeForce GTX 295. | ||
| high / 1080p | − | 16−18 |
| ultra / 1080p | 12−14 | 14−16 |
| low / 720p | 27−30 | 35−40 |
| medium / 1080p | 14−16 | 18−20 |
| The average gaming FPS of Radeon PRO WX 2100 in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS is 27% more, than GeForce GTX 295. | ||
| ultra / 1080p | 7−8 | 8−9 |
| QHD / 1440p | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| low / 720p | 8−9 | 14−16 |
| medium / 1080p | − | 10−12 |
| The average gaming FPS of Radeon PRO WX 2100 in Red Dead Redemption 2 is 37% more, than GeForce GTX 295. | ||
| low / 768p | 16−18 | 27−30 |
| medium / 768p | 12−14 | 18−20 |
| high / 1080p | 6−7 | 10−11 |
| ultra / 1080p | 5−6 | 7−8 |
| 4K / 2160p | − | 6−7 |
| The average gaming FPS of Radeon PRO WX 2100 in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt is 60% more, than GeForce GTX 295. | ||
| low / 768p | 70−75 | 85−90 |
| medium / 768p | 35−40 | 45−50 |
| ultra / 1080p | 16−18 | 21−24 |
| high / 768p | 30−35 | 35−40 |
| The average gaming FPS of Radeon PRO WX 2100 in World of Tanks is 23% more, than GeForce GTX 295. | ||
Full Specs
| GeForce GTX 295 | Radeon PRO WX 2100 | |
| Architecture | Tesla 2.0 | Polaris |
| Code name | GT200B | Polaris 12 |
| Type | Desktop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 8 January 2009 | 21 March 2018 |
| Pipelines | 240 | 512 |
| Core clock speed | 1242 MHz | |
| Boost Clock | 1219 MHz | |
| Transistor count | 1,400 million | 2,200 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 55 nm | 14 nm |
| Texture fill rate | 92.2 billion/sec | 39.01 |
| Floating-point performance | 2x 596.2 gflops | 1,248 gflops |
| Length | 10.5" (267 mm) (26.7 cm) | |
| Memory bus width | 896 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 999 MHz | 6000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 223.8 GB/s | 48 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | |
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_0) | 12 (12_0) |
| Shader Model | 4.0 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 2.1 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | + | |
| FreeSync | + | |
| CUDA cores | 480 | |
| Height | 4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm) | |
| SLI options | + | |
| Multi monitor support | + | |
| HDMI | + | |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | |
| Audio input for HDMI | S/PDIF | |
| Laptop size | large | |
| CUDA cores per GPU | 240 | |
| Standard memory config per GPU | 896 MB | |
| Memory interface width per GPU | 448 Bit | |
| High Dynamic-Range Lighting (HDRR) | 128bit | |
| Check Price |