AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 vs ATI Radeon HD 4250
Comparative analysis of AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 and ATI Radeon HD 4250 videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory, Technologies. Benchmark videocards performance analysis: PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark, Geekbench - OpenCL, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps).
Differences
Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200
- Videocard is newer: launch date 10 year(s) 3 month(s) later
- Around 56% higher core clock speed: 925 MHz vs 594 MHz
- 14570.7x more texture fill rate: 34.62 GTexel/s vs 2.376 GTexel / s
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 14 nm vs 55 nm
- 8x more maximum memory size: 4 GB vs 512 MB
- 5.1x more memory clock speed: 4000 MHz vs 792 MHz
- 19.5x better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 2398 vs 123
- Around 1% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 411 vs 408
- 4.3x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3352 vs 782
- 4.3x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3352 vs 782
Specifications (specs) | |
Launch date | 27 May 2019 vs 25 February 2009 |
Core clock speed | 925 MHz vs 594 MHz |
Texture fill rate | 34.62 GTexel/s vs 2.376 GTexel / s |
Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm vs 55 nm |
Maximum memory size | 4 GB vs 512 MB |
Memory clock speed | 4000 MHz vs 792 MHz |
Benchmarks | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 2398 vs 123 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 411 vs 408 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3352 vs 782 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3352 vs 782 |
Reasons to consider the ATI Radeon HD 4250
- 2.6x lower typical power consumption: 25 Watt vs 65 Watt
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 25 Watt vs 65 Watt |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200
GPU 2: ATI Radeon HD 4250
PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
Name | AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 | ATI Radeon HD 4250 |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 2398 | 123 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 411 | 408 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 14219 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 25.896 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 486.804 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 2.503 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 53.111 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 100.658 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 2524 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3274 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3352 | 782 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2524 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3274 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3352 | 782 |
Compare specifications (specs)
AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 | ATI Radeon HD 4250 | |
---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
Architecture | Polaris | TeraScale |
Code name | Lexa | RV620 |
Launch date | 27 May 2019 | 25 February 2009 |
Launch price (MSRP) | $199 | |
Place in performance rating | 841 | 839 |
Type | Workstation | Laptop |
Technical info |
||
Boost clock speed | 1082 MHz | |
Compute units | 10 | |
Core clock speed | 925 MHz | 594 MHz |
Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 55 nm |
Peak Double Precision (FP64) Performance | 86.56 GFLOPS | |
Peak Half Precision (FP16) Performance | 1,385 GFLOPS | |
Peak Single Precision (FP32) Performance | 1,385 GFLOPS | |
Pixel fill rate | 17.31 GPixel/s | |
Stream Processors | 640 | |
Texture fill rate | 34.62 GTexel/s | 2.376 GTexel / s |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 65 Watt | 25 Watt |
Transistor count | 2200 million | 181 million |
Floating-point performance | 47.52 gflops | |
Pipelines | 40 | |
Video outputs and ports |
||
Display Connectors | 4x mini-DisplayPort | 1x DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-Video |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
Height | Half Height | |
Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
Length | 6.6" (168 mm) | |
Supplementary power connectors | None | None |
API support |
||
DirectX | 12.0 | 10.1 |
OpenCL | 2.0 | |
OpenGL | 4.6 | 3.3 |
Shader Model | 6.4 | |
Vulkan | ||
Memory |
||
Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 512 MB |
Memory bandwidth | 96 GB/s | 6.34 GB / s |
Memory bus width | 128 bit | |
Memory clock speed | 4000 MHz | 792 MHz |
Memory type | GDDR5 | |
Shared memory | yes | |
Technologies |
||
AMD Eyefinity | ||
Unified Video Decoder (UVD) | ||
Video Code Engine (VCE) | ||
HDCP support | ||
PCI-E 2.0 |