AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 vs AMD Radeon R9 260 OEM
Comparative analysis of AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 and AMD Radeon R9 260 OEM videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory. 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 4100
- Videocard is newer: launch date 2 year(s) 10 month(s) later
- Around 2% higher core clock speed: 1125 MHz vs 1100 MHz
- Around 25% higher texture fill rate: 76.86 GTexel / s vs 61.6 GTexel / s
- Around 14% higher pipelines: 1024 vs 896
- Around 25% better floating-point performance: 2,460 gflops vs 1,971 gflops
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 14 nm vs 28 nm
- Around 70% lower typical power consumption: 50 Watt vs 85 Watt
- 4x more maximum memory size: 4 GB vs 1 GB
- Around 17% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 3718 vs 3182
- Around 12% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 656 vs 586
- Around 16% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 1123 vs 971
- Around 35% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 2678 vs 1980
- Around 16% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 1123 vs 971
- Around 35% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 2678 vs 1980
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Launch date | 10 November 2016 vs 21 December 2013 |
| Core clock speed | 1125 MHz vs 1100 MHz |
| Texture fill rate | 76.86 GTexel / s vs 61.6 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 1024 vs 896 |
| Floating-point performance | 2,460 gflops vs 1,971 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm vs 28 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 50 Watt vs 85 Watt |
| Maximum memory size | 4 GB vs 1 GB |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 3718 vs 3182 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 656 vs 586 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1123 vs 971 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 2678 vs 1980 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1123 vs 971 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 2678 vs 1980 |
Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon R9 260 OEM
- Around 8% higher memory clock speed: 6500 MHz vs 6000 MHz
| Memory clock speed | 6500 MHz vs 6000 MHz |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100
GPU 2: AMD Radeon R9 260 OEM
| PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
| PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
| Name | AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 | AMD Radeon R9 260 OEM |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 3718 | 3182 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 656 | 586 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 17774 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 55.077 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 830.773 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 4.132 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 82.584 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 225.985 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 5431 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1123 | 971 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 2678 | 1980 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 5431 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1123 | 971 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 2678 | 1980 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 | AMD Radeon R9 260 OEM | |
|---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
| Architecture | GCN 4.0 | GCN 2.0 |
| Code name | Baffin | Bonaire |
| Launch date | 10 November 2016 | 21 December 2013 |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $399 | |
| Place in performance rating | 588 | 573 |
| Price now | $259.99 | |
| Type | Workstation | Desktop |
| Value for money (0-100) | 19.63 | |
Technical info |
||
| Boost clock speed | 1201 MHz | |
| Core clock speed | 1125 MHz | 1100 MHz |
| Floating-point performance | 2,460 gflops | 1,971 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Pipelines | 1024 | 896 |
| Texture fill rate | 76.86 GTexel / s | 61.6 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 50 Watt | 85 Watt |
| Transistor count | 3,000 million | 2,080 million |
Video outputs and ports |
||
| Display Connectors | 4x mini-DisplayPort | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 2x mini-DisplayPort |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 1x 6-pin |
| Length | 183 mm | |
API support |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (12_0) | 12.0 (12_0) |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.5 |
Memory |
||
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bandwidth | 96 GB / s | 104.0 GB / s |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 6000 MHz | 6500 MHz |
| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
Navigation
Choose a GPU
Compare videocards
Compare AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 with others
AMDRadeon Pro WX 4100 vs
ATIAll-In-Wonder X1800 XL
AMDRadeon Pro WX 4100 vs
NVIDIAGeForce 7350 LE
AMDRadeon Pro WX 4100 vs
ATIFireMV 2400 PCIe x1
AMDRadeon Pro WX 4100 vs
ATIFirePro M7740
AMDRadeon Pro WX 4100 vs
AMDRadeon HD 7970M
AMDRadeon Pro WX 4100 vs
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 760
