AMD Radeon Pro WX 4150 Mobile vs AMD Radeon R9 360 OEM
Comparative analysis of AMD Radeon Pro WX 4150 Mobile and AMD Radeon R9 360 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 4150 Mobile
- Videocard is newer: launch date 1 year(s) 9 month(s) later
- Around 17% higher texture fill rate: 58.97 GTexel / s vs 50.4 GTexel / s
- Around 17% higher pipelines: 896 vs 768
- Around 17% better floating-point performance: 1,887 gflops vs 1,613 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
- 2x more maximum memory size: 4 GB vs 2 GB
- 3.6x better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 51217 vs 14269
- Around 18% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 46.158 vs 39.283
- Around 7% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 876.241 vs 815.354
- Around 16% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 3.983 vs 3.437
- Around 1% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 64.599 vs 63.718
- Around 13% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 194.258 vs 171.258
- Around 94% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 6466 vs 3340
- Around 94% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 6466 vs 3340
Specifications (specs) | |
Launch date | 1 March 2017 vs 5 May 2015 |
Core clock speed | 1002 MHz vs 1000 MHz |
Boost clock speed | 1053 MHz vs 1050 MHz |
Texture fill rate | 58.97 GTexel / s vs 50.4 GTexel / s |
Pipelines | 896 vs 768 |
Floating-point performance | 1,887 gflops vs 1,613 gflops |
Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm vs 28 nm |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 50 Watt vs 85 Watt |
Maximum memory size | 4 GB vs 2 GB |
Benchmarks | |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 51217 vs 14269 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 46.158 vs 39.283 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 876.241 vs 815.354 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 3.983 vs 3.437 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 64.599 vs 63.718 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 194.258 vs 171.258 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 6466 vs 3340 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 6466 vs 3340 |
Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon R9 360 OEM
- Around 8% higher memory clock speed: 6500 MHz vs 6000 MHz
- Around 14% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 3032 vs 2659
- Around 12% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 460 vs 410
- Around 35% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 4468 vs 3301
- Around 76% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3667 vs 2086
- Around 35% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 4468 vs 3301
- Around 76% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3667 vs 2086
Specifications (specs) | |
Memory clock speed | 6500 MHz vs 6000 MHz |
Benchmarks | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 3032 vs 2659 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 460 vs 410 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 4468 vs 3301 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3667 vs 2086 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 4468 vs 3301 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3667 vs 2086 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: AMD Radeon Pro WX 4150 Mobile
GPU 2: AMD Radeon R9 360 OEM
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) |
|
|
Name | AMD Radeon Pro WX 4150 Mobile | AMD Radeon R9 360 OEM |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 2659 | 3032 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 410 | 460 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 51217 | 14269 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 46.158 | 39.283 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 876.241 | 815.354 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 3.983 | 3.437 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 64.599 | 63.718 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 194.258 | 171.258 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 3301 | 4468 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 2086 | 3667 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 6466 | 3340 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 3301 | 4468 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 2086 | 3667 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 6466 | 3340 |
Compare specifications (specs)
AMD Radeon Pro WX 4150 Mobile | AMD Radeon R9 360 OEM | |
---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
Architecture | GCN 4.0 | GCN 2.0 |
Code name | Baffin | Tobago |
Launch date | 1 March 2017 | 5 May 2015 |
Place in performance rating | 662 | 664 |
Type | Workstation | Desktop |
Technical info |
||
Boost clock speed | 1053 MHz | 1050 MHz |
Core clock speed | 1002 MHz | 1000 MHz |
Floating-point performance | 1,887 gflops | 1,613 gflops |
Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 28 nm |
Pipelines | 896 | 768 |
Texture fill rate | 58.97 GTexel / s | 50.4 GTexel / s |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 50 Watt | 85 Watt |
Transistor count | 3,000 million | 2,080 million |
Video outputs and ports |
||
Display Connectors | No outputs | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 2x mini-DisplayPort |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
Length | 165 mm | |
Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin | |
API support |
||
DirectX | 12.0 (12_0) | 12.0 (12_0) |
OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.5 |
Memory |
||
Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 2 GB |
Memory bandwidth | 112.0 GB / s | 104.0 GB / s |
Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
Memory clock speed | 6000 MHz | 6500 MHz |
Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |