Radeon R7 240 vs PRO WX 2100

Place in the ranking	643	850
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	4.00	0.16
Power efficiency	9.41	5.35
Architecture	GCN 4.0 (2016−2020)	GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)
GPU code name	Lexa	Oland
Market segment	Workstation	Desktop
Design	no data	reference
Release date	4 June 2017 (7 years ago)	8 October 2013 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$149	$69

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

PRO WX 2100 has 2400% better value for money than R7 240.

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores	512	320
Core clock speed	925 MHz	no data
Boost clock speed	1219 MHz	780 MHz
Number of transistors	2,200 million	950 million
Manufacturing process technology	14 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	35 Watt	50 Watt
Texture fill rate	39.01	14.00
Floating-point processing power	1.248 TFLOPS	0.448 TFLOPS
ROPs	16	8
TMUs	32	20

Form factor & compatibility

Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).

Bus support	no data	PCIe 3.0
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x8	PCIe 3.0 x8
Length	168 mm	168 mm
Width	1-slot	1-slot
Supplementary power connectors	None	N/A

VRAM capacity and type

Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.

Memory type	GDDR5	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	2 GB
Memory bus width	64 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	1500 MHz	1150 MHz
Memory bandwidth	48 GB/s	72 GB/s
Shared memory	-	-

Connectivity and outputs

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display Connectors	1x DisplayPort, 2x mini-DisplayPort	1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA
HDMI	-	+

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

CrossFire	-	+
FreeSync	+	+
DDMA audio	no data	+

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX	12 (12_0)	DirectX® 12
Shader Model	6.4	5.1
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	2.0	1.2
Vulkan	1.2.131	-

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.

Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

PRO WX 2100 4.78
+106%

R7 240 2.32

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

PRO WX 2100 1841
+105%

R7 240 896

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

8−9
+167%

3−4

−167%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	12−14 +117%	6−7 −117%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	5−6 +150%	2−3 −150%
Battlefield 5	12−14 +140%	5−6 −140%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10−11 +150%	4−5 −150%
Cyberpunk 2077	8−9 +167%	3−4 −167%
Far Cry 5	10−11 +150%	4−5 −150%
Far Cry New Dawn	12−14 +117%	6−7 −117%
Forza Horizon 4	30−33 +114%	14−16 −114%
Hitman 3	10−11 +150%	4−5 −150%
Horizon Zero Dawn	30−35 +121%	14−16 −121%
Metro Exodus	10−12 +120%	5−6 −120%
Red Dead Redemption 2	12−14 +117%	6−7 −117%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	16−18 +113%	8−9 −113%
Watch Dogs: Legion	45−50 +114%	21−24 −114%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	12−14 +117%	6−7 −117%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	5−6 +150%	2−3 −150%
Battlefield 5	12−14 +140%	5−6 −140%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10−11 +150%	4−5 −150%
Cyberpunk 2077	8−9 +167%	3−4 −167%
Far Cry 5	10−11 +150%	4−5 −150%
Far Cry New Dawn	12−14 +117%	6−7 −117%
Forza Horizon 4	30−33 +114%	14−16 −114%
Hitman 3	10−11 +150%	4−5 −150%
Horizon Zero Dawn	30−35 +121%	14−16 −121%
Metro Exodus	10−12 +120%	5−6 −120%
Red Dead Redemption 2	12−14 +117%	6−7 −117%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	16−18 +113%	8−9 −113%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16−18 +113%	8−9 −113%
Watch Dogs: Legion	45−50 +114%	21−24 −114%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	12−14 +117%	6−7 −117%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	5−6 +150%	2−3 −150%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10−11 +150%	4−5 −150%
Cyberpunk 2077	8−9 +167%	3−4 −167%
Far Cry 5	10−11 +150%	4−5 −150%
Forza Horizon 4	30−33 +114%	14−16 −114%
Hitman 3	10−11 +150%	4−5 −150%
Horizon Zero Dawn	30−35 +121%	14−16 −121%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	16−18 +113%	8−9 −113%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16−18 +113%	8−9 −113%
Watch Dogs: Legion	45−50 +114%	21−24 −114%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

12−14

+117%

6−7
−117%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	9−10 +125%	4−5 −125%
Far Cry New Dawn	7−8 +133%	3−4 −133%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3	0−1
Far Cry 5	5−6 +150%	2−3 −150%
Forza Horizon 4	9−10 +125%	4−5 −125%
Hitman 3	9−10 +125%	4−5 −125%
Horizon Zero Dawn	10−12 +120%	5−6 −120%
Metro Exodus	2−3	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−33 +114%	14−16 −114%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

9−10
+125%

4−5

−125%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Far Cry New Dawn	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Hitman 3	1−2	0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn	5−6 +150%	2−3 −150%
Metro Exodus	1−2	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	1−2	0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	2−3	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	0−1	0−1
Far Cry 5	2−3	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Watch Dogs: Legion	1−2	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

5−6
+150%

2−3

−150%

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	4.78	2.32
Recency	4 June 2017	8 October 2013
Chip lithography	14 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	35 Watt	50 Watt

PRO WX 2100 has a 106% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 42.9% lower power consumption.

The Radeon PRO WX 2100 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 240 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon PRO WX 2100 is a workstation graphics card while Radeon R7 240 is a desktop one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.