Radeon R7 250 vs PRO WX 2100

Place in the ranking	645	808
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	3.76	0.10
Power efficiency	9.41	2.89
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	$89

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

PRO WX 2100 has 3660% better value for money than R7 250.

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	384
Core clock speed	925 MHz	no data
Boost clock speed	1219 MHz	1050 MHz
Number of transistors	2,200 million	950 million
Manufacturing process technology	14 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	35 Watt	75 Watt
Texture fill rate	39.01	25.20
Floating-point processing power	1.248 TFLOPS	0.8064 TFLOPS
ROPs	16	8
TMUs	32	24

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	2-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.

AppAcceleration	-	+
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 4.79
+75.5%

R7 250 2.73

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
+75.5%

R7 250 1049

Gaming performance

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

Average FPS across all PC games

Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:

Full HD

30−35
+57.9%

−57.9%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

4.97
−6%

4.68

+6%

R7 250 has 6% lower cost per frame in 1080p

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	10−12 +37.5%	8−9 −37.5%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−11 +42.9%	7−8 −42.9%
Elden Ring	12−14 +117%	6−7 −117%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	14−16 +100%	7−8 −100%
Counter-Strike 2	10−12 +37.5%	8−9 −37.5%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−11 +42.9%	7−8 −42.9%
Forza Horizon 4	20−22 +53.8%	12−14 −53.8%
Metro Exodus	10−12 +120%	5−6 −120%
Red Dead Redemption 2	14−16 +50%	10−11 −50%
Valorant	12−14 +550%	2−3 −550%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	14−16 +100%	7−8 −100%
Counter-Strike 2	10−12 +37.5%	8−9 −37.5%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−11 +42.9%	7−8 −42.9%
Dota 2	16−18 +129%	7−8 −129%
Elden Ring	12−14 +117%	6−7 −117%
Far Cry 5	24−27 +50%	16−18 −50%
Fortnite	27−30 +86.7%	14−16 −86.7%
Forza Horizon 4	20−22 +53.8%	12−14 −53.8%
Grand Theft Auto V	16−18 +129%	7−8 −129%
Metro Exodus	10−12 +120%	5−6 −120%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	40−45 +64%	24−27 −64%
Red Dead Redemption 2	14−16 +50%	10−11 −50%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16−18 +60%	10−11 −60%
Valorant	12−14 +550%	2−3 −550%
World of Tanks	75−80 +61.2%	45−50 −61.2%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	14−16 +100%	7−8 −100%
Counter-Strike 2	10−12 +37.5%	8−9 −37.5%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−11 +42.9%	7−8 −42.9%
Dota 2	16−18 +129%	7−8 −129%
Far Cry 5	24−27 +50%	16−18 −50%
Forza Horizon 4	20−22 +53.8%	12−14 −53.8%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	40−45 +64%	24−27 −64%
Valorant	12−14 +550%	2−3 −550%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Elden Ring	5−6 +150%	2−3 −150%
Grand Theft Auto V	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	30−35 +68.4%	18−20 −68.4%
Red Dead Redemption 2	4−5 +100%	2−3 −100%
World of Tanks	30−35 +88.9%	18−20 −88.9%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	7−8 +250%	2−3 −250%
Counter-Strike 2	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 +25%	4−5 −25%
Far Cry 5	10−11 +42.9%	7−8 −42.9%
Forza Horizon 4	7−8 +600%	1−2 −600%
Metro Exodus	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	8−9 +33.3%	6−7 −33.3%
Valorant	12−14 +44.4%	9−10 −44.4%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2	16−18 +6.3%	16−18 −6.3%
Elden Ring	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Grand Theft Auto V	16−18 +6.7%	14−16 −6.7%
Metro Exodus	0−1	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	14−16 +75%	8−9 −75%
Red Dead Redemption 2	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16−18 +6.7%	14−16 −6.7%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	4−5 +100%	2−3 −100%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Dota 2	16−18 +6.3%	16−18 −6.3%
Far Cry 5	5−6 +150%	2−3 −150%
Fortnite	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Forza Horizon 4	4−5	0−1
Valorant	4−5 +33.3%	3−4 −33.3%

This is how PRO WX 2100 and R7 250 compete in popular games:

PRO WX 2100 is 58% faster in 1080p

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

in Forza Horizon 4, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the PRO WX 2100 is 600% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

PRO WX 2100 is ahead in 56 tests (97%)
there's a draw in 2 tests (3%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	4.79	2.73
Recency	4 June 2017	8 October 2013
Chip lithography	14 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	35 Watt	75 Watt

PRO WX 2100 has a 75.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 114.3% lower power consumption.

The Radeon PRO WX 2100 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 250 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon PRO WX 2100 is a workstation graphics card while Radeon R7 250 is a desktop one.

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