Radeon RX 560X Mobile vs PRO WX 2100
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon PRO WX 2100 with Radeon RX 560X Mobile, including specs and performance data.
RX 560X Mobile outperforms PRO WX 2100 by a whopping 132% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
Place in the ranking | 638 | 423 |
Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 4.06 | no data |
Power efficiency | 9.43 | 11.77 |
Architecture | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) |
GPU code name | Lexa | Polaris 21 |
Market segment | Workstation | Laptop |
Release date | 4 June 2017 (7 years ago) | 11 April 2018 (6 years ago) |
Launch price (MSRP) | $149 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
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 | 1024 |
Core clock speed | 925 MHz | 1275 MHz |
Boost clock speed | 1219 MHz | 1202 MHz |
Number of transistors | 2,200 million | 3,000 million |
Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 14 nm |
Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 65 Watt |
Texture fill rate | 39.01 | 81.60 |
Floating-point processing power | 1.248 TFLOPS | 2.611 TFLOPS |
ROPs | 16 | 16 |
TMUs | 32 | 64 |
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).
Laptop size | no data | large |
Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | MXM-B (3.0) |
Length | 168 mm | no data |
Width | 1-slot | no data |
Supplementary power connectors | None | no data |
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 | 4 GB |
Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 128 Bit |
Memory clock speed | 1500 MHz | 1450 MHz |
Memory bandwidth | 48 GB/s | 92.8 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 | No outputs |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
FreeSync | + | + |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 (12_0) |
Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.4 |
OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
OpenCL | 2.0 | 2.0 |
Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.2.131 |
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 | 14−16
−143%
| 34
+143%
|
Cost per frame, $
1080p | 10.64 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
−188%
|
23
+188%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 12−14
−92.3%
|
25
+92.3%
|
Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 5−6
−500%
|
30
+500%
|
Battlefield 5 | 12−14
−308%
|
49
+308%
|
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 10−11
−120%
|
21−24
+120%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
−113%
|
17
+113%
|
Far Cry 5 | 10−11
−250%
|
35
+250%
|
Far Cry New Dawn | 12−14
−223%
|
42
+223%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 30−33
−263%
|
109
+263%
|
Hitman 3 | 10−11
−140%
|
24
+140%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 30−35
−93.5%
|
60−65
+93.5%
|
Metro Exodus | 10−12
−309%
|
45
+309%
|
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 12−14
−262%
|
47
+262%
|
Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 16−18
−229%
|
56
+229%
|
Watch Dogs: Legion | 45−50
−48.9%
|
65−70
+48.9%
|
Full HD
High Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 12−14
−277%
|
49
+277%
|
Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 5−6
−320%
|
21
+320%
|
Battlefield 5 | 12−14
−200%
|
36
+200%
|
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 10−11
−120%
|
21−24
+120%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
−87.5%
|
15
+87.5%
|
Far Cry 5 | 10−11
−190%
|
29
+190%
|
Far Cry New Dawn | 12−14
−115%
|
28
+115%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 30−33
−250%
|
105
+250%
|
Hitman 3 | 10−11
−130%
|
23
+130%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 30−35
−93.5%
|
60−65
+93.5%
|
Metro Exodus | 10−12
−227%
|
36
+227%
|
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 12−14
−138%
|
30−35
+138%
|
Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 16−18
−147%
|
42
+147%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
−70.6%
|
27−30
+70.6%
|
Watch Dogs: Legion | 45−50
−48.9%
|
65−70
+48.9%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 12−14
−23.1%
|
16
+23.1%
|
Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 5−6
−240%
|
16−18
+240%
|
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 10−11
−120%
|
21−24
+120%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
−62.5%
|
13
+62.5%
|
Far Cry 5 | 10−11
−110%
|
21
+110%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 30−33
−26.7%
|
38
+26.7%
|
Hitman 3 | 10−11
−110%
|
21
+110%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 30−35
−93.5%
|
60−65
+93.5%
|
Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 16−18
−118%
|
37
+118%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
−29.4%
|
22
+29.4%
|
Watch Dogs: Legion | 45−50
+309%
|
11
−309%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 12−14
−131%
|
30
+131%
|
1440p
High Preset
Battlefield 5 | 9−10
−144%
|
21−24
+144%
|
Far Cry New Dawn | 7−8
−143%
|
16−18
+143%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 4−5
−175%
|
10−12
+175%
|
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 4−5
−175%
|
10−12
+175%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
Far Cry 5 | 5−6
−160%
|
12−14
+160%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
−478%
|
50−55
+478%
|
Hitman 3 | 9−10
−55.6%
|
14−16
+55.6%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 10−12
−109%
|
21−24
+109%
|
Metro Exodus | 2−3
−750%
|
16−18
+750%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−175%
|
10−12
+175%
|
Watch Dogs: Legion | 30−33
−133%
|
70−75
+133%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 9−10
−100%
|
18−20
+100%
|
4K
High Preset
Battlefield 5 | 3−4
−233%
|
10−11
+233%
|
Far Cry New Dawn | 3−4
−167%
|
8−9
+167%
|
Hitman 3 | 1−2
−600%
|
7−8
+600%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 5−6
−900%
|
50−55
+900%
|
Metro Exodus | 1−2
−800%
|
9−10
+800%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−800%
|
9−10
+800%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 3−4
−100%
|
6−7
+100%
|
Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 1−2 |
Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−200%
|
6−7
+200%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−250%
|
14−16
+250%
|
Watch Dogs: Legion | 1−2
−300%
|
4−5
+300%
|
4K
Epic Preset
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 5−6
−100%
|
10−11
+100%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
This is how PRO WX 2100 and RX 560X Mobile compete in popular games:
- RX 560X Mobile is 143% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the PRO WX 2100 is 309% faster.
- in Horizon Zero Dawn, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the RX 560X Mobile is 900% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- PRO WX 2100 is ahead in 1 test (1%)
- RX 560X Mobile is ahead in 67 tests (94%)
- there's a draw in 3 tests (4%)
Pros & cons summary
Performance score | 4.77 | 11.05 |
Recency | 4 June 2017 | 11 April 2018 |
Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 4 GB |
Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 65 Watt |
PRO WX 2100 has 85.7% lower power consumption.
RX 560X Mobile, on the other hand, has a 131.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 months, and a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.
The Radeon RX 560X Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon PRO WX 2100 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon PRO WX 2100 is a workstation card while Radeon RX 560X Mobile is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.