Quadro RTX 4000 Max-Q vs Radeon PRO WX 9100

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
Radeon Instinct MI25 Radeon Pro V320 Radeon Pro V320 MxGPU Radeon Pro V340 Radeon Pro V340 8 GB Radeon Pro V340 16 GB Radeon Pro V340 MxGPU Radeon Pro WX 8100 Radeon Pro WX 8200 Radeon PRO WX 9100 Radeon Vega Frontier Edition Radeon Vega Frontier Edition Watercooled
VS
Quadro RTX 4000 Mobile Quadro RTX 4000 Max-Q Quadro RTX 5000 Mobile Quadro RTX 5000 Max-Q Quadro RTX 5000 X2 Mobile

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon PRO WX 9100 with Quadro RTX 4000 Max-Q, including specs and performance data.

PRO WX 9100
2017
16 GB HBM2, 230 Watt
31.96

RTX 4000 Max-Q outperforms PRO WX 9100 by a minimal 2% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Contents

PRO WX 9100 PRO WX 9100
RTX 4000 Max-Q RTX 4000 Max-Q

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking182177
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation11.72no data
Power efficiency9.5327.90
ArchitectureGCN 5.0 (2017−2020)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameVega 10TU104
Market segmentWorkstationMobile workstation
Release date10 July 2017 (7 years ago)27 May 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$1,599 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

no data

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 cores40962560
Core clock speed1200 MHz780 MHz
Boost clock speed1500 MHz1380 MHz
Number of transistors12,500 million13,600 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)230 Watt80 Watt
Texture fill rate384.0220.8
Floating-point processing power12.29 TFLOPS7.066 TFLOPS
ROPs6464
TMUs256160
Tensor Coresno data320
Ray Tracing Coresno data40

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 sizeno datalarge
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Length267 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pinNone

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 typeHBM2GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount16 GB8 GB
Memory bus width2048 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed945 MHz1625 MHz
Memory bandwidth483.8 GB/s416.0 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 Connectors6x mini-DisplayPortNo outputs
G-SYNC support-+

Supported technologies

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

VR Readyno data+

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)12 Ultimate (12_1)
Shader Model6.46.5
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.01.2
Vulkan1.1.1251.2.131
CUDA-7.5
DLSS-+

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.

PRO WX 9100 31.96
RTX 4000 Max-Q 32.56
+1.9%

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 9100 12285
RTX 4000 Max-Q 12513
+1.9%

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 HD85−90
−2.4%
87
+2.4%
1440p45−50
−2.2%
46
+2.2%
4K45−50
−6.7%
48
+6.7%

Cost per frame, $

1080p18.81no data
1440p35.53no data
4K35.53no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Battlefield 5 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Far Cry 5 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%
Fortnite 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Valorant 190−200
+0%
190−200
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Battlefield 5 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 270−280
+0%
270−280
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Dota 2 107
+0%
107
+0%
Far Cry 5 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%
Fortnite 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Metro Exodus 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 115
+0%
115
+0%
Valorant 190−200
+0%
190−200
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Dota 2 101
+0%
101
+0%
Far Cry 5 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 63
+0%
63
+0%
Valorant 190−200
+0%
190−200
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 210−220
+0%
210−220
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Metro Exodus 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Valorant 220−230
+0%
220−230
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Far Cry 5 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Metro Exodus 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 36
+0%
36
+0%
Valorant 180−190
+0%
180−190
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Dota 2 65
+0%
65
+0%
Far Cry 5 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

This is how PRO WX 9100 and RTX 4000 Max-Q compete in popular games:

  • RTX 4000 Max-Q is 2% faster in 1080p
  • RTX 4000 Max-Q is 2% faster in 1440p
  • RTX 4000 Max-Q is 7% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 67 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score 31.96 32.56
Recency 10 July 2017 27 May 2019
Maximum RAM amount 16 GB 8 GB
Chip lithography 14 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 230 Watt 80 Watt

PRO WX 9100 has a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.

RTX 4000 Max-Q, on the other hand, has a 1.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, a 16.7% more advanced lithography process, and 187.5% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Radeon PRO WX 9100 and Quadro RTX 4000 Max-Q.

Be aware that Radeon PRO WX 9100 is a workstation card while Quadro RTX 4000 Max-Q is a mobile workstation one.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.

AMD Radeon PRO WX 9100
Radeon PRO WX 9100
NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 Max-Q
Quadro RTX 4000 Max-Q
Like
Like

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

PRO WX 9100 Radeon PRO WX 9100
vs
Tesla P40 Tesla P40
RTX 4000 Max-Q Quadro RTX 4000 Max-Q
vs
RTX A3000 Mobile RTX A3000 Mobile
PRO WX 9100 Radeon PRO WX 9100
vs
Pro 5700 XT Radeon Pro 5700 XT
9600M GT GeForce 9600M GT
vs
UHD Graphics 630 UHD Graphics 630
R4 Mobile Graphics Radeon R4 Mobile Graphics
vs
UHD Graphics 620 UHD Graphics 620
Pro Vega 48 Radeon Pro Vega 48
vs
Pro SSG Radeon Pro SSG
RTX 4090 Ti GeForce RTX 4090 Ti
vs
Quadro P5200 Quadro P5200
GTX 780 GeForce GTX 780
vs
RX Vega 56 Radeon RX Vega 56
Pro WX 9200 Radeon Pro WX 9200
vs
PRO WX 9100 Radeon PRO WX 9100
RTX 3050 Ti Max-Q GeForce RTX 3050 Ti Max-Q
vs
Tesla V100 PCIe Tesla V100 PCIe
RTX 2060 Super GeForce RTX 2060 Super
vs
Pro 560 Radeon Pro 560
GTX 1060 6 GB GeForce GTX 1060 6 GB
vs
Vega Frontier Edition Radeon Vega Frontier Edition
RX 7900 XTX Radeon RX 7900 XTX
vs
FX 1700 Quadro FX 1700

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.

3.8 33 votes

Rate Radeon PRO WX 9100 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4 24 votes

Rate Quadro RTX 4000 Max-Q on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon PRO WX 9100 or Quadro RTX 4000 Max-Q, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.