FirePro W4100 vs Radeon R7 350

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R7 350 with FirePro W4100, including specs and performance data.

R7 350
2016
2 GB GDDR5, 55 Watt
5.58
+42.3%

R7 350 outperforms W4100 by a considerable 42% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking597692
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency7.035.43
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2011−2020)GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)
GPU code nameCape VerdeCape Verde
Market segmentDesktopWorkstation
Release date6 July 2016 (8 years ago)13 August 2014 (10 years ago)

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 cores512512
Core clock speed800 MHz630 MHz
Number of transistors1,500 million1,500 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)55 Watt50 Watt
Texture fill rate25.6020.16
Floating-point processing power0.8192 TFLOPS0.6451 TFLOPS
ROPs1616
TMUs3232

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 supportno dataPCIe 3.0
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Length168 mm171 mm
Width1-slot1-slot
Form factorno datalow profile / half length
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone

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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount2 GB2 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1125 MHz1000 MHz
Memory bandwidth72 GB/s72 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 Connectors1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort4x mini-DisplayPort
HDMI+-
Dual-link DVI support-+

Supported technologies

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

AppAcceleration-+

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_1)12 (11_1)
Shader Model5.15.1
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan1.2.1311.2.131

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 HD24−27
+33.3%
18
−33.3%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Battlefield 5 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Far Cry 5 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Hitman 3 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Metro Exodus 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Battlefield 5 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Far Cry 5 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Hitman 3 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Metro Exodus 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Far Cry 5 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Hitman 3 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Far Cry 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Hitman 3 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Hitman 3 0−1 0−1
Metro Exodus 0−1 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

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

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

This is how R7 350 and FirePro W4100 compete in popular games:

  • R7 350 is 33% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 63 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 5.58 3.92
Recency 6 July 2016 13 August 2014
Power consumption (TDP) 55 Watt 50 Watt

R7 350 has a 42.3% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 1 year.

FirePro W4100, on the other hand, has 10% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R7 350 is our recommended choice as it beats the FirePro W4100 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R7 350 is a desktop card while FirePro W4100 is a workstation one.


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

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 R7 350
Radeon R7 350
AMD FirePro W4100
FirePro W4100

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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

Community ratings

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


3.8 474 votes

Rate Radeon R7 350 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.2 73 votes

Rate FirePro W4100 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.