Radeon Pro WX 4100 vs R9 M290X Crossfire

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 M290X Crossfire with Radeon Pro WX 4100, including specs and performance data.

R9 M290X Crossfire
2014
2x 4 GB GDDR5, 200 Watt
19.05
+101%

R9 M290X Crossfire outperforms Pro WX 4100 by a whopping 101% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking302473
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data3.67
Power efficiency6.5513.07
ArchitectureGCN (2012−2015)GCN 4.0 (2016−2020)
GPU code nameNeptune CFBaffin
Market segmentLaptopWorkstation
Release date1 March 2014 (10 years ago)10 November 2016 (8 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$399

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 cores25601024
Core clock speed850 MHz1125 MHz
Boost clock speed900 MHz1201 MHz
Number of transistors2x 2800 Million3,000 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)200 Watt50 Watt
Texture fill rateno data76.86
Floating-point processing powerno data2.46 TFLOPS
ROPsno data16
TMUsno data64

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 sizelargeno data
Interfaceno dataPCIe 3.0 x8
Widthno data1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 amount2x 4 GB4 GB
Memory bus width2x 256 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed4800 MHz1500 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data96 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 Connectorsno data4x mini-DisplayPort

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX12 (FL 11_1)12 (12_0)
Shader Modelno data6.4
OpenGLno data4.6
OpenCLno data2.0
Vulkan-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 HD62
+107%
30−35
−107%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data13.30

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 45−50
+124%
21−24
−124%
Counter-Strike 2 30−35
+106%
16−18
−106%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+111%
18−20
−111%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 45−50
+124%
21−24
−124%
Battlefield 5 75−80
+114%
35−40
−114%
Counter-Strike 2 30−35
+106%
16−18
−106%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+111%
18−20
−111%
Far Cry 5 60−65
+103%
30−33
−103%
Fortnite 95−100
+113%
45−50
−113%
Forza Horizon 4 70−75
+109%
35−40
−109%
Forza Horizon 5 50−55
+108%
24−27
−108%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 65−70
+123%
30−33
−123%
Valorant 130−140
+111%
65−70
−111%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 45−50
+124%
21−24
−124%
Battlefield 5 75−80
+114%
35−40
−114%
Counter-Strike 2 30−35
+106%
16−18
−106%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 220−230
+102%
110−120
−102%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+111%
18−20
−111%
Dota 2 100−110
+108%
50−55
−108%
Far Cry 5 60−65
+103%
30−33
−103%
Fortnite 95−100
+113%
45−50
−113%
Forza Horizon 4 70−75
+109%
35−40
−109%
Forza Horizon 5 50−55
+108%
24−27
−108%
Grand Theft Auto V 65−70
+123%
30−33
−123%
Metro Exodus 35−40
+111%
18−20
−111%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 65−70
+123%
30−33
−123%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 50−55
+108%
24−27
−108%
Valorant 130−140
+111%
65−70
−111%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 75−80
+114%
35−40
−114%
Counter-Strike 2 30−35
+106%
16−18
−106%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+111%
18−20
−111%
Dota 2 100−110
+108%
50−55
−108%
Far Cry 5 60−65
+103%
30−33
−103%
Forza Horizon 4 70−75
+109%
35−40
−109%
Forza Horizon 5 50−55
+108%
24−27
−108%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 65−70
+123%
30−33
−123%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 50−55
+108%
24−27
−108%
Valorant 130−140
+111%
65−70
−111%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 95−100
+113%
45−50
−113%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 18−20
+111%
9−10
−111%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 130−140
+117%
60−65
−117%
Grand Theft Auto V 30−33
+114%
14−16
−114%
Metro Exodus 21−24
+130%
10−11
−130%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 110−120
+113%
55−60
−113%
Valorant 170−180
+104%
85−90
−104%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 50−55
+113%
24−27
−113%
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18
+113%
8−9
−113%
Far Cry 5 40−45
+122%
18−20
−122%
Forza Horizon 4 45−50
+114%
21−24
−114%
Forza Horizon 5 30−35
+129%
14−16
−129%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 27−30
+107%
14−16
−107%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 40−45
+128%
18−20
−128%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 14−16
+133%
6−7
−133%
Counter-Strike 2 8−9
+167%
3−4
−167%
Grand Theft Auto V 30−35
+129%
14−16
−129%
Metro Exodus 14−16
+133%
6−7
−133%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
+117%
12−14
−117%
Valorant 100−110
+102%
50−55
−102%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 27−30
+125%
12−14
−125%
Counter-Strike 2 8−9
+167%
3−4
−167%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+133%
3−4
−133%
Dota 2 60−65
+107%
30−33
−107%
Far Cry 5 18−20
+111%
9−10
−111%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
+121%
14−16
−121%
Forza Horizon 5 16−18
+129%
7−8
−129%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 16−18
+113%
8−9
−113%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 18−20
+125%
8−9
−125%

This is how R9 M290X Crossfire and Pro WX 4100 compete in popular games:

  • R9 M290X Crossfire is 107% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 19.05 9.50
Recency 1 March 2014 10 November 2016
Chip lithography 28 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 200 Watt 50 Watt

R9 M290X Crossfire has a 100.5% higher aggregate performance score.

Pro WX 4100, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 300% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R9 M290X Crossfire is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon Pro WX 4100 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R9 M290X Crossfire is a notebook card while Radeon Pro WX 4100 is a 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 R9 M290X Crossfire
Radeon R9 M290X Crossfire
AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100
Radeon Pro WX 4100

Other comparisons

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.


2.7 11 votes

Rate Radeon R9 M290X Crossfire on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6 48 votes

Rate Radeon Pro WX 4100 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon R9 M290X Crossfire or Radeon Pro WX 4100, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.