Radeon RX 640 vs FirePro W4100
Aggregated performance score
Radeon RX 640 outperforms FirePro W4100 by 28% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 656 | 592 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.17 | 12.58 |
| Architecture | GCN (2011−2017) | Polaris (2016−2019) |
| GPU code name | Cape Verde | Polaris 12 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 2 October 2015 (8 years ago) | 12 August 2019 (4 years ago) |
| Current price | $916 | $193 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
RX 640 has 7300% better value for money than FirePro W4100.
Detailed specifications
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 512 | 640 |
| Core clock speed | 630 MHz | 1218 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1218 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,500 million | 2,200 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 50 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 20.16 | 38.98 |
| Floating-point performance | 645.1 gflops | no data |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on FirePro W4100 and Radeon RX 640 compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.
| Laptop size | no data | large |
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
| Length | 171 mm | no data |
| Width | 1-slot | no data |
| Form factor | low profile / half length | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | None |
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 | 128 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 4000 MHz | 6000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 72 GB/s | 112.0 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 Connectors | 4x mini-DisplayPort | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
| HDMI | no data | + |
| Dual-link DVI support | 1 | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| AppAcceleration | + | no data |
| FreeSync | no data | + |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 12 (12_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.2.131 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance 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.
Radeon RX 640 outperforms FirePro W4100 by 28% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.
Benchmark coverage: 25%
Radeon RX 640 outperforms FirePro W4100 by 28% in Passmark.
3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.
Benchmark coverage: 14%
Radeon RX 640 outperforms FirePro W4100 by 110% in 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics.
3DMark Cloud Gate GPU
Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.
Benchmark coverage: 14%
Radeon RX 640 outperforms FirePro W4100 by 58% in 3DMark Cloud Gate GPU.
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 | 16
−68.8%
| 27
+68.8%
|
| 4K | 3
+0%
| 3−4
+0%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 7−8
−186%
|
20
+186%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 10−12
−173%
|
30
+173%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 14−16
−14.3%
|
16−18
+14.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
−200%
|
21
+200%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 8−9
−113%
|
17
+113%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−33.3%
|
16−18
+33.3%
|
| Hitman 3 | 8−9
−37.5%
|
10−12
+37.5%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 7−8
−28.6%
|
9−10
+28.6%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 8−9
−12.5%
|
9−10
+12.5%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 10−12
−100%
|
22
+100%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 4−5
−75%
|
7−8
+75%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 7−8
−28.6%
|
9−10
+28.6%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 10−12
−109%
|
23
+109%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 14−16
−14.3%
|
16−18
+14.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
−57.1%
|
10−12
+57.1%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 8−9
−37.5%
|
10−12
+37.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−33.3%
|
16−18
+33.3%
|
| Hitman 3 | 8−9
−37.5%
|
10−12
+37.5%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 7−8
−28.6%
|
9−10
+28.6%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
−40%
|
7−8
+40%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 8−9
−12.5%
|
9−10
+12.5%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 10−12
−18.2%
|
12−14
+18.2%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7
−186%
|
20
+186%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 4−5
−75%
|
7−8
+75%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 7−8
−28.6%
|
9−10
+28.6%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 10−12
−36.4%
|
14−16
+36.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
−57.1%
|
10−12
+57.1%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 8−9
−37.5%
|
10−12
+37.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−33.3%
|
16−18
+33.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
−22.2%
|
11
+22.2%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 4−5
−75%
|
7−8
+75%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 6−7
−33.3%
|
8−9
+33.3%
|
| Hitman 3 | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 10−11
−10%
|
10−12
+10%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−33.3%
|
8−9
+33.3%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−50%
|
6−7
+50%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
4K
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−200%
|
3−4
+200%
|
This is how FirePro W4100 and RX 640 compete in popular games:
- RX 640 is 68.8% faster than FirePro W4100 in 1080p
- RX 640 is 0% faster than FirePro W4100 in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Far Cry 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the RX 640 is 200% faster than the FirePro W4100.
All in all, in popular games:
- RX 640 is ahead in 55 tests (92%)
- there's a draw in 5 tests (8%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.96 | 5.05 |
| Recency | 2 October 2015 | 12 August 2019 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 14 nm |
The Radeon RX 640 is our recommended choice as it beats the FirePro W4100 in performance tests.
Be aware that FirePro W4100 is a workstation card while Radeon RX 640 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.
