Radeon RX 560 Mobile vs FirePro W8100
Aggregate performance score
We've compared FirePro W8100 with Radeon RX 560 Mobile, including specs and performance data.
W8100 outperforms 560 Mobile by an impressive 58% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 364 | 481 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 5.67 |
| Power efficiency | 5.70 | 12.24 |
| Architecture | GCN 2.0 (2013−2017) | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) |
| GPU code name | Hawaii | Baffin |
| Market segment | Workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 23 June 2014 (11 years ago) | 5 January 2017 (9 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $99.99 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 | 2560 | 1024 |
| Core clock speed | 824 MHz | 1175 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1275 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 6,200 million | 3,000 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 220 Watt | 65 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 131.8 | 76.93 |
| Floating-point processing power | 4.219 TFLOPS | 2.462 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 16 |
| TMUs | 160 | 64 |
| L1 Cache | 640 KB | 256 KB |
| L2 Cache | 1024 KB | 1024 KB |
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 |
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | MXM-B (3.0) |
| Length | 279 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Form factor | full height / full length | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 6-pin | 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 | 8 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 512 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1250 MHz | 1500 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 320 GB/s | 96 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | 4x DisplayPort, 1x SDI | Portable Device Dependent |
| StereoOutput3D | + | - |
| DisplayPort count | 4 | no data |
| Dual-link DVI support | + | - |
| HD сomponent video output | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| FreeSync | - | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 (12_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.3 | 6.7 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.3 |
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 | 65−70
+51.2%
| 43
−51.2%
|
| 4K | 55−60
+52.8%
| 36
−52.8%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 2.33 |
| 4K | no data | 2.78 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35
+0%
|
35
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 87
+0%
|
87
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 49
+0%
|
49
+0%
|
| Valorant | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30
+0%
|
30
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 63
+0%
|
63
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45
+0%
|
45
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 35
+0%
|
35
+0%
|
| Valorant | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27
+0%
|
27
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 13
+0%
|
13
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 20
+0%
|
20
+0%
|
| Valorant | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 50
+0%
|
50
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 36
+0%
|
36
+0%
|
This is how FirePro W8100 and RX 560 Mobile compete in popular games:
- FirePro W8100 is 51% faster in 1080p
- FirePro W8100 is 53% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 60 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 16.29 | 10.33 |
| Recency | 23 June 2014 | 5 January 2017 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 220 Watt | 65 Watt |
FirePro W8100 has a 58% higher aggregate performance score, and a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.
RX 560 Mobile, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 238% lower power consumption.
The FirePro W8100 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon RX 560 Mobile in performance tests.
Be aware that FirePro W8100 is a workstation graphics card while Radeon RX 560 Mobile is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
