Radeon 660M vs PRO WX 2100
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon PRO WX 2100 with Radeon 660M, including specs and performance data.
660M outperforms PRO WX 2100 by an impressive 79% 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 | 659 | 512 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 3.28 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 9.43 | 14.79 |
| Architecture | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024) |
| GPU code name | Lexa | Rembrandt+ |
| Market segment | Workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 4 June 2017 (7 years ago) | 3 January 2023 (2 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $149 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 512 | 384 |
| Core clock speed | 925 MHz | 1500 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1219 MHz | 1900 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 2,200 million | 13,100 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 40 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 39.01 | 45.60 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.248 TFLOPS | 1.459 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 16 |
| TMUs | 32 | 24 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 6 |
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).
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| Length | 168 mm | no data |
| Width | 1-slot | 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 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 1500 MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 48 GB/s | no data |
| 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 | 1x DisplayPort, 2x mini-DisplayPort | Portable Device Dependent |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| FreeSync | + | - |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.7 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.3 |
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.
- Passmark
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.
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 | 12−14
−108%
| 25
+108%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 12.42 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
- Full HD
Low Preset - Full HD
Medium Preset - Full HD
High Preset - Full HD
Ultra Preset - Full HD
Epic Preset - 1440p
High Preset - 1440p
Ultra Preset - 1440p
Epic Preset - 4K
High Preset - 4K
Ultra Preset - 4K
Epic Preset - 4K
High Preset - 4K
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
−121%
|
40−45
+121%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
−167%
|
24
+167%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 9−10
−156%
|
23
+156%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
−100%
|
35−40
+100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
−121%
|
40−45
+121%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
−122%
|
20
+122%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
−131%
|
30
+131%
|
| Fortnite | 24−27
−88.5%
|
45−50
+88.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
−71.4%
|
35−40
+71.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−12
−255%
|
39
+255%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 9−10
−88.9%
|
17
+88.9%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
−61.1%
|
27−30
+61.1%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
−41.4%
|
80−85
+41.4%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
−100%
|
35−40
+100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
−121%
|
40−45
+121%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 75−80
−60.8%
|
120−130
+60.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
−55.6%
|
14
+55.6%
|
| Dota 2 | 35−40
−43.6%
|
56
+43.6%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
−100%
|
26
+100%
|
| Fortnite | 24−27
−88.5%
|
45−50
+88.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
−71.4%
|
35−40
+71.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−12
−191%
|
32
+191%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−60%
|
24
+60%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 9−10
−44.4%
|
13
+44.4%
|
| Metro Exodus | 8−9
−87.5%
|
15
+87.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
−61.1%
|
27−30
+61.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
−92.3%
|
25
+92.3%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
−41.4%
|
80−85
+41.4%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
−100%
|
35−40
+100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
−88.9%
|
16−18
+88.9%
|
| Dota 2 | 35−40
−23.1%
|
48
+23.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
−92.3%
|
25
+92.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
−71.4%
|
35−40
+71.4%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 9−10
−11.1%
|
10
+11.1%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
−61.1%
|
27−30
+61.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
−15.4%
|
15
+15.4%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
−41.4%
|
80−85
+41.4%
|
| Fortnite | 24−27
−88.5%
|
45−50
+88.5%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
−133%
|
14−16
+133%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 30−35
−82.4%
|
60−65
+82.4%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 5−6
−120%
|
10−12
+120%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
−167%
|
8−9
+167%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
−27.3%
|
40−45
+27.3%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
−87.8%
|
90−95
+87.8%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
−500%
|
18−20
+500%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−133%
|
7−8
+133%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
−70%
|
16−18
+70%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
−72.7%
|
18−20
+72.7%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 5−6
−80%
|
9−10
+80%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−71.4%
|
12−14
+71.4%
|
| Fortnite | 9−10
−88.9%
|
16−18
+88.9%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
−18.8%
|
18−20
+18.8%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 0−1 | 8−9 |
| Valorant | 21−24
−82.6%
|
40−45
+82.6%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−800%
|
9−10
+800%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−200%
|
3−4
+200%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−100%
|
30−33
+100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−50%
|
9−10
+50%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−117%
|
12−14
+117%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 5−6
−60%
|
8−9
+60%
|
| Fortnite | 5−6
−60%
|
8−9
+60%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
This is how PRO WX 2100 and Radeon 660M compete in popular games:
- Radeon 660M is 108% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Battlefield 5, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Radeon 660M is 800% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Radeon 660M is ahead in 60 tests (92%)
- there's a draw in 5 tests (8%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 4.17 | 7.48 |
| Recency | 4 June 2017 | 3 January 2023 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 40 Watt |
PRO WX 2100 has 14.3% lower power consumption.
Radeon 660M, on the other hand, has a 79.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, and a 133.3% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon 660M is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon PRO WX 2100 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon PRO WX 2100 is a workstation card while Radeon 660M 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.
