ATI Radeon HD 4250 vs PRO WX 2100
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon PRO WX 2100 with Radeon HD 4250, including specs and performance data.
PRO 2100 outperforms HD 4250 by a whopping 1441% 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 | 700 | 1386 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.00 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 9.80 | 0.89 |
| Architecture | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) | TeraScale (2005−2013) |
| GPU code name | Lexa | RV620 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 4 June 2017 (8 years ago) | 25 February 2009 (16 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $149 | no data |
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 | 512 | 40 |
| Core clock speed | 925 MHz | 594 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1219 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 2,200 million | 181 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 55 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 25 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 39.01 | 2.376 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.248 TFLOPS | 0.04752 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 4 |
| TMUs | 32 | 4 |
| L1 Cache | 128 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 64 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).
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 168 mm | no data |
| Width | 1-slot | 1-slot |
| 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 | DDR2 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 512 MB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1500 MHz | 396 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 48 GB/s | 6.336 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 | 1x DisplayPort, 2x mini-DisplayPort | 1x DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-Video |
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) | 10.1 (10_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 4.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 3.3 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | N/A |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | N/A |
Synthetic benchmarks
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
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.
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 20−22
+1900%
|
1−2
−1900%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
+1700%
|
1−2
−1700%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 20−22
+1900%
|
1−2
−1900%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 16−18
+1600%
|
1−2
−1600%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 27−30
+2600%
|
1−2
−2600%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+600%
|
3−4
−600%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
+157%
|
7−8
−157%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+123%
|
24−27
−123%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
+1700%
|
1−2
−1700%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 20−22
+1900%
|
1−2
−1900%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 75−80
+508%
|
12−14
−508%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| Dota 2 | 35−40
+333%
|
9−10
−333%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 16−18
+1600%
|
1−2
−1600%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 27−30
+2600%
|
1−2
−2600%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+600%
|
3−4
−600%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
+157%
|
7−8
−157%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+160%
|
5−6
−160%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+123%
|
24−27
−123%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
+1700%
|
1−2
−1700%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| Dota 2 | 35−40
+333%
|
9−10
−333%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 16−18
+1600%
|
1−2
−1600%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+600%
|
3−4
−600%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
+157%
|
7−8
−157%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+160%
|
5−6
−160%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+123%
|
24−27
−123%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 27−30
+2600%
|
1−2
−2600%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 35−40
+1650%
|
2−3
−1650%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+1033%
|
3−4
−1033%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+1533%
|
3−4
−1533%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Escape from Tarkov | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
+1000%
|
1−2
−1000%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 9−10 | 0−1 |
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+14.3%
|
14−16
−14.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 21−24
+1050%
|
2−3
−1050%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 14−16 | 0−1 |
| Escape from Tarkov | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Valorant, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the PRO WX 2100 is 1050% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, PRO WX 2100 surpassed ATI HD 4250 in all 27 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 4.47 | 0.29 |
| Recency | 4 June 2017 | 25 February 2009 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 512 MB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 55 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 25 Watt |
PRO WX 2100 has a 1441.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 292.9% more advanced lithography process.
ATI HD 4250, on the other hand, has 40% lower power consumption.
The Radeon PRO WX 2100 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 4250 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon PRO WX 2100 is a workstation graphics card while Radeon HD 4250 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
