Radeon HD 7310 vs PRO WX 2100

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon PRO WX 2100 with Radeon HD 7310, including specs and performance data.

PRO WX 2100
2017
2 GB GDDR5, 35 Watt
4.79
+1352%

PRO WX 2100 outperforms HD 7310 by a whopping 1352% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking6441306
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation3.76no data
Power efficiency9.421.26
ArchitectureGCN 4.0 (2016−2020)TeraScale 2 (2009−2015)
GPU code nameLexaLoveland
Market segmentWorkstationDesktop
Release date4 June 2017 (7 years ago)6 June 2012 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$149 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

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 cores51280
Core clock speed925 MHz500 MHz
Boost clock speed1219 MHzno data
Number of transistors2,200 million450 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt18 Watt
Texture fill rate39.014.000
Floating-point processing power1.248 TFLOPS0.08 TFLOPS
ROPs164
TMUs328

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).

InterfacePCIe 3.0 x8IGP
Length168 mmno data
Width1-slotIGP
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno 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 typeGDDR5System Shared
Maximum RAM amount2 GBSystem Shared
Memory bus width64 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed1500 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth48 GB/sno 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 Connectors1x DisplayPort, 2x mini-DisplayPortNo outputs

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

FreeSync+-

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_0)11.2 (11_0)
Shader Model6.45.0
OpenGL4.64.4
OpenCL2.01.2
Vulkan1.2.131N/A

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. 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.

PRO WX 2100 4.79
+1352%
HD 7310 0.33

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.

PRO WX 2100 1841
+1338%
HD 7310 128

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 Preset

Counter-Strike 2 12−14
+50%
8−9
−50%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−11
+400%
2−3
−400%
Elden Ring 12−14 0−1

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 14−16 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 12−14
+50%
8−9
−50%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−11
+400%
2−3
−400%
Forza Horizon 4 20−22
+300%
5−6
−300%
Metro Exodus 10−12 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 14−16
+275%
4−5
−275%
Valorant 10−12 0−1

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 14−16 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 12−14
+50%
8−9
−50%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−11
+400%
2−3
−400%
Dota 2 14−16
+1400%
1−2
−1400%
Elden Ring 12−14 0−1
Far Cry 5 24−27
+300%
6−7
−300%
Fortnite 27−30
+2700%
1−2
−2700%
Forza Horizon 4 20−22
+300%
5−6
−300%
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+1400%
1−2
−1400%
Metro Exodus 10−12 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 40−45
+486%
7−8
−486%
Red Dead Redemption 2 14−16
+275%
4−5
−275%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
+220%
5−6
−220%
Valorant 10−12 0−1
World of Tanks 75−80
+508%
12−14
−508%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 14−16 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 12−14
+50%
8−9
−50%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−11
+400%
2−3
−400%
Dota 2 14−16
+1400%
1−2
−1400%
Far Cry 5 24−27
+300%
6−7
−300%
Forza Horizon 4 20−22
+300%
5−6
−300%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 40−45
+486%
7−8
−486%
Valorant 10−12 0−1

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 3−4 0−1
Elden Ring 5−6 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 4−5 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
+1500%
2−3
−1500%
Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5 0−1
World of Tanks 30−35
+1600%
2−3
−1600%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 7−8 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Far Cry 5 10−11
+150%
4−5
−150%
Forza Horizon 4 6−7 0−1
Metro Exodus 3−4 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
+200%
2−3
−200%
Valorant 12−14
+160%
5−6
−160%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2 16−18
+13.3%
14−16
−13.3%
Elden Ring 2−3 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 16−18
+6.7%
14−16
−6.7%
Metro Exodus 0−1 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 14−16
+1300%
1−2
−1300%
Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
+6.7%
14−16
−6.7%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 4−5 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Dota 2 16−18
+13.3%
14−16
−13.3%
Far Cry 5 5−6 0−1
Fortnite 4−5 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 3−4 0−1
Valorant 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the PRO WX 2100 is 1500% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • PRO WX 2100 is ahead in 31 test (97%)
  • there's a draw in 1 test (3%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 4.79 0.33
Recency 4 June 2017 6 June 2012
Chip lithography 14 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 35 Watt 18 Watt

PRO WX 2100 has a 1351.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, and a 185.7% more advanced lithography process.

HD 7310, on the other hand, has 94.4% lower power consumption.

The Radeon PRO WX 2100 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 7310 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon PRO WX 2100 is a workstation graphics card while Radeon HD 7310 is a desktop one.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

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 PRO WX 2100
Radeon PRO WX 2100
AMD Radeon HD 7310
Radeon HD 7310

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.


3.6 50 votes

Rate Radeon PRO WX 2100 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.6 170 votes

Rate Radeon HD 7310 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.