Radeon R7 430 OEM vs PRO WX 2100

VS

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking642not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation3.92no data
Power efficiency9.37no data
ArchitectureGCN 4.0 (2016−2020)GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)
GPU code nameLexaOland
Market segmentWorkstationDesktop
Release date4 June 2017 (7 years ago)30 June 2016 (8 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 cores512384
Core clock speed925 MHz730 MHz
Boost clock speed1219 MHz780 MHz
Number of transistors2,200 million950 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt50 Watt
Texture fill rate39.0118.72
Floating-point processing power1.248 TFLOPS0.599 TFLOPS
ROPs168
TMUs3224

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 x8PCIe 3.0 x8
Length168 mmno data
Width1-slot1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone

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 typeGDDR5DDR3
Maximum RAM amount2 GB2 GB
Memory bus width64 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1500 MHz900 MHz
Memory bandwidth48 GB/s28.8 GB/s
Shared memory-no data

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-DisplayPort1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA
HDMI-+

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)12 (11_1)
Shader Model6.45.1
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.01.2
Vulkan1.2.1311.2.131

Pros & cons summary


Recency 4 June 2017 30 June 2016
Chip lithography 14 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 35 Watt 50 Watt

PRO WX 2100 has an age advantage of 11 months, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 42.9% lower power consumption.

We couldn't decide between Radeon PRO WX 2100 and Radeon R7 430 OEM. We've got no test results to judge.

Be aware that Radeon PRO WX 2100 is a workstation graphics card while Radeon R7 430 OEM 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 R7 430 OEM
Radeon R7 430 OEM

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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
3.3 105 votes

Rate Radeon R7 430 OEM 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.