Radeon RX Vega M GL / 870 vs PRO WX 2100

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon PRO WX 2100 with Radeon RX Vega M GL / 870, including specs and performance data.

PRO WX 2100
2017, $149
2 GB GDDR5, 35 Watt
4.51

M GL / 870 outperforms PRO 2100 by a whopping 181% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking703434
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation1.02no data
Power efficiency9.9215.01
ArchitectureGCN 4.0 (2016−2020)Vega (2017−2020)
GPU code nameLexaVega Kaby Lake-G
Market segmentWorkstationLaptop
Release date4 June 2017 (8 years ago)7 January 2018 (8 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$149 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

no data

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 cores5121280
Core clock speed925 MHz931 MHz
Boost clock speed1219 MHz1011 MHz
Number of transistors2,200 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology14 nm14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt65 Watt
Texture fill rate39.01no data
Floating-point processing power1.248 TFLOPSno data
ROPs16no data
TMUs32no data
L1 Cache128 KBno data
L2 Cache256 KBno data

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 sizeno datamedium sized
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x8no data
Length168 mmno data
Width1-slotno data
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 typeGDDR5HBM2
Maximum RAM amount2 GB4 GB
Memory bus width64 Bitno data
Memory clock speed1500 MHzno data
Memory bandwidth48 GB/sno data
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 Connectors1x DisplayPort, 2x mini-DisplayPortno data

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.

DirectX12 (12_0)12_1
Shader Model6.4no data
OpenGL4.6no data
OpenCL2.0no data
Vulkan1.2.131-

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 HD14−16
−207%
43
+207%
1440p9−10
−211%
28
+211%
4K4−5
−250%
14
+250%

Cost per frame, $

1080p10.64no data
1440p16.56no data
4K37.25no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 20−22
−255%
70−75
+255%
Cyberpunk 2077 9−10
−200%
27−30
+200%
Resident Evil 4 Remake 7−8
−271%
24−27
+271%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 18−20
−244%
62
+244%
Counter-Strike 2 20−22
−255%
70−75
+255%
Cyberpunk 2077 9−10
−200%
27−30
+200%
Far Cry 5 14−16
−200%
42
+200%
Fortnite 27−30
−219%
86
+219%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
−157%
50−55
+157%
Forza Horizon 5 12−14
−233%
40−45
+233%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 18−20
−161%
45−50
+161%
Valorant 55−60
−93.1%
110−120
+93.1%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 18−20
−189%
52
+189%
Counter-Strike 2 20−22
−255%
70−75
+255%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 75−80
−128%
180−190
+128%
Cyberpunk 2077 9−10
−200%
27−30
+200%
Dota 2 40−45
−113%
85−90
+113%
Far Cry 5 14−16
−179%
39
+179%
Fortnite 27−30
−107%
56
+107%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
−157%
50−55
+157%
Forza Horizon 5 12−14
−233%
40−45
+233%
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
−173%
41
+173%
Metro Exodus 8−9
−200%
24
+200%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 18−20
−161%
45−50
+161%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
−215%
41
+215%
Valorant 55−60
−93.1%
110−120
+93.1%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 18−20
−167%
48
+167%
Cyberpunk 2077 9−10
−200%
27−30
+200%
Dota 2 40−45
−113%
85−90
+113%
Far Cry 5 14−16
−157%
36
+157%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
−157%
50−55
+157%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 18−20
−161%
45−50
+161%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
−84.6%
24
+84.6%
Valorant 55−60
−93.1%
110−120
+93.1%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 27−30
−40.7%
38
+40.7%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 9−10
−167%
24−27
+167%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 35−40
−174%
95−100
+174%
Grand Theft Auto V 3−4
−567%
20−22
+567%
Metro Exodus 3−4
−367%
14
+367%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
−82.4%
62
+82.4%
Valorant 45−50
−178%
130−140
+178%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 3−4
−1033%
34
+1033%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−267%
10−12
+267%
Far Cry 5 9−10
−167%
24
+167%
Forza Horizon 4 10−12
−182%
30−35
+182%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
−200%
18−20
+200%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 9−10
−167%
24
+167%

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V 16−18
−81.3%
29
+81.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 0−1 14
Valorant 21−24
−204%
70−75
+204%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 1−2
−1500%
16
+1500%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−300%
4−5
+300%
Dota 2 14−16
−213%
45−50
+213%
Far Cry 5 3−4
−300%
12
+300%
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
−267%
21−24
+267%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 5−6
−140%
12−14
+140%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 5−6
−80%
9
+80%

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Metro Exodus 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%

4K
Ultra

Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%

This is how PRO WX 2100 and RX Vega M GL / 870 compete in popular games:

  • RX Vega M GL / 870 is 207% faster in 1080p
  • RX Vega M GL / 870 is 211% faster in 1440p
  • RX Vega M GL / 870 is 250% faster in 4K

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

  • in Battlefield 5, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the RX Vega M GL / 870 is 1500% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • RX Vega M GL / 870 performs better in 56 tests (95%)
  • there's a draw in 3 tests (5%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 4.51 12.67
Recency 4 June 2017 7 January 2018
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 4 GB
Power consumption (TDP) 35 Watt 65 Watt

PRO WX 2100 has 86% lower power consumption.

RX Vega M GL / 870, on the other hand, has a 181% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 months, and a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.

The Radeon RX Vega M GL / 870 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 graphics card while Radeon RX Vega M GL / 870 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.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.7 58 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
1.6 121 votes

Rate Radeon RX Vega M GL / 870 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon PRO WX 2100 or Radeon RX Vega M GL / 870, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.