Radeon HD 8210 vs Pro WX 4130
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon Pro WX 4130 with Radeon HD 8210, including specs and performance data.
Pro 4130 outperforms HD 8210 by a whopping 872% 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 | 696 | 1298 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 6.92 | 4.45 |
| Architecture | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) | GCN 2.0 (2013−2017) |
| GPU code name | Baffin | Kalindi |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 1 March 2017 (8 years ago) | 31 January 2014 (11 years ago) |
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 | 640 | 128 |
| Core clock speed | 1002 MHz | 300 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1053 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 3,000 million | 1,178 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 8 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 42.12 | 2.400 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.348 TFLOPS | 0.0768 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 4 |
| TMUs | 40 | 8 |
| L1 Cache | 160 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 1024 KB | no 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 size | medium sized | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | IGP |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | no 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 type | GDDR5 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 1500 MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 96 GB/s | no 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 Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
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) | 12 (12_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.3 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.2.131 |
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.
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 | 45−50
+800%
| 5
−800%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 20−22
+900%
|
2−3
−900%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 10−11
+100%
|
5−6
−100%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
+1800%
|
1−2
−1800%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 20−22
+900%
|
2−3
−900%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
+1300%
|
1−2
−1300%
|
| Fortnite | 27−30
+1250%
|
2−3
−1250%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+450%
|
4−5
−450%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 12−14
+1100%
|
1−2
−1100%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 10−11
+100%
|
5−6
−100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
+125%
|
8−9
−125%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+115%
|
27−30
−115%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
+1800%
|
1−2
−1800%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 20−22
+900%
|
2−3
−900%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 80−85
+400%
|
16−18
−400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| Dota 2 | 40−45
+700%
|
5
−700%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
+1300%
|
1−2
−1300%
|
| Fortnite | 27−30
+1250%
|
2−3
−1250%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+450%
|
4−5
−450%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 12−14
+1100%
|
1−2
−1100%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+1400%
|
1−2
−1400%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 10−11
+100%
|
5−6
−100%
|
| Metro Exodus | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
+125%
|
8−9
−125%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+160%
|
5−6
−160%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+115%
|
27−30
−115%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
+1800%
|
1−2
−1800%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| Dota 2 | 40−45
+700%
|
5
−700%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
+1300%
|
1−2
−1300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+450%
|
4−5
−450%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 10−11
+100%
|
5−6
−100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
+125%
|
8−9
−125%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+160%
|
5−6
−160%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+115%
|
27−30
−115%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 27−30
+1250%
|
2−3
−1250%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 35−40
+3400%
|
1−2
−3400%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+580%
|
5−6
−580%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+880%
|
5−6
−880%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
+450%
|
2−3
−450%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| 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
+667%
|
3−4
−667%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 14−16
+1400%
|
1−2
−1400%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
This is how Pro WX 4130 and HD 8210 compete in popular games:
- Pro WX 4130 is 800% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the Pro WX 4130 is 3400% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, Pro WX 4130 surpassed HD 8210 in all 31 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 4.47 | 0.46 |
| Recency | 1 March 2017 | 31 January 2014 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 8 Watt |
Pro WX 4130 has a 871.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.
HD 8210, on the other hand, has 525% lower power consumption.
The Radeon Pro WX 4130 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 8210 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon Pro WX 4130 is a mobile workstation graphics card while Radeon HD 8210 is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
