GeForce GTX 1060 Max-Q 6 GB vs Radeon Pro WX 4150
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon Pro WX 4150 with GeForce GTX 1060 Max-Q 6 GB, including specs and performance data.
GTX 1060 Max-Q 6 GB outperforms Pro WX 4150 by a whopping 128% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 531 | 328 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.46 | 5.43 |
| Architecture | Polaris (2016−2019) | Pascal (2016−2021) |
| GPU code name | Polaris 11 | N17P-G1 Max-Q |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 1 March 2017 (7 years ago) | 30 May 2017 (7 years ago) |
| Current price | $2000 | $1010 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
GTX 1060 Max-Q 6 GB has 1080% better value for money than Pro WX 4150.
Detailed specifications
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 896 | 1280 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 1063 - 1265 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1053 MHz | 1341 - 1480 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,000 million | 4,400 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 16 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 60 - 70 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 58.97 | 118.4 |
| Floating-point performance | no data | 3,789 gflops |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on Radeon Pro WX 4150 and GeForce GTX 1060 Max-Q 6 GB compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.
| Laptop size | medium sized | large |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| 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 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 6.144 MB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 192 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 7000 MHz | 8000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 96 GB/s | 192.2 GB/s |
| 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 Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
| G-SYNC support | no data | + |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| FreeSync | + | no data |
| VR Ready | no data | + |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12.0 |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 5.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | + |
| CUDA | no data | 6.1 |
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 | 35−40
−137%
| 83
+137%
|
| 4K | 12−14
−150%
| 30
+150%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−12
−118%
|
24−27
+118%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 14−16
−121%
|
30−35
+121%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 8−9
−213%
|
24−27
+213%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
−163%
|
50−55
+163%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 14−16
−121%
|
30−35
+121%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−12
−118%
|
24−27
+118%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
−313%
|
62
+313%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 18−20
−121%
|
40−45
+121%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
−125%
|
70−75
+125%
|
| Hitman 3 | 12−14
−123%
|
27−30
+123%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 30−35
−96.8%
|
60−65
+96.8%
|
| Metro Exodus | 16−18
−200%
|
50−55
+200%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 18−20
−133%
|
40−45
+133%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 21−24
−118%
|
45−50
+118%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 27−30
−81.5%
|
45−50
+81.5%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 14−16
−121%
|
30−35
+121%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 8−9
−213%
|
24−27
+213%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
−163%
|
50−55
+163%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 14−16
−121%
|
30−35
+121%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−12
−118%
|
24−27
+118%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
−260%
|
54
+260%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 18−20
−121%
|
40−45
+121%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
−125%
|
70−75
+125%
|
| Hitman 3 | 12−14
−123%
|
27−30
+123%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 30−35
−96.8%
|
60−65
+96.8%
|
| Metro Exodus | 16−18
−200%
|
50−55
+200%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 18−20
−133%
|
40−45
+133%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 21−24
−118%
|
45−50
+118%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
−371%
|
66
+371%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 27−30
−81.5%
|
45−50
+81.5%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 14−16
−121%
|
30−35
+121%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 8−9
−213%
|
24−27
+213%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 14−16
−121%
|
30−35
+121%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−12
−118%
|
24−27
+118%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
−167%
|
40
+167%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
−125%
|
70−75
+125%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 30−35
−96.8%
|
60−65
+96.8%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 21−24
−118%
|
45−50
+118%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
−150%
|
35
+150%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 27−30
−81.5%
|
45−50
+81.5%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 18−20
−133%
|
40−45
+133%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
−131%
|
30−33
+131%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 10−11
−180%
|
27−30
+180%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 6−7
−150%
|
14−16
+150%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 2−3
−500%
|
12−14
+500%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 9−10
−111%
|
18−20
+111%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−167%
|
8−9
+167%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
−150%
|
24−27
+150%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−142%
|
27−30
+142%
|
| Hitman 3 | 10−11
−80%
|
18−20
+80%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 14−16
−121%
|
30−35
+121%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7−8
−286%
|
27−30
+286%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 4−5
−600%
|
27−30
+600%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−167%
|
16−18
+167%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 3−4
−200%
|
9−10
+200%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 12−14
−108%
|
24−27
+108%
|
4K
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
−150%
|
14−16
+150%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 5−6
−120%
|
10−12
+120%
|
| Hitman 3 | 3−4
−267%
|
10−12
+267%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 7−8
−129%
|
16−18
+129%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 3−4
−200%
|
9−10
+200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
−700%
|
24
+700%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 4−5
−125%
|
9−10
+125%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 3−4
−133%
|
7−8
+133%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 3−4
−167%
|
8−9
+167%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 2−3 |
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
−300%
|
12
+300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−200%
|
21−24
+200%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 7−8
−129%
|
16−18
+129%
|
| Metro Exodus | 8−9
−87.5%
|
14−16
+87.5%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 2−3
−200%
|
6−7
+200%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 7−8
−100%
|
14−16
+100%
|
This is how Pro WX 4150 and GTX 1060 Max-Q 6 GB compete in popular games:
- GTX 1060 Max-Q 6 GB is 137% faster in 1080p
- GTX 1060 Max-Q 6 GB is 150% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 1060 Max-Q 6 GB is 700% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, GTX 1060 Max-Q 6 GB surpassed Pro WX 4150 in all 71 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 6.70 | 15.25 |
| Recency | 1 March 2017 | 30 May 2017 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 6.144 MB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 16 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 60 Watt |
The GeForce GTX 1060 Max-Q 6 GB is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon Pro WX 4150 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon Pro WX 4150 is a mobile workstation card while GeForce GTX 1060 Max-Q 6 GB is a mobile workstation one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
