Radeon RX 6500 XT vs Pro WX 4150
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon Pro WX 4150 with Radeon RX 6500 XT, including specs and performance data.
6500 XT outperforms Pro 4150 by a whopping 277% 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 | 639 | 271 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 94 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 45.19 |
| Power efficiency | 9.46 | 16.68 |
| Architecture | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025) |
| GPU code name | Baffin | Navi 24 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 1 March 2017 (9 years ago) | 19 January 2022 (4 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $199 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 896 | 1024 |
| Core clock speed | 1002 MHz | 2610 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1053 MHz | 2815 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,000 million | 5,400 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 107 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 58.97 | 180.2 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.887 TFLOPS | 5.765 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 32 |
| TMUs | 56 | 64 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 16 |
| L0 Cache | no data | 256 KB |
| L1 Cache | 224 KB | 256 KB |
| L2 Cache | 1024 KB | 1024 KB |
| L3 Cache | no data | 16 MB |
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 | PCIe 4.0 x4 |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 1x 6-pin |
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 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1500 MHz | 2248 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 96 GB/s | 143.9 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
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 | 1x HDMI 2.1, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a |
| HDMI | - | + |
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 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.6 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 2.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.3 |
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 | 16−18
−294%
| 63
+294%
|
| 1440p | 8−9
−288%
| 31
+288%
|
| 4K | 4−5
−325%
| 17
+325%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 3.16 |
| 1440p | no data | 6.42 |
| 4K | no data | 11.71 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−33
−837%
|
281
+837%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
−500%
|
72
+500%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 10−11
−670%
|
77
+670%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
−262%
|
90−95
+262%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−33
−547%
|
194
+547%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
−350%
|
54
+350%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18−20
−437%
|
102
+437%
|
| Fortnite | 35−40
−216%
|
110−120
+216%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
−236%
|
90−95
+236%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 18−20
−494%
|
107
+494%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
−300%
|
90−95
+300%
|
| Valorant | 65−70
−136%
|
160−170
+136%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
−262%
|
90−95
+262%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−33
−173%
|
82
+173%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 100−110
−150%
|
250−260
+150%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
−183%
|
34
+183%
|
| Dota 2 | 50−55
−190%
|
145
+190%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18−20
−384%
|
92
+384%
|
| Fortnite | 35−40
−216%
|
110−120
+216%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
−236%
|
90−95
+236%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 18−20
−350%
|
81
+350%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 21−24
−310%
|
86
+310%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12−14
−333%
|
52
+333%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
−300%
|
90−95
+300%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
−475%
|
92
+475%
|
| Valorant | 65−70
−136%
|
160−170
+136%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
−262%
|
90−95
+262%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
−150%
|
30
+150%
|
| Dota 2 | 50−55
−120%
|
110
+120%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18−20
−353%
|
86
+353%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
−236%
|
90−95
+236%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
−300%
|
90−95
+300%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
−238%
|
54
+238%
|
| Valorant | 65−70
−136%
|
160−170
+136%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 35−40
−216%
|
110−120
+216%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
−218%
|
35
+218%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 45−50
−255%
|
160−170
+255%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 6−7
−517%
|
37
+517%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
−260%
|
18
+260%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
−346%
|
170−180
+346%
|
| Valorant | 60−65
−203%
|
190−200
+203%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11
−560%
|
65−70
+560%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−325%
|
17
+325%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
−375%
|
57
+375%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
−329%
|
60−65
+329%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
−363%
|
35−40
+363%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 12−14
−367%
|
55−60
+367%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
−100%
|
34
+100%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
−1000%
|
11
+1000%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−600%
|
28
+600%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−400%
|
130−140
+400%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6
−620%
|
35−40
+620%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−300%
|
4
+300%
|
| Dota 2 | 21−24
−205%
|
67
+205%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
−360%
|
23
+360%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
−356%
|
40−45
+356%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 6−7
−317%
|
24−27
+317%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 6−7
−333%
|
24−27
+333%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7
+0%
|
7
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
This is how Pro WX 4150 and RX 6500 XT compete in popular games:
- RX 6500 XT is 294% faster in 1080p
- RX 6500 XT is 288% faster in 1440p
- RX 6500 XT is 325% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Metro Exodus, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the RX 6500 XT is 1000% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RX 6500 XT performs better in 58 tests (97%)
- there's a draw in 2 tests (3%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 6.16 | 23.25 |
| Recency | 1 March 2017 | 19 January 2022 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 8 GB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 107 Watt |
Pro WX 4150 has 114% lower power consumption.
RX 6500 XT, on the other hand, has a 277% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 133% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon RX 6500 XT 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 graphics card while Radeon RX 6500 XT is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
