Radeon RX 8050S vs Pro WX 7100
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon Pro WX 7100 with Radeon RX 8050S, including specs and performance data.
8050S outperforms Pro 7100 by an impressive 95% 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 | 332 | 155 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 3.19 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 10.93 | no data |
| Architecture | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) | no data |
| GPU code name | Ellesmere | no data |
| Market segment | Workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 10 November 2016 (9 years ago) | 6 January 2025 (1 year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $799 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
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 cores | 2304 | 32 |
| Core clock speed | 1188 MHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 1243 MHz | 2800 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 5,700 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | no data |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 130 Watt | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 179.0 | no data |
| Floating-point processing power | 5.728 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 32 | no data |
| TMUs | 144 | no data |
| L1 Cache | 576 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB | 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).
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | no data |
| Length | 241 mm | no data |
| Width | 1-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin | 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 | no data |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | no data |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | no data |
| Memory clock speed | 1750 MHz | no data |
| Memory bandwidth | 224.0 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 | 4x DisplayPort | no 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.
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | no data |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | no data |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | no data |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | - |
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 HD | 45−50
−109%
| 94
+109%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 17.76 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 100−110
−90.6%
|
200−210
+90.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
−110%
|
80−85
+110%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 40−45
−129%
|
95−100
+129%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 75−80
−62.8%
|
120−130
+62.8%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 100−110
−90.6%
|
200−210
+90.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
−110%
|
80−85
+110%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 60−65
−63.9%
|
100
+63.9%
|
| Fortnite | 100−105
−59%
|
150−160
+59%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 75−80
−84.2%
|
140−150
+84.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 55−60
−94.9%
|
110−120
+94.9%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 70−75
−104%
|
140−150
+104%
|
| Valorant | 140−150
−52.1%
|
210−220
+52.1%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 75−80
−62.8%
|
120−130
+62.8%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 100−110
−90.6%
|
200−210
+90.6%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 220−230
−21.4%
|
270−280
+21.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
−110%
|
80−85
+110%
|
| Dota 2 | 100−110
−94.4%
|
210−220
+94.4%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 60−65
−57.4%
|
96
+57.4%
|
| Fortnite | 100−105
−59%
|
150−160
+59%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 75−80
−84.2%
|
140−150
+84.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 55−60
−94.9%
|
110−120
+94.9%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 70−75
−68.6%
|
118
+68.6%
|
| Metro Exodus | 40−45
−115%
|
85−90
+115%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 70−75
−104%
|
140−150
+104%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 50−55
−200%
|
156
+200%
|
| Valorant | 140−150
−52.1%
|
210−220
+52.1%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 75−80
−62.8%
|
120−130
+62.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
−110%
|
80−85
+110%
|
| Dota 2 | 100−110
−94.4%
|
210−220
+94.4%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 60−65
−39.3%
|
85
+39.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 75−80
−84.2%
|
140−150
+84.2%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 70−75
−104%
|
140−150
+104%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 50−55
−76.9%
|
92
+76.9%
|
| Valorant | 140−150
−90.1%
|
270−280
+90.1%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 100−105
−59%
|
150−160
+59%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
−134%
|
85−90
+134%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 130−140
−87.5%
|
250−260
+87.5%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−35
−124%
|
70−75
+124%
|
| Metro Exodus | 24−27
−117%
|
50−55
+117%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
−76.5%
|
300−310
+76.5%
|
| Valorant | 170−180
−40.7%
|
240−250
+40.7%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55
−77.4%
|
90−95
+77.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
−128%
|
40−45
+128%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
−107%
|
85−90
+107%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
−117%
|
100−110
+117%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27−30
−131%
|
65−70
+131%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 40−45
−121%
|
95−100
+121%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
−141%
|
40−45
+141%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−35
−129%
|
75−80
+129%
|
| Metro Exodus | 14−16
−120%
|
30−35
+120%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27−30
−111%
|
55−60
+111%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
−107%
|
220−230
+107%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
−107%
|
55−60
+107%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
−76.5%
|
30−33
+76.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
−171%
|
18−20
+171%
|
| Dota 2 | 65−70
−84.6%
|
120−130
+84.6%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
−124%
|
45−50
+124%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
−106%
|
65−70
+106%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
−147%
|
45−50
+147%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 18−20
−142%
|
45−50
+142%
|
This is how Pro WX 7100 and RX 8050S compete in popular games:
- RX 8050S is 109% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the RX 8050S is 200% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, RX 8050S surpassed Pro WX 7100 in all 54 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 18.45 | 35.92 |
| Recency | 10 November 2016 | 6 January 2025 |
RX 8050S has a 94.7% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 8 years.
The Radeon RX 8050S is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon Pro WX 7100 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon Pro WX 7100 is a workstation graphics card while Radeon RX 8050S 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.
