Radeon PRO WX 2100 vs R7 370
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R7 370 with Radeon PRO WX 2100, including specs and performance data.
R7 370 outperforms PRO WX 2100 by a whopping 142% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 421 | 651 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 6.59 | 3.79 |
| Power efficiency | 7.29 | 9.46 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2011−2020) | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) |
| GPU code name | Trinidad | Lexa |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Design | reference | no data |
| Release date | 18 June 2015 (9 years ago) | 4 June 2017 (7 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $149 | $149 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
R7 370 has 74% better value for money than PRO WX 2100.
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 | 1024 | 512 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 925 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 975 MHz | 1219 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 2,800 million | 2,200 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 110 Watt | 35 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 62.40 | 39.01 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.997 TFLOPS | 1.248 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 16 |
| TMUs | 64 | 32 |
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).
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
| Length | 152 mm | 168 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1 x 6-pin | 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 | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 975 MHz | 1500 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 179.2 GB/s | 48 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 | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort | 1x DisplayPort, 2x mini-DisplayPort |
| Eyefinity | + | - |
| Number of Eyefinity displays | 6 | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
| DisplayPort support | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| AppAcceleration | + | - |
| CrossFire | + | - |
| FreeSync | + | + |
| TrueAudio | + | - |
| VCE | + | - |
| DDMA audio | + | no data |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | 12 (12_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | + | 1.2.131 |
| Mantle | + | - |
Synthetic benchmark performance
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 | 47
+161%
| 18−20
−161%
|
| 1440p | 57
+171%
| 21−24
−171%
|
| 4K | 20
+150%
| 8−9
−150%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 3.17
+161%
| 8.28
−161%
|
| 1440p | 2.61
+171%
| 7.10
−171%
|
| 4K | 7.45
+150%
| 18.63
−150%
|
- R7 370 has 161% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- R7 370 has 171% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- R7 370 has 150% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 27−30
+145%
|
10−12
−145%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 20−22
+81.8%
|
10−12
−81.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+144%
|
9−10
−144%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 27−30
+145%
|
10−12
−145%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+167%
|
18−20
−167%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 20−22
+81.8%
|
10−12
−81.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+144%
|
9−10
−144%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
+208%
|
12−14
−208%
|
| Fortnite | 106
+308%
|
24−27
−308%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+124%
|
21−24
−124%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 27−30
+222%
|
9−10
−222%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 38
+111%
|
18−20
−111%
|
| Valorant | 100−105
+72.4%
|
55−60
−72.4%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 27−30
+145%
|
10−12
−145%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+167%
|
18−20
−167%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 20−22
+81.8%
|
10−12
−81.8%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 160−170
+103%
|
75−80
−103%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+144%
|
9−10
−144%
|
| Dota 2 | 75−80
+94.9%
|
35−40
−94.9%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
+208%
|
12−14
−208%
|
| Fortnite | 41
+57.7%
|
24−27
−57.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+124%
|
21−24
−124%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 27−30
+222%
|
9−10
−222%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 44
+193%
|
14−16
−193%
|
| Metro Exodus | 21−24
+175%
|
8−9
−175%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30
+66.7%
|
18−20
−66.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 35
+169%
|
12−14
−169%
|
| Valorant | 100−105
+72.4%
|
55−60
−72.4%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+167%
|
18−20
−167%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 20−22
+81.8%
|
10−12
−81.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+144%
|
9−10
−144%
|
| Dota 2 | 75−80
+94.9%
|
35−40
−94.9%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
+208%
|
12−14
−208%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+124%
|
21−24
−124%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 27−30
+222%
|
9−10
−222%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
+117%
|
18−20
−117%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 22
+69.2%
|
12−14
−69.2%
|
| Valorant | 20
−190%
|
55−60
+190%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 30
+15.4%
|
24−27
−15.4%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+133%
|
6−7
−133%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 81
+138%
|
30−35
−138%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+220%
|
5−6
−220%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12−14
+333%
|
3−4
−333%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 60−65
+96.9%
|
30−35
−96.9%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
+140%
|
50−55
−140%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
+867%
|
3−4
−867%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
+188%
|
8−9
−188%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
+145%
|
10−12
−145%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 18−20
+171%
|
7−8
−171%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
+143%
|
7−8
−143%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 21−24
+156%
|
9−10
−156%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 9−10
+125%
|
4−5
−125%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 45
+150%
|
18−20
−150%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 21−24
+37.5%
|
16−18
−37.5%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 55−60
+152%
|
21−24
−152%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
+1300%
|
1−2
−1300%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Dota 2 | 40−45
+167%
|
14−16
−167%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
+120%
|
5−6
−120%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
+217%
|
6−7
−217%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
+100%
|
5−6
−100%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 10−11
+100%
|
5−6
−100%
|
This is how R7 370 and PRO WX 2100 compete in popular games:
- R7 370 is 161% faster in 1080p
- R7 370 is 171% faster in 1440p
- R7 370 is 150% 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 R7 370 is 1300% faster.
- in Valorant, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the PRO WX 2100 is 190% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- R7 370 is ahead in 62 tests (98%)
- PRO WX 2100 is ahead in 1 test (2%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 11.56 | 4.77 |
| Recency | 18 June 2015 | 4 June 2017 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 2 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 110 Watt | 35 Watt |
R7 370 has a 142.3% higher aggregate performance score, and a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.
PRO WX 2100, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 214.3% lower power consumption.
The Radeon R7 370 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon PRO WX 2100 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R7 370 is a desktop card while Radeon PRO WX 2100 is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
