Radeon PRO WX 2100 vs R9 290

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 290 with Radeon PRO WX 2100, including specs and performance data.

R9 290
2013, $399
4 GB GDDR5, 275 Watt
19.55
+327%

R9 290 outperforms PRO 2100 by a whopping 327% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking320708
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation7.151.05
Power efficiency5.4610.05
ArchitectureGCN 2.0 (2013−2017)GCN 4.0 (2016−2020)
GPU code nameHawaiiLexa
Market segmentDesktopWorkstation
Release date5 November 2013 (12 years ago)4 June 2017 (9 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$399 $149

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

R9 290 has 581% better value for money than PRO WX 2100.

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 cores2560512
Core clock speed947 MHz925 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1219 MHz
Number of transistors6,200 million2,200 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)275 Watt35 Watt
Texture fill rate151.539.01
Floating-point processing power4.849 TFLOPS1.248 TFLOPS
ROPs6416
TMUs16032
L1 Cache640 KB128 KB
L2 Cache1024 KB256 KB

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).

InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x8
Length275 mm168 mm
Width2-slot1-slot
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pinNone

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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount4 GB2 GB
Memory bus width512 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed1250 MHz1500 MHz
Memory bandwidth320.0 GB/s48 GB/s
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 Connectors2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort1x DisplayPort, 2x mini-DisplayPort
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.

DirectX12 (12_0)12 (12_0)
Shader Model6.36.4
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.02.0
Vulkan1.2.1311.2.131

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.

R9 290 19.55
+327%
PRO WX 2100 4.58

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.

R9 290 8093
+327%
Samples: 786
PRO WX 2100 1894
Samples: 270

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Resident Evil 4 Remake 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Far Cry 5 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Fortnite 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Valorant 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Dota 2 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Far Cry 5 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Fortnite 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Metro Exodus 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Valorant 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Dota 2 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Far Cry 5 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Valorant 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Metro Exodus 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Valorant 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 0−1 0−1
Valorant 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Dota 2 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Far Cry 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 56 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 19.55 4.58
Recency 5 November 2013 4 June 2017
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 2 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 275 Watt 35 Watt

R9 290 has a 327% higher aggregate performance score, and a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.

PRO WX 2100, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 3 years, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 686% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R9 290 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon PRO WX 2100 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R9 290 is a desktop graphics 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.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


4.1 625 votes

Rate Radeon R9 290 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 58 votes

Rate Radeon PRO WX 2100 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon R9 290 or Radeon PRO WX 2100, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.