Radeon Pro WX 4100 vs R9 390

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 390 with Radeon Pro WX 4100, including specs and performance data.

R9 390
2015
0 MB GDDR5, 275 Watt
23.08
+145%

R9 390 outperforms Pro WX 4100 by a whopping 145% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in performance ranking222437
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation12.471.87
ArchitectureGCN 2.0 (2013−2017)GCN 4.0 (2016−2020)
GPU code nameGrenadaBaffin
Market segmentDesktopWorkstation
Designreferenceno data
Release date18 June 2015 (9 years ago)10 November 2016 (7 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$329 $399
Current price$20 (0.1x MSRP)$711 (1.8x MSRP)

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

R9 390 has 567% better value for money than Pro WX 4100.

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 cores25601024
Core clock speedno data1125 MHz
Boost clock speed1000 MHz1201 MHz
Number of transistors6,200 million3,000 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)275 Watt50 Watt
Texture fill rate160.076.86
Floating-point performance5,120 gflops2,460 gflops

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 supportPCIe 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x8
Length275 mmno data
Width2-slot1-slot
Supplementary power connectors1 x 6-pin, 1 x 8-pinNone
Bridgeless CrossFire1no 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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
High bandwidth memory (HBM)-no data
Maximum RAM amount0 MB4 GB
Memory bus width512 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1000 MHz6000 MHz
Memory bandwidth384 GB/s96 GB/s

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 Connectors2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort4x mini-DisplayPort
Eyefinity1no data
Number of Eyefinity displays6no data
HDMI+no data
DisplayPort support+no data

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

AppAcceleration-no data
CrossFire1no data
Enduro-no data
FreeSync1no data
HD3D-no data
PowerTune+no data
TrueAudio+no data
ZeroCore-no data
VCE+no data
DDMA audio+no data

API compatibility

List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectXDirectX® 1212 (12_0)
Shader Model6.36.4
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.02.0
Vulkan+1.2.131
Mantle+no data

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

R9 390 23.08
+145%
Pro WX 4100 9.41

R9 390 outperforms Pro WX 4100 by 145% based on our aggregate benchmark results.


Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.

Benchmark coverage: 25%

R9 390 8914
+145%
Pro WX 4100 3635

R9 390 outperforms Pro WX 4100 by 145% in Passmark.

Gaming performance

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

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 23.08 9.41
Recency 18 June 2015 10 November 2016
Cost $329 $399
Chip lithography 28 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 275 Watt 50 Watt

The Radeon R9 390 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon Pro WX 4100 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R9 390 is a desktop card while Radeon Pro WX 4100 is a workstation one.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


AMD Radeon R9 390
Radeon R9 390
AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100
Radeon Pro WX 4100

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


4.2 540 votes

Rate Radeon R9 390 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6 46 votes

Rate Radeon Pro WX 4100 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.