Radeon Pro WX 4100 vs R9 Nano

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

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

R9 Nano
2015
4 GB High Bandwidth Memory (HBM), 175 Watt
21.57
+132%

R9 Nano outperforms Pro WX 4100 by a whopping 132% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking260473
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation5.333.58
Power efficiency8.6613.08
ArchitectureGCN 3.0 (2014−2019)GCN 4.0 (2016−2020)
GPU code nameFijiBaffin
Market segmentDesktopWorkstation
Designreferenceno data
Release date27 August 2015 (9 years ago)10 November 2016 (8 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$649 $399

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

R9 Nano has 49% better value for money than Pro WX 4100.

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 cores40961024
Compute units64no data
Core clock speedno data1125 MHz
Boost clock speed1000 MHz1201 MHz
Number of transistors8,900 million3,000 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)175 Watt50 Watt
Texture fill rate256.076.86
Floating-point processing power8.192 TFLOPS2.46 TFLOPS
ROPs6416
TMUs25664

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
Length152 mmno data
Width2-slot1-slot
Supplementary power connectors1x 8-pinNone
Bridgeless CrossFire+-

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 typeHigh Bandwidth Memory (HBM)GDDR5
High bandwidth memory (HBM)+no data
Maximum RAM amount4 GB4 GB
Memory bus width4096 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed500 MHz1500 MHz
Memory bandwidth512 GB/s96 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 Connectors1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort4x mini-DisplayPort
Eyefinity+-
Number of Eyefinity displays6no 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+-
FRTC+-
FreeSync+-
HD3D+-
LiquidVR+-
PowerTune+-
TressFX+-
TrueAudio+-
ZeroCore+-
VCE+-
DDMA audio+no data

API and SDK compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectXDirectX® 1212 (12_0)
Shader Model6.36.4
OpenGL4.54.6
OpenCL2.02.0
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.

R9 Nano 21.57
+132%
Pro WX 4100 9.31

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 Nano 8486
+132%
Pro WX 4100 3662

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 HD91
+160%
35−40
−160%
4K46
+156%
18−20
−156%

Cost per frame, $

1080p7.13
+59.8%
11.40
−59.8%
4K14.11
+57.1%
22.17
−57.1%
  • R9 Nano has 60% lower cost per frame in 1080p
  • R9 Nano has 57% lower cost per frame in 4K

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 55−60
+133%
24−27
−133%
Counter-Strike 2 35−40
+144%
16−18
−144%
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45
+144%
18−20
−144%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 55−60
+133%
24−27
−133%
Battlefield 5 85−90
+143%
35−40
−143%
Counter-Strike 2 35−40
+144%
16−18
−144%
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45
+144%
18−20
−144%
Far Cry 5 70−75
+133%
30−33
−133%
Fortnite 100−110
+138%
45−50
−138%
Forza Horizon 4 80−85
+140%
35−40
−140%
Forza Horizon 5 55−60
+142%
24−27
−142%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 75−80
+163%
30−33
−163%
Valorant 150−160
+150%
60−65
−150%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 55−60
+133%
24−27
−133%
Battlefield 5 85−90
+143%
35−40
−143%
Counter-Strike 2 35−40
+144%
16−18
−144%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 240−250
+140%
100−105
−140%
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45
+144%
18−20
−144%
Dota 2 110−120
+151%
45−50
−151%
Far Cry 5 70−75
+133%
30−33
−133%
Fortnite 100−110
+138%
45−50
−138%
Forza Horizon 4 80−85
+140%
35−40
−140%
Forza Horizon 5 55−60
+142%
24−27
−142%
Grand Theft Auto V 75−80
+157%
30−33
−157%
Metro Exodus 45−50
+150%
18−20
−150%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 75−80
+163%
30−33
−163%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 60−65
+150%
24−27
−150%
Valorant 150−160
+150%
60−65
−150%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 85−90
+143%
35−40
−143%
Counter-Strike 2 35−40
+144%
16−18
−144%
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45
+144%
18−20
−144%
Dota 2 110−120
+151%
45−50
−151%
Far Cry 5 70−75
+133%
30−33
−133%
Forza Horizon 4 80−85
+140%
35−40
−140%
Forza Horizon 5 55−60
+142%
24−27
−142%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 75−80
+163%
30−33
−163%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 47
+161%
18−20
−161%
Valorant 150−160
+150%
60−65
−150%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 100−110
+138%
45−50
−138%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 21−24
+144%
9−10
−144%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 140−150
+147%
60−65
−147%
Grand Theft Auto V 35−40
+157%
14−16
−157%
Metro Exodus 27−30
+170%
10−11
−170%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+132%
75−80
−132%
Valorant 180−190
+136%
80−85
−136%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 55−60
+142%
24−27
−142%
Cyberpunk 2077 20−22
+150%
8−9
−150%
Far Cry 5 45−50
+161%
18−20
−161%
Forza Horizon 4 50−55
+148%
21−24
−148%
Forza Horizon 5 35−40
+164%
14−16
−164%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30−35
+143%
14−16
−143%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 45−50
+167%
18−20
−167%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 16−18
+143%
7−8
−143%
Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+150%
4−5
−150%
Grand Theft Auto V 35−40
+138%
16−18
−138%
Metro Exodus 16−18
+143%
7−8
−143%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 35
+150%
14−16
−150%
Valorant 110−120
+138%
50−55
−138%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 30−35
+158%
12−14
−158%
Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+150%
4−5
−150%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+167%
3−4
−167%
Dota 2 70−75
+133%
30−33
−133%
Far Cry 5 21−24
+156%
9−10
−156%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+157%
14−16
−157%
Forza Horizon 5 18−20
+138%
8−9
−138%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 21−24
+133%
9−10
−133%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 21−24
+144%
9−10
−144%

This is how R9 Nano and Pro WX 4100 compete in popular games:

  • R9 Nano is 160% faster in 1080p
  • R9 Nano is 156% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 21.57 9.31
Recency 27 August 2015 10 November 2016
Chip lithography 28 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 175 Watt 50 Watt

R9 Nano has a 131.7% higher aggregate performance score.

Pro WX 4100, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 250% lower power consumption.

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

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

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 Nano
Radeon R9 Nano
AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100
Radeon Pro WX 4100

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.


4.3 91 vote

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6 48 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon R9 Nano or Radeon Pro WX 4100, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.