Radeon Pro WX 4150 vs RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000)
Aggregate performance score
Pro WX 4150 outperforms RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) by a considerable 47% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 621 | 534 |
| Place by popularity | 37 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.46 |
| Architecture | Vega (2017−2021) | Polaris (2016−2019) |
| GPU code name | Vega Raven Ridge | Polaris 11 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 26 October 2017 (6 years ago) | 1 March 2017 (7 years ago) |
| Current price | no data | $2000 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
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 cores | 512 | 896 |
| Boost clock speed | 1200 MHz | 1053 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 3,000 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 50 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 58.97 |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) and Radeon Pro WX 4150 compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.
| Laptop size | no data | medium sized |
| Interface | no data | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 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 | no data | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | no data | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 7000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 96 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 | no data | No outputs |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| FreeSync | no data | + |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12_1 | 12 (12_0) |
| Shader Model | no data | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | no data | 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 | 18
−33.3%
| 24−27
+33.3%
|
| 4K | 10
−40%
| 14−16
+40%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9
−22.2%
|
10−12
+22.2%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 15
+15.4%
|
12−14
−15.4%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 10
+25%
|
8−9
−25%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 24
+14.3%
|
21−24
−14.3%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 16
−18.8%
|
18−20
+18.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9
−22.2%
|
10−12
+22.2%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12
−25%
|
14−16
+25%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 13
−23.1%
|
16−18
+23.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 26
+18.2%
|
21−24
−18.2%
|
| Hitman 3 | 10−11
−60%
|
16−18
+60%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 12
−8.3%
|
12−14
+8.3%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 12
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 12
−25%
|
14−16
+25%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 12
+20%
|
10−11
−20%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 11
−18.2%
|
12−14
+18.2%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 3−4
−167%
|
8−9
+167%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 22
+4.8%
|
21−24
−4.8%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 6
−217%
|
18−20
+217%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6
−83.3%
|
10−12
+83.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10
−50%
|
14−16
+50%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 14
−14.3%
|
16−18
+14.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30
+36.4%
|
21−24
−36.4%
|
| Hitman 3 | 10−11
−60%
|
16−18
+60%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 8−9
−62.5%
|
12−14
+62.5%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7
−28.6%
|
9−10
+28.6%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 9−10
−33.3%
|
12−14
+33.3%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 10
−50%
|
14−16
+50%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 13
−7.7%
|
14−16
+7.7%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 5−6
−100%
|
10−11
+100%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 8
−62.5%
|
12−14
+62.5%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 3−4
−167%
|
8−9
+167%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 23
+9.5%
|
21−24
−9.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5
−120%
|
10−12
+120%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9
−66.7%
|
14−16
+66.7%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 14
−14.3%
|
16−18
+14.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 23
+4.5%
|
21−24
−4.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8
−75%
|
14−16
+75%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 5−6
−100%
|
10−11
+100%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 7−8
−42.9%
|
10−11
+42.9%
|
| Hitman 3 | 8−9
−37.5%
|
10−12
+37.5%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 10−12
−9.1%
|
12−14
+9.1%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 8−9
−25%
|
10−11
+25%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
−42.9%
|
10−11
+42.9%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 3−4
−167%
|
8−9
+167%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−100%
|
10−11
+100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−50%
|
6−7
+50%
|
4K
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| Hitman 3 | 4−5
−50%
|
6−7
+50%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 3
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 0−1 | 3−4 |
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 4
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 6
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−50%
|
6−7
+50%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9
+50%
|
6−7
−50%
|
This is how RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) and Pro WX 4150 compete in popular games:
- Pro WX 4150 is 33% faster in 1080p
- Pro WX 4150 is 40% 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 RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) is 200% faster than the Pro WX 4150.
- in Call of Duty: Modern Warfare, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the Pro WX 4150 is 217% faster than the RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000).
All in all, in popular games:
- RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) is ahead in 13 tests (21%)
- Pro WX 4150 is ahead in 46 tests (75%)
- there's a draw in 2 tests (3%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 4.49 | 6.61 |
| Recency | 26 October 2017 | 1 March 2017 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 50 Watt |
The Radeon Pro WX 4150 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) is a notebook graphics card while Radeon Pro WX 4150 is a mobile workstation one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
