AMD FirePro W600 vs AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 Comparison

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 and AMD FirePro W600 represent two distinct eras of professional graphics, separated by four years of architectural evolution. The data shows a decisive overall victory for the newer card, but the comparison reveals more than just a generational gap. The WX 4100 leads by a substantial margin in the only directly comparable benchmark, yet the W600’s legacy as a multi-display solution remains relevant in specific contexts. This analysis breaks down the performance deltas, architectural shifts, and practical implications based strictly on the provided benchmark data.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only shared benchmark between these two cards is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the result is lopsided. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 scores 17,642, while the AMD FirePro W600 manages just 6,223. This translates to a delta of 183.5% in favor of the WX 4100. In practical terms, the newer card delivers nearly three times the raw compute throughput in this workload, a figure that dwarfs the differences seen in typical rival comparisons.

To contextualize this gap, consider the nearest rivals for each card. The WX 4100’s average benchmark score of 6,330 places it within 0.1% of the AMD Radeon R7 M350 and 0.8% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro K620. The FirePro W600’s average score of 6,223 puts it 0.2% ahead of the AMD Radeon HD 6950 and 0.9% behind the same NVIDIA Quadro K620. Interestingly, the FirePro W600’s nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti SUPER, both with average scores of 6,270 — the W600 trails them by just 0.7%. This clustering of scores around the 6,200-6,400 mark indicates that the FirePro W600 is computationally competitive with a wide range of mid-tier GPUs, both old and new, but the WX 4100’s OpenCL result sits far above that cluster.

The WX 4100 also shows strength across other benchmarks not shared with the W600. Its Geekbench Metal score of 21,018 and Vulkan score of 18,703 indicate robust API support, while its Passmark G3D score of 3,699 and GPU Compute score of 1,475 suggest balanced performance across different rendering and compute loads. The FirePro W600 has no comparable data in these tests, so the head-to-head analysis must rely on the single OpenCL result. That result alone, however, is sufficient to establish the WX 4100 as the clear performance leader in general-purpose compute.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two cards is fundamental. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 is built on the Baffin chip using GCN 4.0 architecture, fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It packs 3,000 million transistors into a 123 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 24.4 million per mm². The AMD FirePro W600, by contrast, uses the Cape Verde chip with GCN 1.0 architecture, produced on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It contains 1,500 million transistors in the same 123 mm² die size, resulting in a much lower density of 12.2 million per mm².

The compute resources scale accordingly. The WX 4100 features 1,024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The W600 is cut in half on the first two: 512 shading units and 32 TMUs, while maintaining 16 ROPs. This doubling of shader and texture hardware directly explains the WX 4100’s compute advantage. Clock speeds also differ, with the WX 4100 running at a base of 1125 MHz and a boost of 1201 MHz, while the W600’s clocks are not listed in the data. Memory configurations reflect the generational shift: the WX 4100 offers 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 96.00 GB/s of bandwidth, while the W600 provides 2 GB of GDDR5 on the same bus width but only 64.00 GB/s. The effective memory speed is 6 Gbps versus 4 Gbps, respectively.

Feature support also diverges. The WX 4100 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3, while the W600 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and the older Vulkan 1.2.170. Both cards are single-slot with no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 250 W, but the WX 4100 has a lower TDP of 50 W versus the W600’s 75 W. The display outputs tell a different story: the WX 4100 has four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, while the W600 has six mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs. Physical dimensions are identical in length at 168 mm (6.6 inches), but the W600 is taller at 111 mm (4.4 inches) and adds a width of 20 mm (0.8 inches), versus the WX 4100’s 69 mm (2.7 inches) height with no listed width.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the benchmark data, the AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 wins decisively in raw compute performance. Its OpenCL score of 17,642 is more than double the W600’s 6,223, making it the clear choice for workloads that rely on GPU compute, such as rendering, simulation, or data processing. The WX 4100 also benefits from a larger 4 GB memory buffer and higher bandwidth (96.00 GB/s vs 64.00 GB/s), which can be critical for handling larger datasets or higher-resolution textures without swapping to system memory. Its support for newer API versions, including Vulkan 1.3 and DirectX 12 (12_0), ensures compatibility with modern software stacks.

The AMD FirePro W600’s sole advantage lies in its display output configuration. With six mini-DisplayPort 1.2 connections versus the WX 4100’s four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, the W600 is purpose-built for multi-monitor setups. In a workstation environment where driving six independent displays is a primary requirement — such as a financial trading floor, a video wall, or a control room — the W600’s additional outputs provide a functional edge that no benchmark score can capture. Its lower compute performance (768.0 GFLOPS FP32 vs 2.460 TFLOPS for the WX 4100) is irrelevant if the workload is primarily 2D display output rather than 3D rendering or compute.

The W600’s PCIe 3.0 x16 interface offers double the lane width of the WX 4100’s PCIe 3.0 x8 connection, which could theoretically reduce data transfer bottlenecks in some scenarios, though the benchmark data does not isolate this variable. For users who prioritize maximum compute density in a single-slot, low-power package, the WX 4100 is the superior choice. For users who need the highest number of native display outputs, the W600 remains the only option of the two.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 scores 17,642, which is 183.5% higher than the AMD FirePro W600’s 6,223.

Q: How do the two cards compare in terms of memory capacity and bandwidth?

A: The WX 4100 has 4 GB of GDDR5 with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth, while the W600 has 2 GB of GDDR5 with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth. Both use a 128-bit memory bus.

Q: What are the TDP and power connector requirements for each card?

A: The WX 4100 has a TDP of 50 W, and the W600 has a TDP of 75 W. Neither card requires external power connectors, and both list a suggested PSU of 250 W.

Q: How many display outputs does each card provide?

A: The WX 4100 provides four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, while the W600 provides six mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs.

Q: What is the architectural generation difference between the two cards?

A: The WX 4100 uses GCN 4.0 architecture on a 14 nm process, while the W600 uses GCN 1.0 architecture on a 28 nm process. The WX 4100 has 1,024 shading units versus 512 on the W600.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The WX 4100’s average score of 6,330 is 0.1% above the AMD Radeon R7 M350 and 0.8% above the NVIDIA Quadro K620. The W600’s average score of 6,223 is 0.2% above the AMD Radeon HD 6950 and 0.9% below the NVIDIA Quadro K620.

The Verdict

The benchmark data makes a straightforward case for most users: the AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 is the superior compute card. Its OpenCL score of 17,642 versus 6,223 represents a 183.5% improvement, and its doubled shader count, higher memory capacity, and doubled bandwidth reinforce that advantage. The WX 4100 also offers lower power consumption (50 W TDP vs 75 W) and a smaller physical footprint, making it easier to integrate into dense systems. The launch MSRP for the WX 4100 was 399 USD, compared to 599 USD for the W600, though pricing considerations are secondary to performance in this analysis.

The AMD FirePro W600 is not without merit. Its six mini-DisplayPort outputs are unmatched by the WX 4100’s four, making it a legitimate choice for fixed-function multi-display installations where compute headroom is secondary. The W600’s average benchmark score of 6,223 places it within 0.9% of the NVIDIA Quadro K620 and 0.7% of the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102, showing it remains competitive in its narrow niche. However, for any workload that leverages GPGPU compute, rendering, or modern API features, the WX 4100 is the only rational selection. The data shows a single benchmark winner, and that winner is the WX 4100 by a wide margin. Users with legacy multi-display requirements may still consider the W600, but all other use cases point decisively to the Radeon Pro WX 4100.