AMD Radeon 610M vs AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in the recorded benchmark data?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 wins both head-to-head tests. It scores 289% higher in Geekbench OpenCL and 194.4% higher in Geekbench Vulkan compared to the AMD Radeon 610M.

Q: How do these two GPUs compare in overall database ranking?

A: The Radeon Pro WX 4100 sits at the 37th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 6330. The Radeon 610M sits at the 32nd percentile, with an average score of 5444.

Q: What is the architecture generation difference?

A: The Radeon Pro WX 4100 uses GCN 4.0 architecture on a 14 nm process, while the Radeon 610M uses RDNA 2.0 architecture on a 6 nm process. The 610M is the newer design by roughly six years, as its release date is September 2022 versus November 2016 for the WX 4100.

Q: Do both GPUs support modern graphics APIs?

A: The Radeon 610M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while the Radeon Pro WX 4100 supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Q: What memory configurations do these cards use?

A: The Radeon Pro WX 4100 has 4 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth. The Radeon 610M uses system shared memory, with bandwidth described as system dependent.

Q: Which GPU has ray tracing capabilities?

A: The Radeon 610M includes 2 ray tracing cores, while the Radeon Pro WX 4100 has no ray tracing cores listed in the database.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 and AMD Radeon 610M represent two fundamentally different design philosophies from AMD. The WX 4100 is built on GCN 4.0 architecture, a discrete workstation GPU using the Baffin chip. The 610M is an RDNA 2.0 integrated graphics processor based on the Mendocino chip, designed for mobile platforms.

The process technology gap is substantial. The WX 4100 uses a 14 nm process from GlobalFoundries, while the 610M uses a 6 nm process from TSMC. This smaller node allows the 610M to operate at significantly higher clock speeds despite its much lower power envelope. The 610M has a base clock of 1500 MHz and a boost clock of 1900 MHz, compared to 1125 MHz base and 1201 MHz boost on the WX 4100.

Silicon resources tell a different story. The WX 4100 packs 3,000 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 24.4 million per mm². The 610M has a smaller 100 mm² die, though its transistor count is not recorded in the database. More importantly, the WX 4100 has 1024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 16 render output units. The 610M has only 128 shading units, 8 TMUs, and 4 ROPs. This 8x difference in shader count is the primary reason for the performance gap.

The 610M does bring newer feature support. It includes 2 ray tracing cores, which the WX 4100 lacks entirely. The 610M also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while the WX 4100 is limited to DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Memory architecture differs completely. The WX 4100 has dedicated 4 GB GDDR5 memory with a 128-bit bus and 96.00 GB/s bandwidth. The 610M relies on system shared memory, with its bus width and bandwidth dependent on the host system. This makes the 610M's memory performance variable, while the WX 4100 has fixed, predictable bandwidth.

Power and physical specifications are also divergent. The WX 4100 has a 50 W TDP and is a single-slot card requiring no power connectors, with a suggested PSU of 250 W. The 610M has a 15 W TDP and is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no separate slot or power requirements. The WX 4100 measures 168 mm in length and 69 mm in height, while the 610M has no recorded dimensions since it is integrated into a processor.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded head-to-head data shows a decisive victory for the AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 in both available tests. In Geekbench OpenCL, the WX 4100 scores 17642 against the 610M's 4535, a difference of 289%. This is not a marginal lead; it is a nearly fourfold advantage in compute throughput.

The Vulkan results follow a similar pattern. The WX 4100 scores 18703 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the 610M manages 6353. The delta is 194.4%, meaning the WX 4100 is roughly three times faster in this API. The WX 4100 wins both head-to-head matchups, giving it a 2-0 record in the database.

Context from the nearest rivals helps interpret these scores. The WX 4100's average benchmark score of 6330 puts it just 0.1% above the AMD Radeon R7 M350 and 0.8% above the NVIDIA Quadro K620. It sits 0.9% below both the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 SE and GTX 580M. This places the WX 4100 in a tight cluster of mid-range GPUs from a previous era.

The 610M's average score of 5444 places it 0.4% below the NVIDIA Quadro M4000, 0.5% above the AMD Radeon R7 M365X, 0.7% below the AMD Radeon R7 M440, and 1% below the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M. The 610M is thus competitive with older mobile and entry-level discrete GPUs, despite being an integrated solution.

The gap between the two cards is substantial in raw compute, but the newer architecture of the 610M should not be dismissed entirely. The 610M's RDNA 2.0 design includes ray tracing support and newer API features that the GCN 4.0-based WX 4100 cannot offer. In workloads that leverage these newer capabilities, the 610M may close the gap, though the database does not include such tests.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every major specification category. Process node is the most fundamental difference: 14 nm for the WX 4100 versus 6 nm for the 610M. The foundry also differs, with GlobalFoundries producing the WX 4100 and TSMC producing the 610M.

Compute resources are heavily skewed toward the WX 4100. It has 1024 shading units versus 128 on the 610M, 64 TMUs versus 8, and 16 ROPs versus 4. The WX 4100 also has 2 ray tracing cores, a feature the 610M lacks. Pixel rate is 19.22 GPixel/s on the WX 4100 versus 7.600 GPixel/s on the 610M. Texture rate is 76.86 GTexel/s versus 15.20 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 2.460 TFLOPS versus 486.4 GFLOPS. The WX 4100 has 1:1 FP16 ratio at 2.460 TFLOPS, while the 610M has 2:1 FP16 at 972.8 GFLOPS.

Clock speeds favor the 610M. Its base clock of 1500 MHz is higher than the WX 4100's 1125 MHz, and its boost clock of 1900 MHz exceeds the WX 4100's 1201 MHz. Memory clocks cannot be compared directly because the 610M uses system shared memory, while the WX 4100 has a fixed 1500 MHz memory clock with 6 Gbps effective speed.

Memory capacity and bandwidth are entirely different. The WX 4100 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth. The 610M has system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth, making its memory performance contingent on the host platform.

Power requirements are dramatically different. The WX 4100 has a 50 W TDP, while the 610M has a 15 W TDP. The WX 4100 is a single-slot card with no power connectors and requires a 250 W suggested PSU. The 610M is an IGP with no slot width, no power connectors, and no suggested PSU listed.

Bus interface and display outputs also differ. The WX 4100 uses PCIe 3.0 x8 and has 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The 610M uses PCIe 4.0 x8 and has portable device dependent display outputs, reflecting its mobile integrated nature.

Release timing is separated by nearly six years. The WX 4100 launched in November 2016, while the 610M launched in September 2022. Both are now end-of-life products. The WX 4100 has a recorded launch MSRP of 399 USD, while the 610M has no MSRP listed, consistent with its integrated design.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear conclusion: the AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 is the stronger performer in raw compute and graphics benchmarks. Its 289% lead in OpenCL and 194.4% lead in Vulkan are decisive margins. The WX 4100 also holds a higher overall percentile ranking at 37 versus 32 for the 610M, and a higher average benchmark score of 6330 versus 5444.

For users whose priority is maximum benchmark performance, particularly in compute-heavy tasks like rendering or scientific workloads, the WX 4100 is the obvious choice. Its 8x advantage in shading units, 4 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory, and 96.00 GB/s fixed bandwidth make it a more capable tool for professional applications.

However, the 610M is not without merit. Its RDNA 2.0 architecture brings modern features that the older GCN 4.0 design cannot match. The 610M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4, includes 2 ray tracing cores, and operates at a 15 W TDP suitable for thin-and-light mobile devices. Its 6 nm process allows for higher clock speeds, and its PCIe 4.0 interface is twice the bandwidth generation of the WX 4100's PCIe 3.0.

The choice depends on the use case. For a workstation requiring dedicated, predictable performance with professional display outputs, the WX 4100 is the superior product. For an integrated mobile solution with modern API support and ray tracing, the 610M is the only viable option. The WX 4100 wins on performance; the 610M wins on architecture currency and efficiency.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 wins in every recorded benchmark category. It dominates OpenCL compute with a 289% advantage and Vulkan with a 194.4% advantage. Its 1024 shading units and 64 TMUs provide the parallel throughput needed for heavy graphics and compute workloads. The 4 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth ensures consistent memory performance without competing with the CPU for system RAM.

The WX 4100's 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs make it suitable for multi-monitor professional setups. Its single-slot form factor and lack of power connectors simplify installation in workstations. The 50 W TDP is modest for a discrete card with this level of performance.

The AMD Radeon 610M wins in areas not covered by the benchmark suite. Its RDNA 2.0 architecture supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, a feature absent from the WX 4100's DirectX 12 (12_0) support. The 2 ray tracing cores enable hardware-accelerated ray tracing workloads that the WX 4100 cannot process. The 15 W TDP makes it suitable for battery-powered devices where the WX 4100's 50 W draw would be impractical.

The 610M's higher base and boost clocks, 1500 MHz and 1900 MHz respectively, indicate better per-clock efficiency from the newer 6 nm process. Its PCIe 4.0 x8 interface provides twice the data transfer rate of the WX 4100's PCIe 3.0 x8, though the 610M's system shared memory means this bandwidth is shared with other system components.

For users focused on benchmark scores, the WX 4100 is the clear winner. For users needing modern API features, ray tracing, and minimal power consumption in a mobile form factor, the 610M is the appropriate choice despite its lower scores. The database records a 2-0 win record for the WX 4100, but the 610M's architectural advantages suggest it is the more future-proof design for emerging workloads.