AMD Radeon 760M vs AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 Comparison

The benchmark data presents a clear generational shift. The AMD Radeon 760M, an integrated graphics processor, decisively outperforms the older discrete AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 across every single tested workload. The Radeon Pro WX 4100, a dedicated workstation card from 2016, cannot match the modern efficiency and raw compute of the RDNA 3.0-based 760M, which wins all nine head-to-head comparisons.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking result is in the Geekbench Vulkan test, where the Radeon 760M scores 30,336 against the WX 4100’s 18,703. This represents a 38.3% advantage for the integrated part, highlighting a massive leap in graphics API performance. The gap is even more pronounced in compute-heavy workloads; the 760M’s Passmark GPU Compute score of 2,840 is nearly double the WX 4100’s 1,475, a 48.1% difference. This suggests the newer architecture handles general-purpose compute tasks with far greater efficiency.

DirectX 11 performance shows the largest single-test delta. The 760M scores 52 in Passmark’s DirectX 11 test, while the WX 4100 manages only 24, giving the 760M a 53.8% lead. This is a significant victory for the integrated GPU, indicating it can handle legacy and mainstream game workloads substantially better. The DirectX 12 test is closer, with the 760M scoring 25 versus the WX 4100’s 22, a 12% lead, but the 760M still wins.

The 760M also dominates in overall 3D graphics performance. In the Passmark G3D test, it scores 5,310 compared to the WX 4100’s 3,699, a 30.3% advantage. This result is consistent with its higher pixel and texture rates. The 2D performance gap is also notable, with the 760M scoring 890 in Passmark G2D versus 646 for the WX 4100, a 27.4% difference. Even in older DirectX 9 and DirectX 10 tests, the 760M maintains a consistent lead of 13.8% and 15.8%, respectively. Across the board, the data shows the Radeon 760M is not just slightly faster; it is categorically superior in every benchmark category.

Architecture Differences

The performance disparity is rooted in fundamentally different architectures separated by seven years of development. The Radeon Pro WX 4100 uses the Baffin chip based on the GCN 4.0 architecture, manufactured on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. In contrast, the Radeon 760M uses the Phoenix chip based on the RDNA 3.0 architecture, built on a much more advanced 4 nm process at TSMC. This process shrink allows the 760M to pack 25,390 million transistors into a 178 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 142.6M / mm². The WX 4100, with 3,000 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, has a density of just 24.4M / mm².

The core configurations differ significantly. The WX 4100 has 1,024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 16 ROPs. The 760M has fewer shading units at 512 and fewer TMUs at 32, but it also has 8 dedicated ray tracing cores, a feature entirely absent from the older GCN part. The 760M compensates for fewer shaders with much higher clocks; its boost clock reaches 2599 MHz compared to the WX 4100’s 1201 MHz. This clock advantage, combined with architectural efficiency, results in the 760M’s superior throughput: 5.323 TFLOPS FP32 versus 2.460 TFLOPS for the WX 4100. The pixel rate also favors the 760M at 41.58 GPixel/s versus 19.22 GPixel/s.

Memory architecture is a fundamental point of divergence. The WX 4100 is a discrete card with 4 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing 96.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The 760M is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) that shares system memory, with its bandwidth described as "System Dependent." This means the 760M’s memory performance is variable and depends entirely on the host system’s RAM, while the WX 4100 has fixed, dedicated bandwidth. The API support also differs, with the 760M supporting DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while the WX 4100 is limited to DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance?

A: The AMD Radeon 760M, with 5.323 TFLOPS FP32, is more than double the 2.460 TFLOPS of the Radeon Pro WX 4100.

Q: How do the two compare in the Passmark G3D test?

A: The Radeon 760M scores 5,310, which is 30.3% higher than the Radeon Pro WX 4100’s score of 3,699.

Q: Does the Radeon Pro WX 4100 have any benchmark wins?

A: No. In the nine head-to-head benchmark comparisons, the Radeon 760M wins all of them. The data shows zero wins for the WX 4100.

Q: What is the difference in their process nodes?

A: The Radeon Pro WX 4100 is built on a 14 nm process, while the Radeon 760M uses a 4 nm process.

Q: Does the Radeon 760M support ray tracing?

A: Yes, the Radeon 760M features 8 ray tracing cores, a feature the Radeon Pro WX 4100 does not have.

Q: What is the memory situation for each card?

A: The Radeon Pro WX 4100 has 4 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth. The Radeon 760M uses System Shared memory, with bandwidth that is System Dependent.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ on nearly every core specification.

• Chip: Baffin (WX 4100) vs. Phoenix (760M)
• Architecture: GCN 4.0 vs. RDNA 3.0
• Process Node: 14 nm vs. 4 nm
• Foundry: GlobalFoundries vs. TSMC
• Transistors: 3,000 million vs. 25,390 million
• Die Size: 123 mm² vs. 178 mm²
• Transistor Density: 24.4M / mm² vs. 142.6M / mm²
• Base Clock: 1125 MHz vs. 800 MHz
• Boost Clock: 1201 MHz vs. 2599 MHz
• Memory Size: 4 GB vs. System Shared
• Memory Type: GDDR5 vs. System Shared
• Memory Bus Width: 128 bit vs. System Shared
• Memory Bandwidth: 96.00 GB/s vs. System Dependent
• Shading Units: 1024 vs. 512
• TMUs: 64 vs. 32
• Ray Tracing Cores: None vs. 8
• Pixel Rate: 19.22 GPixel/s vs. 41.58 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 76.86 GTexel/s vs. 83.17 GTexel/s
• FP32 Performance: 2.460 TFLOPS vs. 5.323 TFLOPS
• TDP: 50 W vs. 15 W
• Slot Width: Single-slot vs. IGP
• Suggested PSU: 250 W vs. None
• Bus Interface: PCIe 3.0 x8 vs. PCIe 4.0 x8
• Display Outputs: 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a vs. Motherboard Dependent
• DirectX Support: 12 (12_0) vs. 12 Ultimate (12_2)
• Vulkan Support: 1.3 vs. 1.4
• Production Status: End-of-life vs. Active
• Release Date: 2016-11-09 vs. 2024-01-30

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon 760M wins in every measurable performance category. Its advantages are most pronounced in compute and modern API workloads. The 48.1% lead in Passmark GPU Compute and the 38.3% lead in Vulkan make it the clear choice for tasks that leverage general-purpose GPU computing or modern graphics APIs. Its 53.8% lead in DirectX 11 performance also makes it superior for a wide range of current and legacy games. The 760M achieves all this with a 15 W TDP, a fraction of the WX 4100’s 50 W, making it exceptionally power-efficient.

The Radeon Pro WX 4100’s only potential advantage lies in its form factor and dedicated memory. As a single-slot, low-profile discrete card with 4 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory and a fixed 96.00 GB/s bandwidth, it provides a self-contained solution that does not depend on system memory performance. It also offers 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, which is a specific feature set for direct multi-monitor connectivity. For systems where an IGP is not an option and dedicated, consistent memory bandwidth is required, the WX 4100 remains a functional, albeit outdated, alternative. Its average benchmark score of 6,330 is only slightly above the 760M’s 6,019, but its percentile ranking is 37 versus the 760M’s 35, placing it marginally higher among all GPUs.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD Radeon 760M is the superior processor by a wide margin. It wins 100% of the head-to-head benchmarks, offering significantly higher performance in compute, DirectX, and Vulkan workloads. Its modern RDNA 3.0 architecture, 4 nm process, and ray tracing support make it a far more capable and future-proof solution. The 760M is the clear choice for any user building a new system who can take advantage of an integrated GPU, as it delivers discrete-class performance with a fraction of the power draw.

The Radeon Pro WX 4100 should only be considered in specific legacy scenarios. Its dedicated 4 GB of GDDR5 memory and fixed bandwidth make it a predictable performer in systems where shared memory is not acceptable. Its multi-display outputs are also a point in its favor for certain professional setups. However, given its end-of-life status, lower performance, and higher power consumption, it is difficult to recommend for any new build. Users needing a discrete solution would be better served by a more modern card, while those seeking performance should look to the 760M. The verdict is simple: the Radeon 760M is the definitive winner in this comparison.