AMD Radeon HD 8690M vs AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 Comparison

AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 and AMD Radeon HD 8690M are both end-of-life mobile and professional graphics solutions from AMD, but they represent vastly different eras and market segments. The data shows a single head-to-head benchmark, and the results are decisively lopsided. This analysis will interpret the available figures, placing each card in context against its nearest rivals and examining the architectural chasm between the two.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only shared benchmark between these two GPUs is Geekbench OpenCL, and the result is a near-total victory for the newer part. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 scores 17,642 points, while the AMD Radeon HD 8690M manages just 6,137 points. This translates to a delta of 187.5% — the WX 4100 is nearly three times faster in this compute-oriented test. The margin is so wide that it underscores the generational leap between the two architectures rather than a mere clock-speed or core-count advantage.

Looking at the broader benchmark landscape for the WX 4100, its average benchmark score is 6,330. This places it in the 37th percentile of all GPUs, a modest standing that reflects its professional focus rather than raw gaming performance. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon R7 M350 (average score 6,327, delta 0.1%) and the NVIDIA Quadro K620 (average score 6,282, delta 0.8%), showing that the WX 4100 sits in a tight cluster of similar-performance workstation and mobile parts. Interestingly, it is also flanked by the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 SE and GTX 580M, both with average scores of 6,389 and a delta of -0.9%, meaning the WX 4100 is marginally slower than these older gaming cards in aggregate.

The HD 8690M, with its single Geekbench OpenCL score of 6,137, yields an average benchmark score of 6,137 and a 36th percentile ranking. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 (average score 6,117, delta 0.3%) and the NVIDIA RTX A400 (average score 6,078, delta 1%). This indicates that the HD 8690M performs on par with modern entry-level integrated graphics and low-end discrete GPUs, despite being a dedicated part from 2013. The delta of 1% against the RTX A400 is particularly telling — a professional GPU from a later generation barely edges out this old mobile chip in compute workloads.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 is the superior performer by a massive margin. In the only directly comparable test, Geekbench OpenCL, the WX 4100 leads by 187.5%. This is not a close contest; it is a generational wipeout. For any workload that leverages OpenCL compute — which includes many professional rendering, simulation, and data-processing tasks — the WX 4100 is the only rational choice between these two.

However, the verdict is not simply about speed. The HD 8690M is a mobile part from the Solar System generation, likely found in older laptops, while the WX 4100 is a single-slot workstation card designed for professional desktops. Their use cases barely overlap. If a user is constrained to a legacy laptop with an HD 8690M, the data shows it performs comparably to modern integrated graphics like the Intel Iris Pro 6200, making it acceptable for light duties. But for anyone choosing between these two for a new build, the WX 4100 wins on every measurable metric, including raw compute, memory bandwidth, and feature support. The HD 8690M's 36th percentile versus the WX 4100's 37th percentile is a negligible difference in overall standing, but the head-to-head benchmark reveals the true gulf in capability.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is vast, explaining the benchmark disparity. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 is built on the Baffin chip using the GCN 4.0 architecture, fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It packs 3,000 million transistors onto a 123 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 24.4M per mm². In contrast, the AMD Radeon HD 8690M uses the Sun chip with the original GCN 1.0 architecture, produced on a 28 nm process at TSMC. This older design contains only 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die, with a transistor density of 12.3M per mm².

The core configuration differences are stark. The WX 4100 features 1,024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 16 render output units (ROPs). The HD 8690M is far leaner, with just 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. Clock speeds also favor the WX 4100, with a base of 1125 MHz and a boost of 1201 MHz, compared to the HD 8690M's 925 MHz base and 975 MHz boost. This combination of more cores and higher clocks yields a theoretical FP32 performance of 2.460 TFLOPS for the WX 4100, versus just 624.0 GFLOPS for the HD 8690M.

Memory subsystems are another major divider. The WX 4100 uses 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 96.00 GB/s of bandwidth at 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective). The HD 8690M has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus, providing only 32.00 GB/s at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective). This threefold difference in bandwidth is critical for compute-heavy tasks. Additionally, the WX 4100 supports FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, a feature absent from the HD 8690M's specification list.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance in OpenCL?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 scores 17,642 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the AMD Radeon HD 8690M scores 6,137. This gives the WX 4100 a 187.5% advantage in this specific test.

Q: How do these GPUs compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The WX 4100's average benchmark score of 6,330 is nearly identical to the AMD Radeon R7 M350 (6,327, delta 0.1%) and slightly ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro K620 (6,282, delta 0.8%). The HD 8690M's average score of 6,137 is just 0.3% above the Intel Iris Pro 6200 (6,117) and 1% above the NVIDIA RTX A400 (6,078).

Q: What are the memory bandwidth differences?

A: The WX 4100 offers 96.00 GB/s of bandwidth from 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus. The HD 8690M provides 32.00 GB/s from 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus. The WX 4100 has exactly three times the memory bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU is more power-efficient based on the data?

A: The WX 4100 has a TDP of 50 W and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The HD 8690M has no TDP or PSU data listed in the fact pack, so a direct comparison is not possible.

Q: Do both GPUs support modern APIs?

A: The WX 4100 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The HD 8690M supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. Thus, the WX 4100 has a higher DirectX feature level and a newer Vulkan version.

Q: What is the release timeline difference?

A: The HD 8690M was released on 2013-02-28, while the WX 4100 came later on 2016-11-09. Both are now end-of-life products.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 wins in every measurable category where data exists. It dominates the single head-to-head OpenCL benchmark by 187.5%. Its higher shading unit count (1,024 vs 320), greater TMUs (64 vs 20), and doubled ROPs (16 vs 8) contribute to a theoretical pixel rate of 19.22 GPixel/s and texture rate of 76.86 GTexel/s, versus 7.800 GPixel/s and 19.50 GTexel/s for the HD 8690M. In professional workloads such as CAD, scientific computing, or any OpenCL-accelerated application, the WX 4100 is the clear winner.

The AMD Radeon HD 8690M does not win any benchmark in the fact pack. However, it could be considered a "winner" in the context of legacy mobile systems where it was originally deployed. Its performance is roughly on par with the Intel Iris Pro 6200 and NVIDIA MX230 (deltas of 0.3% and 1% respectively), meaning it remains functional for basic tasks in an aging laptop. The HD 8690M also has a smaller die (56 mm² vs 123 mm²) and fewer transistors (690 million vs 3,000 million), which historically would imply lower power draw, though no TDP is listed for the HD 8690M to confirm this. For users with no upgrade path, the HD 8690M is adequate, but it cannot compete with the WX 4100 in any performance metric.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 and the AMD Radeon HD 8690M:

• Chip: Baffin vs Sun
• Architecture: GCN 4.0 vs GCN 1.0
• Process Node: 14 nm vs 28 nm
• Foundry: GlobalFoundries vs TSMC
• Transistors: 3,000 million vs 690 million
• Die Size: 123 mm² vs 56 mm²
• Transistor Density: 24.4M / mm² vs 12.3M / mm²
• Base Clock: 1125 MHz vs 925 MHz
• Boost Clock: 1201 MHz vs 975 MHz
• Memory Clock: 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective) vs 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective)
• Memory Size: 4 GB vs 2 GB
• Memory Bus Width: 128 bit vs 64 bit
• Memory Bandwidth: 96.00 GB/s vs 32.00 GB/s
• Shading Units: 1024 vs 320
• TMUs: 64 vs 20
• ROPs: 16 vs 8
• Pixel Rate: 19.22 GPixel/s vs 7.800 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 76.86 GTexel/s vs 19.50 GTexel/s
• FP32 Performance: 2.460 TFLOPS vs 624.0 GFLOPS
• FP16 Performance: 2.460 TFLOPS (1:1) vs null
• TDP: 50 W vs null
• Slot Width: Single-slot vs null
• Power Connectors: None vs null
• Suggested PSU: 250 W vs null
• Display Outputs: 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a vs null
• DirectX Support: 12 (12_0) vs 12 (11_1)
• Vulkan Support: 1.3 vs 1.2.170
• Dimensions (Length): 168 mm (6.6 inches) vs null
• Dimensions (Height): 69 mm (2.7 inches) vs null
• Release Date: 2016-11-09 vs 2013-02-28
• Predecessor: Radeon Pro GCN vs London
• Successor: Radeon Pro Vega vs Gem System
• Launch MSRP: 399 USD vs null