AMD Radeon HD 8730M vs AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data includes only a single direct comparison between these two mobile and professional graphics parts: the Geekbench OpenCL test. In that test, the AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 scored 17,642, while the AMD Radeon HD 8730M scored 5,955. This produces a delta of 196.3%, meaning the Pro WX 4100 is roughly three times faster in raw compute throughput. The margin is decisive, and there is no benchmark in the database where the HD 8730M comes out ahead.

Looking beyond the head-to-head, the average benchmark scores reinforce the gap. The Pro WX 4100 holds an average score of 6,330 across its ten recorded tests, placing it in the 37th percentile of all GPUs. The HD 8730M, with only one recorded benchmark, averages 5,955 and sits in the 34th percentile. The difference in average score is only 375 points, but the single test available for the HD 8730M is its best case, while the Pro WX 4100's average is dragged down by weaker DirectX legacy tests. In practice, the OpenCL result is the most representative compute comparison, and it strongly favors the newer card.

The Pro WX 4100's nearest rivals in the database include the AMD Radeon R7 M350 (average 6,327, delta 0.1%), the NVIDIA Quadro K620 (average 6,282, delta 0.8%), and two NVIDIA GeForce parts with an average of 6,389 (delta -0.9% each). This places the Pro WX 4100 in a tight cluster where it is essentially level with those competitors. The HD 8730M's nearest rivals, such as the NVIDIA Quadro K620M (average 5,957, delta 0%) and the AMD Radeon HD 8750M (average 5,970, delta -0.3%), show that it too is near the middle of its own performance tier. However, the cross-comparison is clear: the Pro WX 4100 sits in a higher performance band entirely.

Where Each One Wins

The Pro WX 4100 wins the only direct head-to-head metric, Geekbench OpenCL, with a 196.3% advantage. This is a compute-oriented workload, and the result reflects the architectural generation gap between the two parts. The Pro WX 4100 also records wins across several other benchmark categories in its own suite, including Passmark G3D (3,699), Passmark GPU Compute (1,475), and Geekbench Vulkan (18,703). These scores indicate strong general 3D rendering and compute capability, even if the HD 8730M has no comparable entries in the database.

For the HD 8730M, the only recorded benchmark is Geekbench OpenCL at 5,955. There is no DirectX, Vulkan, or 2D data for this part, so any analysis of its strengths must be limited to what the database shows. Given that its only score is roughly one-third of the Pro WX 4100's OpenCL result, there is no measurable workload where the older card demonstrates an advantage. The database shows zero wins for the HD 8730M in any test.

If the user's workload is compute-heavy, such as OpenCL-accelerated tasks, the Pro WX 4100 is the only rational choice from these two. If the workload is purely legacy DirectX 9 or 10, the Pro WX 4100 still posts scores of 56 and 16 respectively on Passmark, which are low but present; the HD 8730M has no such data. The Pro WX 4100 offers broader benchmark coverage and higher scores across every recorded metric.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 scores 17,642 versus 5,955 for the AMD Radeon HD 8730M, a 196.3% advantage.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each card?

A: The Pro WX 4100 averages 6,330 across ten tests, while the HD 8730M averages 5,955 from its single recorded test.

Q: Does the HD 8730M win any benchmark against the Pro WX 4100?

A: No. The head-to-head data shows one win for the Pro WX 4100 and zero wins for the HD 8730M.

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

A: The Pro WX 4100 is nearly tied with the AMD Radeon R7 M350 (0.1% delta) and the NVIDIA Quadro K620 (0.8% delta). The HD 8730M is essentially tied with the NVIDIA Quadro K620M (0% delta) and within 0.5% of the AMD Radeon HD 8750M.

Q: Which card has a higher percentile ranking among all GPUs?

A: The Pro WX 4100 ranks in the 37th percentile, while the HD 8730M ranks in the 34th percentile.

Q: What is the DirectX API support difference?

A: The Pro WX 4100 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the HD 8730M supports DirectX 12 (11_1), indicating a lower feature level for the older card.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every specification that affects performance. The Pro WX 4100 uses a 14 nm process from GlobalFoundries, while the HD 8730M uses a 28 nm process from TSMC. The transistor counts are 3,000 million versus 950 million, and the die sizes are 123 mm² versus 77 mm². The resulting transistor density is 24.4 million per mm² for the Pro WX 4100, nearly double the 12.3 million per mm² of the HD 8730M.

Clock speeds show a wide gap. The Pro WX 4100 runs at a base of 1125 MHz and a boost of 1201 MHz, while the HD 8730M runs at 650 MHz base and 700 MHz boost. Memory clocks differ as well: the Pro WX 4100 uses 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective) GDDR5, while the HD 8730M uses 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) DDR3. Memory capacity is 4 GB versus 2 GB, and bandwidth is 96.00 GB/s versus 28.80 GB/s, a 3.33x difference.

Shader resources are also heavily skewed. The Pro WX 4100 has 1,024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The HD 8730M has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. Pixel rates are 19.22 GPixel/s versus 5.600 GPixel/s, and texture rates are 76.86 GTexel/s versus 16.80 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput is 2.460 TFLOPS versus 537.6 GFLOPS. The Pro WX 4100 also supports FP16 at 2.460 TFLOPS (1:1), while the HD 8730M has no recorded FP16 capability. Power draw for the Pro WX 4100 is listed at 50 W with a 250 W suggested PSU; the HD 8730M has no TDP or PSU data.

Physical and interface differences include the Pro WX 4100 being a single-slot card with 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, while the HD 8730M has no recorded slot width or display outputs. Both use PCIe 3.0 x8. The Pro WX 4100 is 168 mm long and 69 mm tall; the HD 8730M has no dimension data. Release dates are November 2016 for the Pro WX 4100 and March 2013 for the HD 8730M. The Pro WX 4100 has a launch MSRP of 399 USD; the HD 8730M has no recorded MSRP.

Architecture Differences

The architectural generation gap is the core reason for the performance disparity. The Pro WX 4100 is built on GCN 4.0 with the Baffin chip, part of the Radeon Pro Polaris (WX x100) generation. The HD 8730M is built on GCN 1.0 with the Mars chip, part of the Solar System (HD 8700M) generation. This is a jump of three major GCN revisions, bringing improvements in compute efficiency, clock scaling, and feature support.

The process node difference, 14 nm versus 28 nm, allows the Pro WX 4100 to pack more than three times the transistors into a die that is only 1.6 times larger. This directly enables the higher shader count and memory bandwidth. The Pro WX 4100's FP16 support at a 1:1 ratio with FP32 is a notable feature absent from the HD 8730M, which has no recorded FP16 capability.

API support reflects the newer architecture. The Pro WX 4100 supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3, while the HD 8730M supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The Pro WX 4100's display output of 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a is a professional workstation feature, whereas the HD 8730M has no recorded display outputs, as it is a mobile part likely relying on laptop panel connections.

The memory subsystem is a major architectural differentiator. GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus at 1500 MHz yields 96.00 GB/s, while DDR3 on a 128-bit bus at 900 MHz yields only 28.80 GB/s. This bandwidth advantage is critical for compute workloads and texture-heavy rendering. The Pro WX 4100 also has double the VRAM capacity, which helps with larger datasets and higher-resolution textures.

The Verdict

The data points to a single conclusion: the AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 is the superior GPU by a wide margin. Its 196.3% lead in Geekbench OpenCL is the only direct comparison available, and it is decisive. The Pro WX 4100 also has a higher average benchmark score, a higher percentile ranking, and a more complete set of recorded benchmarks across DirectX, Vulkan, and compute workloads.

The HD 8730M, by contrast, has only one recorded benchmark and no wins over the Pro WX 4100. Its specifications are consistently lower: fewer shaders, lower clocks, slower memory, and less bandwidth. The architectural gap between GCN 4.0 and GCN 1.0 is substantial, and the 14 nm process gives the Pro WX 4100 a density advantage that translates directly into performance.

For a user choosing between these two, the Pro WX 4100 is the clear pick for any compute, 3D rendering, or workstation task. Its professional display outputs, higher API support, and larger memory pool make it suitable for modern workloads. The HD 8730M is an older mobile part with no demonstrated strengths in this database; its only score is less than one-third of the Pro WX 4100's compute result. The verdict is unambiguous: the Pro WX 4100 wins every measurable category, and the HD 8730M should only be considered if the workload is strictly limited to what the older card can support, which the data does not show to be a meaningful advantage.