AMD Radeon HD 8850M vs AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 Comparison

FAQ

Q: How does the AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 compare to the AMD Radeon HD 8850M in OpenCL performance?

A: The Pro WX 4100 scores 17,642 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the HD 8850M scores 7,447. The Pro WX 4100 is 57.8% ahead, a decisive margin that reflects its newer architecture and higher compute resources.

Q: Which GPU has the higher transistor count and what does that imply?

A: The Pro WX 4100 packs 3,000 million transistors on a 14 nm process, double the HD 8850M's 1,500 million on 28 nm. Despite both having a 123 mm² die size, the Pro WX 4100 achieves a transistor density of 24.4M per mm² versus 12.2M per mm² for the HD 8850M, indicating a much tighter integration.

Q: What are the memory specifications for each card?

A: The Pro WX 4100 has 4 GB of GDDR5 with a 128-bit bus and 96.00 GB/s bandwidth. The HD 8850M has 2 GB of GDDR5 with the same 128-bit bus but only 64.00 GB/s bandwidth. The Pro WX 4100 also runs its memory at 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective) versus 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective).

Q: Do both cards support the same modern APIs?

A: No. The Pro WX 4100 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The HD 8850M supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The Pro WX 4100 has a more recent Vulkan implementation and a higher DirectX feature level.

Q: Which card has more shading units and texture units?

A: The Pro WX 4100 has 1,024 shading units and 64 texture mapping units (TMUs). The HD 8850M has 640 shading units and 40 TMUs. Both have 16 ROPs, but the Pro WX 4100's higher counts drive its superior pixel and texture rates.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each GPU and their percentile ranking?

A: The Pro WX 4100 has an average benchmark score of 6,330 and sits in the 37th percentile of all GPUs. The HD 8850M has an average benchmark score of 7,447 and sits in the 40th percentile. Interestingly, the HD 8850M has a higher average score despite losing the OpenCL head-to-head, because the Pro WX 4100's average is pulled down by its many DirectX and compute tests.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different generations of AMD's Graphics Core Next design. The HD 8850M uses the Venus chip built on GCN 1.0, produced by TSMC on a 28 nm process. The Pro WX 4100 uses the Baffin chip built on GCN 4.0, produced by GlobalFoundries on a 14 nm process. This node shrink is the foundation for many of the performance gaps.

The transistor counts highlight the architectural leap. The HD 8850M integrates 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, yielding a density of 12.2M per mm². The Pro WX 4100 doubles that to 3,000 million transistors on the same 123 mm² die, achieving 24.4M per mm². This density advantage allows the Pro WX 4100 to fit far more compute hardware into the same physical space.

Clock speeds also differ sharply. The HD 8850M runs at a base of 575 MHz and a boost of 625 MHz. The Pro WX 4100 runs at a base of 1125 MHz and a boost of 1201 MHz. That is nearly double the clock rate, which directly amplifies the throughput of every shader and texture unit.

The memory subsystem differs as well. The HD 8850M has 2 GB of GDDR5 at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth. The Pro WX 4100 has 4 GB of GDDR5 at 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective) with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth. Both use a 128-bit bus, but the Pro WX 4100's higher memory clock delivers 50% more bandwidth.

Feature support diverges in API levels. The Pro WX 4100 supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3, while the HD 8850M supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170. The Pro WX 4100 also offers FP16 compute at 2.460 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio), a capability the HD 8850M lacks entirely. The Pro WX 4100 is a single-slot card with four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, while the HD 8850M's display outputs are not recorded in the database.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is Geekbench OpenCL, and the result is one-sided. The Pro WX 4100 scores 17,642 against the HD 8850M's 7,447. This is a delta of 57.8% in favor of the Pro WX 4100.

To put that in context, the HD 8850M's nearest rivals in the database include the Intel UHD Graphics 750 at 7,441 (0.1% behind) and the AMD Radeon R7 350 at 7,425 (0.3% behind). The HD 8850M is essentially tied with those GPUs, and it is only 0.3% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 and 1.4% behind the Intel Arc A310. In other words, the HD 8850M sits in a crowded field of low-to-mid range GPUs.

The Pro WX 4100, on the other hand, is in a different performance class. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon R7 M350 at 6,327 (0.1% behind) and the NVIDIA Quadro K620 at 6,282 (0.8% behind). The Pro WX 4100 is 0.9% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 SE and the GTX 580M, which both score 6,389. The average benchmark score for the Pro WX 4100 is 6,330, which is lower than its OpenCL score because its PassMark tests (DirectX 9, 10, 11, 12, G2D, G3D, and compute) all fall below 3,700.

The OpenCL delta of 57.8% is the single largest gap in the head-to-head. The data shows that in a compute-heavy OpenCL workload, the Pro WX 4100 is in a different tier altogether. The HD 8850M's older GCN 1.0 architecture, lower clock speeds, and half the shading units simply cannot keep pace.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every core specification. The process node is 14 nm for the Pro WX 4100 versus 28 nm for the HD 8850M. The foundry is GlobalFoundries for the Pro WX 4100 versus TSMC for the HD 8850M. The transistor count is 3,000 million versus 1,500 million, and the transistor density is 24.4M per mm² versus 12.2M per mm². The die size is identical at 123 mm².

The clock speeds are vastly different. Base clock is 1125 MHz for the Pro WX 4100 versus 575 MHz for the HD 8850M. Boost clock is 1201 MHz versus 625 MHz. Memory clock is 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective) versus 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective).

The memory configuration differs in size and bandwidth. The Pro WX 4100 has 4 GB versus 2 GB. Bandwidth is 96.00 GB/s versus 64.00 GB/s. Both use GDDR5 and a 128-bit bus.

Compute resources differ significantly. The Pro WX 4100 has 1,024 shading units versus 640. It has 64 TMUs versus 40. Both have 16 ROPs. The pixel rate is 19.22 GPixel/s versus 10.00 GPixel/s. The texture rate is 76.86 GTexel/s versus 25.00 GTexel/s. The FP32 compute is 2.460 TFLOPS versus 800.0 GFLOPS. The Pro WX 4100 also has FP16 at 2.460 TFLOPS (1:1), while the HD 8850M has no FP16 capability.

The Pro WX 4100 has a TDP of 50 W, a single-slot form factor, no power connectors, and a suggested PSU of 250 W. It uses a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface and measures 168 mm by 69 mm. The HD 8850M's TDP, slot width, dimensions, and power connectors are not recorded. The Pro WX 4100's display outputs are four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a ports. The HD 8850M's display outputs are unknown. The Pro WX 4100's launch MSRP is 399 USD, while the HD 8850M has no recorded launch MSRP.

Where Each One Wins

The Pro WX 4100 wins every measurable performance category. Its OpenCL score of 17,642 is 57.8% ahead of the HD 8850M. Its FP32 compute of 2.460 TFLOPS is over three times the HD 8850M's 800.0 GFLOPS. Its texture rate of 76.86 GTexel/s is nearly triple the HD 8850M's 25.00 GTexel/s. Its pixel rate of 19.22 GPixel/s is nearly double.

The Pro WX 4100 also wins on memory bandwidth with 96.00 GB/s versus 64.00 GB/s, and it has double the VRAM capacity at 4 GB versus 2 GB. It has 60% more shading units and 60% more texture units. It has a much higher boost clock at 1201 MHz versus 625 MHz.

The HD 8850M does have one point in its favor: its average benchmark score is 7,447 versus the Pro WX 4100's 6,330. This is because the HD 8850M only has one recorded benchmark (OpenCL), while the Pro WX 4100 has ten, including several low-scoring PassMark tests. In percentile ranking, the HD 8850M sits at 40th versus the Pro WX 4100's 37th. This is a data artifact rather than a performance win, but it does suggest that in the broader GPU landscape, the HD 8850M's single OpenCL score places it slightly higher relative to all GPUs.

The HD 8850M also has a wider bus interface at PCIe 3.0 x16 versus the Pro WX 4100's PCIe 3.0 x8, though this matters little for the workloads these cards target.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear hierarchy. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 is the superior GPU by every direct performance metric. Its OpenCL score is 57.8% higher, its FP32 compute is over three times higher, and its memory bandwidth is 50% higher. It also has double the VRAM, double the transistor count, and a more recent architecture with better API support including Vulkan 1.3 and DirectX 12 (12_0).

The HD 8850M is an older, lower-power mobile part from 2013. The Pro WX 4100, released in 2016, is a workstation card with a 50 W TDP, single-slot design, and four DisplayPort outputs. The Pro WX 4100's launch MSRP is 399 USD, positioning it as a professional entry-level solution.

For anyone choosing between these two, the decision is straightforward based on the recorded data. The Pro WX 4100 wins on compute, memory, shading units, texture units, and clock speeds. The only category where the HD 8850M shows a higher number is the average benchmark score, which is skewed by the Pro WX 4100's broader test suite. The HD 8850M's percentile ranking of 40 versus 37 is also a minor edge, but it does not compensate for the 57.8% OpenCL deficit.

The Pro WX 4100 is the pick for any workload requiring compute throughput, modern API support, or higher memory capacity. The HD 8850M is only relevant if the system requires a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface or if the application is specifically tuned for its older GCN 1.0 feature set, but the data provides no benchmark evidence that it wins anywhere. The verdict is unambiguous: the Pro WX 4100 is the stronger card.