AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 vs AMD Radeon R7 250 Comparison

FAQ

Q: How do the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 and AMD Radeon R7 250 compare in overall benchmark scores?

A: The two cards are nearly identical in aggregate performance. The Radeon Pro WX 3100 has an average benchmark score of 7580, while the Radeon R7 250 scores 7557, a difference of just 0.3%. Both occupy the 41st percentile among all GPUs.

Q: Which card wins in the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 250 wins the only head-to-head benchmark available. It scores 7557 in Geekbench OpenCL, compared to 7333 for the Radeon Pro WX 3100, giving the R7 250 a 3% advantage in that specific test.

Q: What are the memory specifications of each card?

A: The Radeon Pro WX 3100 features 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth, running at 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective). The Radeon R7 250 has 1024 MB of DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus with 28.80 GB/s bandwidth, running at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective).

Q: How do the architectures differ between the two cards?

A: The Radeon Pro WX 3100 uses the GCN 4.0 architecture with the Lexa chip built on a 14 nm process by GlobalFoundries. The Radeon R7 250 uses the older GCN 1.0 architecture with the Cape Verde chip built on a 28 nm process by TSMC.

Q: Which card has higher compute throughput?

A: The Radeon Pro WX 3100 delivers significantly higher raw compute performance. It achieves 1,248.3 GFLOPS FP32, while the Radeon R7 250 achieves 947.2 GFLOPS FP32. The WX 3100 also offers 39.01 GTexel/s texture rate versus 29.60 GTexel/s for the R7 250.

Q: What are the API support differences between the two cards?

A: The Radeon Pro WX 3100 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The Radeon R7 250 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170, meaning the WX 3100 has a higher DirectX feature level and a newer Vulkan version.

The Verdict

The data presents a rare situation: two AMD cards from different generations that perform almost identically in aggregate. The Radeon Pro WX 3100 holds a 0.3% average score advantage (7580 vs 7557), yet the Radeon R7 250 wins the only direct benchmark comparison by 3% in Geekbench OpenCL. This near-parity means the decision comes down to feature set and platform fit rather than raw performance.

The Radeon Pro WX 3100 is the clear choice for users requiring modern connectivity and memory capacity. Its 4 GB GDDR5 frame buffer with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth is over three times the bandwidth of the R7 250's 28.80 GB/s, and its DisplayPort 1.4a outputs (1x DisplayPort 1.4a, 2x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a) far exceed the R7 250's legacy DVI, HDMI 1.4a, and DisplayPort 1.2 configuration. The WX 3100 also brings superior compute specs: 1,248.3 GFLOPS FP32 versus 947.2 GFLOPS, and a 14 nm process that allows a 65 W TDP with 2,200 million transistors on a 103 mm² die, versus the R7 250's 55 W TDP with 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die.

The Radeon R7 250 is the pick only for users with a PCIe 3.0 x16 slot requirement and a need for DirectX 12 (11_1) rather than the full 12_0 feature level. Its 1024 MB DDR3 memory is a severe limitation for modern workloads, but its lower 55 W TDP and victory in the Geekbench OpenCL test (7557 vs 7333) show it can still hold its own in compute tasks that fit within its memory constraints. For nearly all use cases, the WX 3100's superior specifications make it the more future-proof option, even if benchmark scores say the two are statistical equals.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single direct comparison in the data shows the AMD Radeon R7 250 defeating the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 in Geekbench OpenCL by a 3% margin. The R7 250 scores 7557, while the WX 3100 scores 7333. This result is counterintuitive given the WX 3100's architectural advantages, but it aligns with the overall average scores where the WX 3100 leads by only 0.3% (7580 vs 7557).

Contextualizing these scores against the nearest rivals clarifies the competitive landscape. The Radeon Pro WX 3100's average score of 7580 places it 0.3% ahead of the R7 250, 0.4% ahead of the Intel Arc A310 (7550), 1.4% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (7472), and 1.2% behind the AMD Radeon 540 (7673). The R7 250's average of 7557 puts it 0.1% ahead of the Intel Arc A310, 1.1% ahead of the GTX 1650, and 1.5% ahead of the AMD Radeon HD 8850M (7447), while sitting 0.3% behind the WX 3100.

The benchmark results indicate that both cards cluster tightly within a 3% performance band, making any single test result statistically noisy. The WX 3100's 1,248.3 GFLOPS FP32 output suggests it should outperform the R7 250's 947.2 GFLOPS in compute-heavy tasks, yet the Geekbench OpenCL result shows the older card winning. This discrepancy likely stems from driver maturity, memory subsystem behavior, or the specific workload characteristics of the OpenCL test favoring the R7 250's simpler memory architecture.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ substantially in process technology, memory, and display outputs. The Radeon Pro WX 3100 uses a 14 nm process from GlobalFoundries, yielding 2,200 million transistors on a 103 mm² die with a density of 21.4M / mm². The Radeon R7 250 uses a 28 nm process from TSMC, with 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die and a density of 12.2M / mm².

Memory represents the largest practical gap. The WX 3100 offers 4 GB of GDDR5 at 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective) delivering 96.00 GB/s bandwidth. The R7 250 offers 1024 MB of DDR3 at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) delivering 28.80 GB/s. Both use a 128-bit memory bus.

Clock speeds differ as well. The WX 3100 has a base clock of 925 MHz and a boost clock of 1219 MHz, while the R7 250 has no listed base or boost clocks. The WX 3100's pixel rate is 19.50 GPixel/s versus 14.80 GPixel/s for the R7 250, and its texture rate is 39.01 GTexel/s versus 29.60 GTexel/s.

The bus interface differs: the WX 3100 uses PCIe 3.0 x8, while the R7 250 uses PCIe 3.0 x16. Both cards are single-slot, require no power connectors, and suggest a 250 W PSU. The WX 3100 has a TDP of 65 W versus 55 W for the R7 250. Both measure 168 mm (6.6 inches) in length, though the WX 3100 has a listed height of 69 mm (2.7 inches) while the R7 250 has none.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these cards spans four generations of GCN. The Radeon Pro WX 3100 uses GCN 4.0 with the Lexa chip, released in the Radeon Pro Polaris (WX x100) generation on 2017-06-11. The Radeon R7 250 uses GCN 1.0 with the Cape Verde chip, from the Volcanic Islands (R7 200) generation released on 2013-10-07.

Both cards share identical core configurations: 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 raster operation units. Neither has ray tracing cores or tensor cores. However, the WX 3100 supports FP16 at 1,248.3 GFLOPS (1:1 ratio with FP32), while the R7 250 has no listed FP16 capability.

API support differs meaningfully. The WX 3100 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The R7 250 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The WX 3100's newer Vulkan version and higher DirectX feature level reflect its more modern architecture.

The WX 3100's process advantage is evident in transistor density: 21.4M / mm² versus 12.2M / mm². This allows the WX 3100 to pack 46.7% more transistors (2,200 million vs 1,500 million) on a 16.3% smaller die (103 mm² vs 123 mm²). The R7 250's predecessor is Sea Islands and its successor is Pirate Islands, while the WX 3100's predecessor is Radeon Pro GCN and its successor is Radeon Pro Vega.

Where Each One Wins

The Radeon Pro WX 3100 wins decisively in memory capacity and bandwidth. Its 4 GB GDDR5 frame buffer with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth is essential for workloads requiring large textures or datasets, whereas the R7 250's 1024 MB DDR3 at 28.80 GB/s will bottleneck any memory-intensive task. The WX 3100 also wins on compute throughput with 1,248.3 GFLOPS FP32, a 31.8% advantage over the R7 250's 947.2 GFLOPS.

The WX 3100 wins on modern display connectivity. Its DisplayPort 1.4a outputs support higher resolutions and refresh rates than the R7 250's DisplayPort 1.2, HDMI 1.4a, and DVI combination. For professional workstation use, the WX 3100's single-slot design, no power connector requirement, and 65 W TDP make it suitable for dense multi-GPU configurations.

The Radeon R7 250 wins in the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark, scoring 7557 versus 7333 for the WX 3100. It also wins on power efficiency at the board level, with a 55 W TDP versus 65 W for the WX 3100. The R7 250's PCIe 3.0 x16 interface provides twice the lane width of the WX 3100's x8, which may matter for some PCIe bandwidth-sensitive applications.

The use-case split is clear: the WX 3100 is for modern professional workloads requiring large memory, high bandwidth, and contemporary API support. The R7 250 is for legacy systems where its 1024 MB memory is sufficient, its lower TDP is advantageous, and its direct benchmark victory in OpenCL demonstrates adequate compute capability for basic tasks. Given the 0.3% average score difference, the WX 3100's superior specifications make it the better long-term investment, while the R7 250's benchmark win shows that older architecture can still compete in specific scenarios.