AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 vs AMD Radeon R5 M240 Comparison

The AMD Radeon R5 M240 and AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 represent two very different eras of AMD’s graphics architecture, and the benchmark data reflects a decisive generational gap. The R5 M240, a 2014 mobile chip based on GCN 1.0, is outclassed in nearly every measurable way by the 2016 Radeon Pro WX 4100, a professional workstation card built on GCN 4.0. While both are end-of-life products, their specifications and performance profiles tell a clear story of technological progression.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct head-to-head benchmark available is Geekbench OpenCL, and the result is lopsided. The Radeon Pro WX 4100 scores 17,642, while the Radeon R5 M240 scores 6,975. This translates to a delta of -60.5% for the R5 M240, meaning the Pro WX 4100 is roughly 2.5 times faster in this compute-oriented test. This is not a marginal victory; it is a full generational leap.

The margin is even more striking when placed in context with the broader benchmark landscape. The R5 M240’s average benchmark score is 6,975, placing it in the 39th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M (6,946, +0.4% for the R5 M240) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M (7,023, -0.7% for the R5 M240). This shows that the R5 M240 is essentially performance-competitive with high-end mobile GPUs from NVIDIA’s 600-series, which is a respectable position for a low-power mobile part.

In contrast, the Radeon Pro WX 4100’s average benchmark score is 6,330, which seems paradoxical given its OpenCL dominance. This is because the average includes multiple other tests, including DirectX and compute workloads where the card’s professional focus yields different results. Its percentile rank is 37, just below the R5 M240, despite having a much higher OpenCL score. The Pro WX 4100’s nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon R7 M350 (6,327, +0.1% for the Pro WX 4100) and the NVIDIA Quadro K620 (6,282, +0.8% for the Pro WX 4100), showing that in aggregate, it trades blows with mid-range professional and mobile parts.

The disparity in the single OpenCL test, however, is the clearest indicator of architectural superiority. The Pro WX 4100’s 17,642 score is more than double the R5 M240’s 6,975, and this gap cannot be explained by clock speeds alone. It is a fundamental difference in compute throughput, memory bandwidth, and shading capability.

Architecture Differences

The architectural chasm between these two GPUs is stark. The R5 M240 is built on the “Jet” chip using GCN 1.0 architecture, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 690 million transistors into a 56 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.3M per mm². The Pro WX 4100, conversely, uses the “Baffin” chip with GCN 4.0 architecture, fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. This newer node allows for 3,000 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, a density of 24.4M per mm².

The compute resources are similarly divergent. The R5 M240 has 320 shading units, 20 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 8 raster operation units (ROPs). The Pro WX 4100 features 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This means the Pro WX 4100 has triple the shading units, more than triple the TMUs, and double the ROPs. Consequently, the pixel rate jumps from 8.240 GPixel/s to 19.22 GPixel/s, and the texture rate leaps from 20.60 GTexel/s to 76.86 GTexel/s.

Memory is another major divergence. The R5 M240 is limited to 1,024 MB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, yielding a bandwidth of just 14.40 GB/s. The Pro WX 4100 offers 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, with a bandwidth of 96.00 GB/s — a nearly 7x improvement. This memory bandwidth advantage is critical for professional workloads, which often require large data sets to be moved quickly. The FP32 performance also tells the story: the R5 M240 delivers 659.2 GFLOPS, while the Pro WX 4100 delivers 2.460 TFLOPS, a 3.7x increase. The Pro WX 4100 also supports FP16 at 2.460 TFLOPS (1:1), a feature the R5 M240 lacks entirely.

The Verdict

The data unequivocally favors the AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 for any compute-intensive task. Its OpenCL score of 17,642 versus 6,975, combined with tripled shading units and a 7x memory bandwidth advantage, makes it the only logical choice for professional workloads, 3D rendering, or any application that leverages GPU compute. The R5 M240, while competitive with older NVIDIA mobile parts like the GTX 675M, is simply out of its depth against the Pro WX 4100’s modern architecture.

However, a strict comparison of average benchmark scores shows a different nuance. The R5 M240’s average score of 6,975 is actually higher than the Pro WX 4100’s average of 6,330. This is because the Pro WX 4100’s average is dragged down by very low scores in DirectX 10 (16), DirectX 11 (24), and DirectX 12 (22) tests, whereas the R5 M240 has no such low-scoring tests in its record. This suggests that the Pro WX 4100 is heavily optimized for OpenCL and Vulkan (18,703) workloads, but performs poorly in legacy DirectX benchmarks, likely due to driver maturity or architectural priorities.

For gaming or legacy DirectX applications, the R5 M240 might actually be the more balanced performer, given its higher percentile rank (39 vs 37). Yet, this is a weak argument, as neither card is designed for gaming. The Pro WX 4100, with its 50 W TDP and single-slot design, is a professional tool. The R5 M240, with no listed TDP, is a mobile chip. The verdict is clear: professionals should choose the Pro WX 4100; casual users with older mobile systems might find the R5 M240 adequate, but the data suggests they would be severely limited.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the two cards:

• Chip: Jet (R5 M240) vs Baffin (Pro WX 4100)
• Architecture: GCN 1.0 vs GCN 4.0
• Process Node: 28 nm vs 14 nm
• Foundry: TSMC vs GlobalFoundries
• Transistors: 690 million vs 3,000 million
• Die Size: 56 mm² vs 123 mm²
• Transistor Density: 12.3M / mm² vs 24.4M / mm²
• Base Clock: 1000 MHz vs 1125 MHz
• Boost Clock: 1030 MHz vs 1201 MHz
• Memory Clock: 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) vs 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective)
• Memory Size: 1024 MB vs 4 GB
• Memory Type: DDR3 vs GDDR5
• Memory Bus Width: 64 bit vs 128 bit
• Memory Bandwidth: 14.40 GB/s vs 96.00 GB/s
• Shading Units: 320 vs 1,024
• TMUs: 20 vs 64
• ROPs: 8 vs 16
• Pixel Rate: 8.240 GPixel/s vs 19.22 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 20.60 GTexel/s vs 76.86 GTexel/s
• FP32: 659.2 GFLOPS vs 2.460 TFLOPS
• FP16: Not listed vs 2.460 TFLOPS (1:1)
• TDP: Not listed vs 50 W
• Slot Width: Not listed vs Single-slot
• Power Connectors: Not listed vs None
• Suggested PSU: Not listed vs 250 W
• Display Outputs: Not listed vs 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a
• DirectX Support: 12 (11_1) vs 12 (12_0)
• Vulkan Support: 1.2.170 vs 1.3
• Dimensions: Not listed vs 168 mm (6.6 inches) length, 69 mm (2.7 inches) height
• Release Date: 2014-09-17 vs 2016-11-09
• Predecessor: Solar System vs Radeon Pro GCN
• Successor: Polaris Mobile vs Radeon Pro Vega
• Launch MSRP: Not listed vs 399 USD

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 scores 17,642 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 60.5% higher than the AMD Radeon R5 M240’s score of 6,975.

Q: How do these cards compare in memory bandwidth?

A: The Pro WX 4100 has a memory bandwidth of 96.00 GB/s, while the R5 M240 has only 14.40 GB/s. This is a roughly 6.7x difference in favor of the Pro WX 4100.

Q: Are these two cards from the same architecture generation?

A: No. The R5 M240 uses GCN 1.0 architecture on a 28 nm process, while the Pro WX 4100 uses GCN 4.0 architecture on a 14 nm process.

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

A: The R5 M240 has an average benchmark score of 6,975, while the Pro WX 4100 has an average score of 6,330. Despite the Pro WX 4100’s higher OpenCL score, its average is lower due to poor DirectX 10, 11, and 12 scores.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The Pro WX 4100 has 1,024 shading units, which is triple the 320 shading units found on the R5 M240.

Q: Does either card support FP16 compute?

A: Yes, the Pro WX 4100 supports FP16 at 2.460 TFLOPS (1:1). The R5 M240 does not list FP16 support in its specifications.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 wins decisively in raw compute performance. Its OpenCL score of 17,642 versus 6,975 is the headline statistic, but the supporting specs reinforce this. With 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, it has the hardware to handle complex parallel workloads. The 96.00 GB/s memory bandwidth and 4 GB of GDDR5 memory allow it to process large datasets without bottlenecking, a critical advantage for professional applications like CAD, video editing, or scientific simulation. Its Vulkan score of 18,703 further confirms its strength in modern API workloads. The 50 W TDP and single-slot design also make it a practical choice for workstation builds, requiring only a 250 W suggested PSU and no external power connectors.

The AMD Radeon R5 M240’s wins are more subtle and contextual. Its average benchmark score of 6,975 is higher than the Pro WX 4100’s 6,330, and its 39th percentile ranking beats the Pro WX 4100’s 37th. This is largely due to the fact that the Pro WX 4100 lacks DirectX 10, 11, and 12 benchmark scores in its record, while the R5 M240 does not have those low scores. In the narrow context of the nearestRivals data, the R5 M240 is competitive with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M (+0.4%) and the AMD FirePro M5100 (+2.1%), suggesting it holds its own against older mobile parts. For a legacy mobile platform running older DirectX titles, the R5 M240 might offer a more balanced performance profile, but this is a niche scenario. The Pro WX 4100 wins on every substantive metric that matters for modern computing.