AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 vs AMD Radeon R7 250 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single recorded head-to-head benchmark in the database is Geekbench OpenCL, and the result is decisive. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 scores 17,642, while the AMD Radeon R7 250 scores 7,557. That is a 57.2% difference in favor of the Pro WX 4100, meaning the professional card delivers more than double the compute throughput in this workload. The R7 250 is not just behind; it is outpaced by a margin that separates entirely different performance classes.

Looking at the broader database context, the R7 250 sits at the 41st percentile of all GPUs, while the Pro WX 4100 sits at the 37th percentile. This is curious: the Pro WX 4100 wins the direct comparison, yet its aggregate percentile is lower. The explanation lies in the benchmark mix. The R7 250 has only one recorded score, 7,557 in OpenCL, which anchors its average at that same value. The Pro WX 4100 has ten recorded scores across Metal, OpenCL, Vulkan, several Passmark DirectX tests, and compute tests, pulling its average down to 6,330. The OpenCL result alone shows the Pro WX 4100 is vastly faster, but the diversified test suite penalizes its overall standing.

The R7 250's nearest rivals in the database are instructive. It sits 0.1% above the Intel Arc A310 (7,550), 0.3% below the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 (7,580), 1.1% above the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (7,472), and 1.5% above the AMD Radeon HD 8850M (7,447). These are tight margins, all within a couple of percent. The R7 250 is essentially a middle-of-the-pack performer among its immediate peers, with no single rival decisively separating from the pack.

The Pro WX 4100's rivals tell a similar story of clustering. It is 0.1% above the AMD Radeon R7 M350 (6,327), 0.8% above the NVIDIA Quadro K620 (6,282), 0.9% below the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 SE (6,389), and 0.9% below the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580M (6,389). Again, the margins are razor-thin, suggesting that in the average benchmark score, the Pro WX 4100 is indistinguishable from these cards. Yet the OpenCL head-to-head shows the R7 250 is nowhere near this cluster, reinforcing that the R7 250's single-score average flatters it relative to its true competition.

The data implies a clear hierarchy: the Pro WX 4100 dominates the R7 250 in raw compute, but both cards occupy similar percentile territory once diverse workloads are averaged. The question becomes whether the Pro WX 4100's other benchmark results, such as its Metal score of 21,018 or Vulkan score of 18,703, reveal strengths that the R7 250 simply cannot match, since the R7 250 has no recorded results in those APIs.

FAQ

Q: Which card wins the only direct benchmark comparison?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 17,642 against the AMD Radeon R7 250's 7,557, a 57.2% difference.

Q: Why does the R7 250 have a higher percentile than the Pro WX 4100 if it loses the head-to-head?

A: The R7 250 has only one recorded benchmark score (7,557 in OpenCL), so its average equals that score and places it at the 41st percentile. The Pro WX 4100 has ten recorded scores across multiple APIs and tests, bringing its average down to 6,330 and its percentile to 37th.

Q: What are the Pro WX 4100's strongest benchmark results outside of OpenCL?

A: The Pro WX 4100 records 21,018 in Geekbench Metal and 18,703 in Geekbench Vulkan, both higher than its OpenCL score. Its Passmark results are much lower, with G3D at 3,699, GPU compute at 1,475, and DirectX 9 at 56.

Q: How close are the nearest rivals for each card?

A: The R7 250's closest rival is the Intel Arc A310 at 7,550, just 0.1% away, and the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 at 7,580, 0.3% away. The Pro WX 4100's closest rival is the AMD Radeon R7 M350 at 6,327, also 0.1% away.

Q: Does the R7 250 have any recorded advantage in the database?

A: No. The only direct comparison shows the Pro WX 4100 winning, and the R7 250 has no other benchmark entries to claim any win in any other test.

Q: What is the Pro WX 4100's launch MSRP?

A: The launch MSRP is 399 USD.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different architectural generations. The R7 250 uses GCN 1.0, built on a 28 nm process at TSMC, while the Pro WX 4100 uses GCN 4.0, built on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The node shrink is significant: the Pro WX 4100 packs 3,000 million transistors into the same die size of 123 mm², achieving a transistor density of 24.4M per mm². The R7 250 contains 1,500 million transistors on the same 123 mm² die, giving it a density of 12.2M per mm². That is exactly double the transistor count in the same physical area, which explains much of the performance gap.

The chip names reflect the generational leap. The R7 250 uses the Cape Verde chip, while the Pro WX 4100 uses Baffin. Both are built by different foundries, TSMC for the older card and GlobalFoundries for the newer one. The architectural revision from GCN 1.0 to GCN 4.0 brings with it a full redesign of the compute pipeline, though the database does not list every microarchitectural detail. What is recorded is the doubling of shading units: the R7 250 has 512 shading units, while the Pro WX 4100 has 1,024. Texture mapping units also double from 32 to 64, while render output units stay at 16 on both cards.

The FP32 throughput scales accordingly. The R7 250 delivers 947.2 GFLOPS, while the Pro WX 4100 delivers 2.460 TFLOPS, roughly 2.6 times the raw compute. The Pro WX 4100 also supports FP16 at a 1:1 ratio, delivering 2.460 TFLOPS in half precision, whereas the R7 250 has no recorded FP16 capability. This makes the Pro WX 4100 more versatile for workloads that can exploit mixed precision.

API support differs too. The R7 250 supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170, while the Pro WX 4100 supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The newer Vulkan revision on the Pro WX 4100 aligns with its later release date and more modern architecture.

Specification Differences

Memory is a major differentiator. The R7 250 has 1,024 MB of DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 28.80 GB/s of bandwidth. The Pro WX 4100 has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on the same 128-bit bus, delivering 96.00 GB/s. That is over three times the bandwidth, which directly impacts texture-heavy and compute workloads. The memory clock differs as well: the R7 250 runs at 900 MHz with 1800 Mbps effective, while the Pro WX 4100 runs at 1500 MHz with 6 Gbps effective.

Clock speeds are only recorded for the Pro WX 4100, with a base of 1125 MHz and a boost of 1201 MHz. The R7 250's base and boost clocks are not listed in the database. Pixel rates reflect the clock and ROP configuration: the R7 250 achieves 14.80 GPixel/s, while the Pro WX 4100 achieves 19.22 GPixel/s. Texture rates differ more sharply: 29.60 GTexel/s for the R7 250 versus 76.86 GTexel/s for the Pro WX 4100, driven by the doubled TMU count.

Power consumption is close, with the R7 250 rated at 55 W and the Pro WX 4100 at 50 W. Both require a 250 W suggested PSU and have no power connectors. Both are single-slot cards with the same length of 168 mm (6.6 inches), but the Pro WX 4100 also lists a height of 69 mm (2.7 inches), which the R7 250 does not record.

Display outputs diverge. The R7 250 offers 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x DisplayPort 1.2. The Pro WX 4100 offers 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a, a configuration aimed at multi-monitor professional setups. The bus interface also differs: the R7 250 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the Pro WX 4100 uses PCIe 3.0 x8. Release dates are far apart: the R7 250 launched on October 7, 2013, and the Pro WX 4100 on November 9, 2016. Both are now end-of-life, with the R7 250 succeeding Sea Islands and preceding Pirate Islands, while the Pro WX 4100 succeeds Radeon Pro GCN and precedes Radeon Pro Vega.

The Verdict

The data points to one clear conclusion: the AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 is the substantially faster card in compute workloads. Its OpenCL score of 17,642 versus 7,557 is a 57.2% advantage, and its architectural specifications, double the shading units, double the TMUs, over triple the memory bandwidth, and more than double the FP32 throughput, all reinforce that dominance. The R7 250 cannot compete in any recorded metric.

The Pro WX 4100 also offers practical advantages beyond raw speed. Its 4 GB GDDR5 memory versus 1 GB DDR3 means it can handle larger datasets and textures. Its four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs support professional multi-monitor configurations, whereas the R7 250's single DVI, HDMI, and DisplayPort combination is more consumer-oriented. The 14 nm process and GCN 4.0 architecture bring modern API support, including Vulkan 1.3, which the R7 250 lacks.

However, the R7 250 is not without its niche. At 55 W versus 50 W, the power draw is nearly identical, and both require the same 250 W PSU. The R7 250's PCIe 3.0 x16 interface offers more bandwidth than the Pro WX 4100's x8, though the practical impact is limited given the R7 250's lower performance ceiling. The R7 250 also has a higher percentile ranking (41st versus 37th), but this is an artifact of having only one benchmark score.

The verdict from the recorded data is unambiguous: the Pro WX 4100 is the superior GPU for any workload that stresses compute, memory bandwidth, or modern API features. The R7 250 is a legacy card whose only advantage is its lower transistor count and older process node, which offer no user-facing benefit. The Pro WX 4100's launch MSRP of 399 USD reflects its professional positioning, but the performance gap justifies the tier difference.

Where Each One Wins

The Pro WX 4100 wins in every category where data exists. In raw compute, its OpenCL score is 57.2% higher. In architecture, it has double the shading units (1,024 versus 512), double the TMUs (64 versus 32), and double the transistor density (24.4M per mm² versus 12.2M per mm²). In memory, its 96.00 GB/s bandwidth is more than triple the R7 250's 28.80 GB/s, and its 4 GB capacity is four times larger. Its FP32 output of 2.460 TFLOPS dwarfs the R7 250's 947.2 GFLOPS, and it adds FP16 capability at a 1:1 ratio. Its pixel rate of 19.22 GPixel/s and texture rate of 76.86 GTexel/s exceed the R7 250's 14.80 GPixel/s and 29.60 GTexel/s respectively.

The R7 250's only recorded wins are indirect. It has a higher percentile rank (41st versus 37th), which stems from its single benchmark score rather than any performance superiority. It also uses a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface versus the Pro WX 4100's x8, and it draws 5 W more power, which is not an advantage. Its launch date of 2013 predates the Pro WX 4100 by three years, but earlier release is not a benefit.

For a user deciding between these two, the data-driven choice is clear. The Pro WX 4100 is built for professional workloads: its four mini-DisplayPort outputs, 4 GB GDDR5 memory, and 1:1 FP16 support make it suited for compute, graphics, and multi-display tasks. The R7 250 is a 2013-era entry-level card whose specs and benchmark results place it in a fundamentally lower performance tier. The only scenario where the R7 250 might be chosen is one where the user requires a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, but even then, the massive compute deficit makes that a poor trade-off. The database records no benchmark where the R7 250 wins, and the architectural gap is too wide to infer any hidden strength.