AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 vs AMD Radeon R7 M350 Comparison

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 and the AMD Radeon R7 M350 occupy adjacent positions in the aggregate benchmark database, with average scores of 6330 and 6327 respectively. Despite this near-identical overall standing, the two GPUs are fundamentally different products: one is a professional workstation card built on a modern 14 nm process, while the other is a mobile-class part from an older 28 nm generation. The data shows that their similar average scores mask a wide performance gulf in compute-oriented workloads, where the WX 4100 dominates by margins exceeding 150%.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark results present a clear split between the two cards. The Radeon Pro WX 4100 wins both head-to-head comparisons available in the dataset, taking the Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan tests decisively. Its advantage in OpenCL is 152.4%, and in Vulkan it expands to 230.3%. These are not marginal victories; they represent a generational and architectural chasm in raw compute throughput. The WX 4100 is the clear choice for any workload that leverages general-purpose GPU compute, OpenCL acceleration, or Vulkan-based rendering.

The Radeon R7 M350, by contrast, does not win a single benchmark in the head-to-head set. Its only recorded scores are in the same two Geekbench tests, where it trails by large margins. However, its aggregate average score of 6327 is nearly identical to the WX 4100’s 6330, which suggests that the R7 M350 may hold up better in other untested scenarios or that its performance profile is more balanced across different types of workloads. Without additional benchmark data, the R7 M350’s strengths cannot be quantified, but its presence in the same percentile range (36th vs 37th percentile overall) indicates that it is not a completely obsolete part in every context.

The practical interpretation is straightforward: for compute-heavy tasks, the WX 4100 is overwhelmingly superior. For any workload where the R7 M350 might compete, the data does not provide evidence of a win, leaving the WX 4100 as the safer pick based on available metrics.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations. The Radeon Pro WX 4100 uses the Baffin chip built on GCN 4.0 architecture, fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The Radeon R7 M350 uses the Meso chip with GCN 3.0 architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. This process node difference is significant: 14 nm versus 28 nm means the WX 4100 packs 3,000 million transistors into a 123 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 24.4M per mm². The R7 M350, meanwhile, contains 1,550 million transistors on a slightly larger 125 mm² die, yielding just 12.4M per mm².

The compute resources differ accordingly. The WX 4100 has 1,024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The R7 M350 has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. These are not proportional differences; the WX 4100 has 2.67 times as many shading units and TMUs, and double the ROPs. This explains the massive compute advantage in the benchmarks.

Memory subsystems diverge even more sharply. The WX 4100 uses 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 96.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The R7 M350 also has 4 GB, but it is DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, yielding only 16.00 GB/s. That is a six-fold difference in memory bandwidth. Clock speeds differ as well: the WX 4100 runs at 1125 MHz base and 1201 MHz boost, while the R7 M350 runs at 1000 MHz base and 1015 MHz boost. Memory clocks are 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective) versus 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective).

Feature support is similar in some respects. Both support DirectX 12 (12_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The WX 4100 supports Vulkan 1.3, while the R7 M350 supports Vulkan 1.2.170. Pixel rate on the WX 4100 is 19.22 GPixel/s versus 8.120 GPixel/s on the R7 M350. Texture rate is 76.86 GTexel/s versus 24.36 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 2.460 TFLOPS versus 779.5 GFLOPS, and FP16 is identical at 2.460 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 779.5 GFLOPS (1:1).

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench OpenCL test shows the WX 4100 scoring 17,642 against the R7 M350’s 6,991. That is a delta of 152.4%, meaning the WX 4100 is roughly two and a half times faster in this compute workload. The result aligns with the hardware specifications: the WX 4100 has more than double the shading units, six times the memory bandwidth, and a newer architecture. OpenCL performance is heavily dependent on raw ALU throughput and memory bandwidth, both of which favor the WX 4100 overwhelmingly.

The Geekbench Vulkan test is even more lopsided. The WX 4100 scores 18,703, while the R7 M350 scores 5,662. The delta is 230.3%, meaning the WX 4100 is more than three times faster. Vulkan is a low-level API that benefits from efficient driver overhead and strong geometry throughput. The WX 4100’s higher texture rate (76.86 GTexel/s vs 24.36 GTexel/s) and pixel rate (19.22 GPixel/s vs 8.120 GPixel/s) contribute to this result. The R7 M350’s older GCN 3.0 architecture and slower memory clearly bottleneck its Vulkan performance.

These two benchmarks are the only head-to-head comparisons available. The WX 4100 wins both, with an aggregate win count of 2 to 0. The margin of victory, particularly in Vulkan, suggests that the WX 4100 is not just faster but in a different performance class for compute and modern graphics APIs.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 has an average benchmark score of 6330, while the AMD Radeon R7 M350 has an average score of 6327. The difference is 3 points, or 0.1%.

Q: How much faster is the WX 4100 in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The WX 4100 scores 17,642 in Geekbench OpenCL, compared to 6,991 for the R7 M350. This represents a 152.4% advantage for the WX 4100.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between the two cards?

A: The WX 4100 has 96.00 GB/s of bandwidth with GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus. The R7 M350 has 16.00 GB/s with DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus.

Q: Do both GPUs support DirectX 12?

A: Yes, both the Radeon Pro WX 4100 and the Radeon R7 M350 support DirectX 12 (12_0) and OpenGL 4.6.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The Radeon Pro WX 4100 has 1,024 shading units, while the Radeon R7 M350 has 384 shading units.

Q: What is the transistor count difference?

A: The WX 4100 contains 3,000 million transistors on a 14 nm process, while the R7 M350 contains 1,550 million transistors on a 28 nm process.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear recommendation for compute-intensive users. The Radeon Pro WX 4100 is the superior choice for any OpenCL or Vulkan workload, with margins of 152.4% and 230.3% respectively over the R7 M350. Its 2.460 TFLOPS FP32 performance, 96.00 GB/s memory bandwidth, and 1,024 shading units make it a substantially more capable compute device. The R7 M350’s 779.5 GFLOPS and 16.00 GB/s bandwidth place it in a much lower performance tier, despite the similar average benchmark scores.

For users whose workloads are not represented in the two available benchmarks, the choice is less clear-cut. The R7 M350’s aggregate score of 6327 is nearly identical to the WX 4100’s 6330, suggesting that in some untested scenarios the older card may be competitive. However, the WX 4100’s architectural advantages—newer GCN 4.0 versus GCN 3.0, 14 nm versus 28 nm, GDDR5 versus DDR3—make it the more future-proof option. The WX 4100 also benefits from professional features like 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs and a single-slot form factor, which are absent from the R7 M350’s specifications.

The verdict is straightforward: the WX 4100 wins every measurable benchmark, and its hardware specifications justify that result. The R7 M350 may be adequate for less demanding tasks, but the data offers no evidence of a scenario where it outperforms the WX 4100. Pick the WX 4100 for compute, professional graphics, or any workload that uses Vulkan or OpenCL. Pick the R7 M350 only if the specific workload remains untested and the near-identical average score gives confidence.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 | AMD Radeon R7 M350 |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | GCN 4.0 | GCN 3.0 |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 28 nm |

| Foundry | GlobalFoundries | TSMC |

| Transistors | 3,000 million | 1,550 million |

| Die Size | 123 mm² | 125 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 24.4M / mm² | 12.4M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1125 MHz | 1000 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1201 MHz | 1015 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective) | 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | DDR3 |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 96.00 GB/s | 16.00 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1024 | 384 |

| TMUs | 64 | 24 |

| ROPs | 16 | 8 |

| Pixel Rate | 19.22 GPixel/s | 8.120 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 76.86 GTexel/s | 24.36 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 2.460 TFLOPS | 779.5 GFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 2.460 TFLOPS (1:1) | 779.5 GFLOPS (1:1) |

| Vulkan Version | 1.3 | 1.2.170 |

| TDP | 50 W | Not specified |

| Display Outputs | 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a | Not specified |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | Not specified |

| Power Connectors | None | Not specified |

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | Not specified |