AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 vs AMD Radeon R7 M445 Comparison

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 and the AMD Radeon R7 M445 occupy opposite ends of the hardware spectrum, despite sharing the same manufacturer. The Pro WX 4100 is a professional workstation card aimed at compute and content creation, while the R7 M445 is a mobile integrated graphics solution for laptops. The recorded data shows a clear performance hierarchy, but the differences extend well beyond raw speed into architecture, memory, and intended use cases.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 wins the only head-to-head benchmark recorded in the database, and it does so with a decisive margin. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Pro WX 4100 scores 17,642, while the R7 M445 manages 5,358. That is a 229.3% advantage for the workstation card. This single result defines the use-case split: the Pro WX 4100 is built for sustained compute workloads, such as rendering, simulation, or GPU-accelerated tasks in professional applications. Its 2.460 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 96.00 GB/s memory bandwidth provide the raw throughput needed for these jobs.

The R7 M445, in contrast, has no benchmark wins in the database. Its strengths are not found in performance metrics but in its deployment context. As an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with a "Portable Device Dependent" display output, it is designed for laptops where power efficiency and physical space are paramount. The R7 M445 has no listed TDP, no power connector requirement, and no suggested PSU, which indicates it draws its power from the host system rather than a dedicated supply. Its 588.8 GFLOPS FP32 throughput and 32.00 GB/s bandwidth are modest, but they are sufficient for basic display output, media playback, and light GPU acceleration in a mobile environment.

The percentile rankings reinforce this split. The Pro WX 4100 sits at the 37th percentile among all GPUs, placing it above the R7 M445, which rests at the 31st percentile. However, both cards are near the lower-middle range of the overall GPU population. The Pro WX 4100’s average benchmark score is 6,330, while the R7 M445’s average is 5,358. The Pro WX 4100’s nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon R7 M350 (average score 6,327, a 0.1% difference) and the NVIDIA Quadro K620 (6,282, 0.8% difference), showing that it competes with entry-level workstation and older midrange parts. The R7 M445’s nearest rivals include the Intel UHD Graphics P630 (5,370, -0.2% difference) and the NVIDIA GeForce 840M (5,322, 0.7% difference), indicating it trades blows with integrated and low-end mobile solutions.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different generations of AMD’s Graphics Core Next (GCN) architecture. The Pro WX 4100 uses GCN 4.0, while the R7 M445 uses GCN 3.0. This generational gap is accompanied by a difference in manufacturing process. The Pro WX 4100 is built on a 14 nm node at GlobalFoundries, whereas the R7 M445 uses a 28 nm process at TSMC. The newer node allows the Pro WX 4100 to pack 3,000 million transistors into a 123 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 24.4M per mm². The R7 M445 contains 1,550 million transistors on a 125 mm² die, resulting in a density of only 12.4M per mm².

The chip names also differ. The Pro WX 4100 uses the Baffin chip, while the R7 M445 uses Meso. Both share the PCIe 3.0 x8 bus interface, but the similarity ends there. The Pro WX 4100 has 1,024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 16 raster operation units (ROPs). The R7 M445 has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. These counts directly drive the pixel and texture rates: the Pro WX 4100 achieves 19.22 GPixel/s and 76.86 GTexel/s, while the R7 M445 manages 7.360 GPixel/s and 18.40 GTexel/s.

Memory architecture is another major divergence. The Pro WX 4100 uses a 128-bit memory bus with 4 GB of GDDR5, delivering 96.00 GB/s of bandwidth at 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective). The R7 M445 has a 64-bit bus with 4 GB of GDDR5, but its bandwidth drops to 32.00 GB/s at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective). The Pro WX 4100’s bandwidth is three times higher, which is crucial for compute workloads that constantly shuffle data. Both cards support DirectX 12 (12_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but the Pro WX 4100 supports Vulkan 1.3, while the R7 M445 only reaches Vulkan 1.2.170.

The physical formats are entirely different. The Pro WX 4100 is a single-slot, 168 mm (6.6 inch) long, 69 mm (2.7 inch) tall card with four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. It requires no power connectors and has a suggested PSU of 250 W. The R7 M445 is an IGP with no dimensions listed and display outputs that are "Portable Device Dependent," meaning they rely on the laptop’s own panel and ports. The Pro WX 4100 also carries a 50 W TDP, while the R7 M445 has no TDP listed, reflecting its integrated nature.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in compute tasks?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 is significantly faster. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, it scores 17,642 versus 5,358 for the R7 M445, a 229.3% advantage.

Q: Do both cards support the same APIs?

A: Both support DirectX 12 (12_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The Pro WX 4100 supports Vulkan 1.3, while the R7 M445 supports Vulkan 1.2.170.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The Pro WX 4100 has 96.00 GB/s of bandwidth on a 128-bit bus, while the R7 M445 has 32.00 GB/s on a 64-bit bus.

Q: Are these cards still in production?

A: No. Both are marked as end-of-life in the database. The Pro WX 4100 was released on November 9, 2016, and the R7 M445 on May 14, 2016.

Q: How do they compare to other GPUs in the database?

A: The Pro WX 4100 sits at the 37th percentile among all GPUs, with an average score of 6,330. The R7 M445 is at the 31st percentile, with an average score of 5,358.

Q: Can the R7 M445 be used as a desktop workstation card?

A: No. It is an integrated graphics processor with portable-device-dependent display outputs, designed for laptops. The Pro WX 4100 is a standalone single-slot card with four mini-DisplayPort outputs.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every specification category. The Pro WX 4100 uses a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries, while the R7 M445 uses 28 nm at TSMC. Transistor counts are 3,000 million versus 1,550 million. Die sizes are similar (123 mm² vs 125 mm²), but density is far higher on the Pro WX 4100 (24.4M per mm² vs 12.4M per mm²).

Clock speeds favor the Pro WX 4100. Its base clock is 1125 MHz with a boost of 1201 MHz, while the R7 M445 runs at 780 MHz base and 920 MHz boost. Memory clocks also differ: 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective) for the Pro WX 4100 versus 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) for the R7 M445.

Compute resources are heavily skewed. The Pro WX 4100 has 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The R7 M445 has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. Pixel rate is 19.22 GPixel/s versus 7.360 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 76.86 GTexel/s versus 18.40 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 2.460 TFLOPS versus 588.8 GFLOPS. FP16 performance is identical in ratio (1:1) for both, but the absolute numbers follow FP32.

Memory size is the same (4 GB) and both use GDDR5, but bus width differs (128-bit vs 64-bit), yielding bandwidth of 96.00 GB/s versus 32.00 GB/s. The Pro WX 4100 has a TDP of 50 W, while the R7 M445 has none listed. Slot width is single-slot versus IGP. Power connectors are "None" versus null. Suggested PSU is 250 W versus null. Display outputs are 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a versus "Portable Device Dependent." The Pro WX 4100 has dimensions (168 mm length, 69 mm height), while the R7 M445 has none. Release dates are November 9, 2016, and May 14, 2016, respectively.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains exactly one shared benchmark between these two cards: Geekbench OpenCL. The Pro WX 4100 scores 17,642, and the R7 M445 scores 5,358. The delta is 229.3%, meaning the Pro WX 4100 is more than three times faster in this test. This is the largest win in the dataset, and it reflects the fundamental gap in compute resources.

To contextualize, the Pro WX 4100’s OpenCL score is over three times the R7 M445’s entire average benchmark score of 5,358. The R7 M445 has no other benchmark entries, so its OpenCL result is also its only data point. The Pro WX 4100, by contrast, has a broader benchmark profile: Geekbench Metal at 21,018, Geekbench Vulkan at 18,703, Passmark G3D at 3,699, and Passmark GPU Compute at 1,475, among others. These additional scores show the Pro WX 4100’s versatility across different API frameworks, while the R7 M445’s single score limits comparison.

The nearest rival data further illustrates positioning. The Pro WX 4100’s average score of 6,330 is nearly identical to the AMD Radeon R7 M350 (6,327, 0.1% difference) and the NVIDIA Quadro K620 (6,282, 0.8% difference). It is slightly behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 SE and GTX 580M (both 6,389, -0.9% difference). The R7 M445’s average of 5,358 is almost level with the Intel UHD Graphics P630 (5,370, -0.2% difference), ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce 840M (5,322, 0.7% difference) and GeForce 930A (5,317, 0.8% difference), but behind the GTX 980M (5,308, 0.9% difference, though a lower score means the R7 M445 wins that comparison). These figures place the R7 M445 in the company of integrated graphics and low-tier mobile parts, while the Pro WX 4100 sits among entry-level discrete workstations and older midrange gaming cards.

The performance gap is consistent with the hardware. The Pro WX 4100 has 3.2 times the shading units, 3.2 times the TMUs, 2 times the ROPs, and 3 times the memory bandwidth of the R7 M445. Its clock speeds are also roughly 30% higher at base and boost. The combination of more resources, higher clocks, and wider memory produces the 229.3% OpenCL delta. The R7 M445’s lower transistor count (1,550 million vs 3,000 million) and older 28 nm process further explain its reduced capabilities.

In practical terms, the data indicates that the Pro WX 4100 is suitable for professional compute tasks that demand sustained throughput, such as CAD, simulation, or video processing. The R7 M445 is limited to basic laptop graphics duties, where its 588.8 GFLOPS and 32.00 GB/s are adequate for everyday use but not for intensive workloads. The benchmark results leave no ambiguity: the Pro WX 4100 is the dominant part in every measurable way, and the R7 M445’s role is defined by its integration into mobile systems rather than by performance.