OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Graphics cards Methodology v3.0
Graphics cards Methodology v3.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Graphics cards Methodology v3.0: the technical score from the specifications is the base, and independent expert and video reviews (up to ±0.5 points), owner opinions (up to ±0.3) and best-of lists (up to +0.3) move it up or down.
Explore Graphics cards Methodology v3.0

AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 review: 117 specs compared

Avg. price:~£160VRAM:4 GBMemory bus width:128 bitThermal Design Power (TDP):50 W

AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 Review: Compare 117 technical specifications and 6 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Graphics cards category and whether it is worth buying.

AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100
5.7/10

Overall score

Score
5.7/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 25%, Sentiment score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 92% of models
Score components

40%

3.7

Technical score

25%

8.0

Reviews score

25%

?

List scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.5, the mark of a weaker model in this category

10%

3.7

Sentiment score

â–¼Worse than 92% of graphics cards
6.9

Value for money

Value for money
6.9/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 79% of models
Score components

70%

5.7

Overall score

30%

9.7

Price

â–¼Worse than 79%
3.7

Technical score

Technical score
3.7/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 96% of models
Score components

44%

1.7

Performance

24%

2.1

Memory

12%

7.6

Power

11%

7.1

Features

5%

8.9

Design

4%

8.2

Connectivity

â–¼Worse than 96%
8.0

Reviews score

Reviews score
8.0/ 10
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 51% of models

80%

8.0

Average grade

20%

8.3

Popularity

Grades by review (6)
3 reviews: 1 with a printed score, 2 estimated from the review. 3 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
â–²Better than 51%
?

List score

List score
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 25% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (0)
Not in any best-of list yet, so this part counts as 7.5. Models in a list get 8 to 10.
Not in any best-of list yet
  • amd-radeon-pro-wx-4100
  • amd-radeon-pro-wx-4100
  • amd-radeon-pro-wx-4100
amd-radeon-pro-wx-4100
amd-radeon-pro-wx-4100
amd-radeon-pro-wx-4100
Where to buy
*As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.

What reviewers say about the AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100

Based on 3 · 4

Compact and easy to fit with useful display outputs, but most reviewers find its gaming performance weak.
Praised
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what

What owners say about the AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100

Based on 21 owners sharing their experience in online comments

52%positive15%mixed33%negative

Owners value smooth, affordable gaming, while overheating, crashes, and disappointing performance are the main frustrations.

What owners dislike

  • Some owners saw games crash, or lose about 30% fps, after flashing the BIOS; one suspected a weak power supply in a small case.4
  • After flashing, owners saw the GPU run hotter and fans stay quiet in games; liquid metal and a thermal pad cut temps about 7C.3

Points mentioned by at least 3 owners, most mentioned first.

Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of graphics card AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100

Technical score
Technical score
3.7/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 96% of models
Score components:

44%

1.7

Performance

24%

2.1

Memory

12%

7.6

Power

11%

7.1

Features

5%

8.9

Design

4%

8.2

Connectivity

3.7
Reviews score
8.0
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
6.9/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 79% of models
Score components:

70%

5.7

Overall score

30%

9.7

Price

6.9
3DMark Time Spy benchmark score
1,524 points
Market range: <4.1k points – >30.1k points
This graphics card scores 1,524 points in 3DMark Time Spy, which is lower than 96.6% of graphics cards.
3DMark Port Royal score
0 points
Market range: <0 points – >22.4k points
This graphics card scores 0 points in 3DMark Port Royal, which is lower than 83.1% of graphics cards and equal to 16.9% of graphics cards.
PassMark (G3D) result
3,694 points
Market range: <7.7k points – >36k points
This graphics card scores 3,694 points in PassMark G3D, which is lower than 95.5% of graphics cards.
PassMark (DirectCompute) result
1,451 points
Market range: <3.1k points – >26.3k points
This graphics card scores 1,451 points in PassMark DirectCompute, which is lower than 96% of graphics cards.
FP32 performance
2.46 TFLOPS
Market range: <3.94 TFLOPS – >56.3 TFLOPS
This graphics card delivers 2.46 TFLOPS FP32 performance, which is lower than that of 92.9% of graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say
VRAM
4 GB
Market range: <4 GB – >16 GB
This graphics card has 4 GB of VRAM, which is less than 87.7% of graphics cards and equal to 6% of graphics cards.
Memory type
GDDR5
This graphics card uses GDDR5 memory, which is older than on 85.4% of graphics cards and equal to 13.2% of graphics cards.
Memory bus width
128 bit
Market range: <128 bit – >384 bit
This graphics card uses a 128 bit memory bus, which is narrower than that of 68.6% of graphics cards and equal to that of 26.7% of graphics cards.
Maximum memory bandwidth
96 GB/s
Market range: <168 GB/s – >960 GB/s
This graphics card reaches 96 GB/s memory bandwidth, which is lower than that of 96.1% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.3% of graphics cards.
Effective memory speed
6,000 MHz
Market range: <7k MHz – >28k MHz
This graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 6,000 MHz, which is slower than that of 94.6% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.4% of graphics cards.
Show more
PCI Express (PCIe) version
3
This graphics card supports PCIe 3, which is older than on 77.6% of graphics cards and equal to 20.1% of graphics cards.
PCIe lanes
x8
This graphics card uses x8 PCIe lanes, which is fewer than 75.9% of graphics cards and equal to 22.9% of graphics cards.
DirectX version
12
This graphics card supports DirectX 12, which is older than on 81.8% of graphics cards and equal to 17% of graphics cards.
Vulkan version
1.3
This graphics card supports Vulkan 1.3, which is older than on 79.2% of graphics cards and equal to 15.6% of graphics cards.
OpenGL version
4.6
This graphics card supports OpenGL 4.6, which is more advanced than on 2% of graphics cards and equal to 98% of graphics cards.
Show more
Max displays supported
4
Market range: <4 – >4
This graphics card supports up to 4 displays, which is more than 9% of graphics cards and equal to 88.2% of graphics cards.
Max digital resolution
5120x2880
This graphics card supports a maximum digital resolution of 5120x2880, which is lower than that of 90.9% of graphics cards and equal to that of 1.2% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort outputs
4
Market range: <1 – >3
This graphics card offers 4 DisplayPort outputs, which is more than 97.8% of graphics cards and equal to 2.1% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort version
1.4
This graphics card supports DisplayPort 1.4, which is older than on 80.8% of graphics cards and equal to 13.1% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort link rates
5.4 Gbps
Market range: <5.4 Gbps – >80 Gbps
This graphics card supports DisplayPort link rates up to 5.4 Gbps, which is slower than on 87.9% of graphics cards and equal to 6% of graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say
Thermal Design Power (TDP)
50 W
Market range: <86 W – >360 W
This graphics card has a TDP of 50 W, which is lower than that of 96.1% of graphics cards and equal to that of 1.1% of graphics cards.
Power consumption while under peak load
50 W
Market range: <106 W – >365 W
This graphics card draws 50 W under peak load, which is lower than 97.1% of graphics cards and equal to 0.9% of graphics cards.
Recommended PSU wattage
250 W
Market range: <450 W – >850 W
This graphics card recommends a 250 W PSU, which is lower than that of 99.1% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.5% of graphics cards.
Board power limit
75 W
Market range: <107 W – >400 W
This graphics card has a board power limit of 75 W, which is lower than that of 91.9% of graphics cards and equal to that of 2.2% of graphics cards.
PCIe power spec
50 W
Show more
Size
168x 69x 19 mm
Length
168 mm
Market range: <200 mm – >337 mm
This graphics card is 168 mm long, which is shorter than 95.4% of graphics cards and equal in length to 0.9% of graphics cards.
Height
69 mm
Market range: <109 mm – >146 mm
This graphics card is 69 mm tall, which is shorter than 92.5% of graphics cards and equal in height to 1.6% of graphics cards.
Slot width
1 slot/s
Market range: <2 slot/s – >3.25 slot/s
This graphics card occupies 1 slot/s, which is slimmer than 96.1% of graphics cards and equal in width to 3.9% of graphics cards.
Weight
222 g
Market range: <541 g – >2k g
This graphics card weighs 222 g, which is lighter than 98.6% of Graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say

AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 vs the average graphics card

246810TotalPerformanceMemoryFeaturesConnectivityPowerDesign
  • 76.7% lower TDP
    This graphics card has a lower TDP than the average graphics card (50 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    50 W vs 215 W
  • 61.5% lower PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a lower PSU requirement than the average graphics card (250 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    250 W vs 650 W
  • 1.5 slot/s slimmer design
    This graphics card occupies fewer slots than the average graphics card (1 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s). The average graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s.
    1 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s
  • 114.2 mm shorter card length
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (168 mm vs 282.2 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 282.2 mm.
    168 mm vs 282.2 mm
  • 56 mm lower card height
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (69 mm vs 125 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 125 mm.
    69 mm vs 125 mm
  • 1 more DisplayPort outputs
    This graphics card has more DisplayPort outputs than the average graphics card (4 vs 3). The average graphics card has 3 DisplayPort outputs.
    4 vs 3
  • 65.9% lower board power limit
    This graphics card has a lower board power limit than the average graphics card (75 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 220 W.
    75 W vs 220 W
  • 11.1% higher review score
    Reviews score
    8.0/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–² Better than 51% of models

    80%

    8.0

    Average grade

    20%

    8.3

    Popularity

    Grades by review (6)
    3 reviews: 1 with a printed score, 2 estimated from the review. 3 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    8.0 vs 7.2
  • 11.1% higher review score
    Reviews score
    8.0/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–² Better than 51% of models

    80%

    8.0

    Average grade

    20%

    8.3

    Popularity

    Grades by review (6)
    3 reviews: 1 with a printed score, 2 estimated from the review. 3 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    8.0 vs 7.2
  • 3.25x cheaper
    AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 is cheaper than the average graphics card (£160 vs £520).
    £160 vs £520
  • More FP64 throughput
    This graphics card has a better FP64 ratio than the average graphics card (1:16 vs 1:64).
    1:16 vs 1:64
  • 58.2% smaller GPU die
    This graphics card has a lower GPU die size than the average graphics card (123 mm² vs 294 mm²). The average graphics card has a GPU die size of 294 mm².
    123 mm² vs 294 mm²
  • 1 more DisplayPort outputs
    This graphics card has more DisplayPort outputs than the average graphics card (4 vs 3). The average graphics card has 3 DisplayPort outputs.
    4 vs 3
  • 76.7% lower TDP
    This graphics card has a lower TDP than the average graphics card (50 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    50 W vs 215 W
  • 61.5% lower PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a lower PSU requirement than the average graphics card (250 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    250 W vs 650 W
  • 65.9% lower board power limit
    This graphics card has a lower board power limit than the average graphics card (75 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 220 W.
    75 W vs 220 W
  • 77.3% lower peak power draw
    This graphics card has a lower peak power draw than the average graphics card (50 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a peak power draw of 220 W.
    50 W vs 220 W
  • 50% lower idle power draw
    This graphics card has a lower idle power draw than the average graphics card (6 W vs 12 W). The average graphics card has an idle power draw of 12 W.
    6 W vs 12 W
  • 1.5 slot/s slimmer design
    This graphics card occupies fewer slots than the average graphics card (1 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s). The average graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s.
    1 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s
  • 114.2 mm shorter card length
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (168 mm vs 282.2 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 282.2 mm.
    168 mm vs 282.2 mm
  • 56 mm lower card height
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (69 mm vs 125 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 125 mm.
    69 mm vs 125 mm
  • 78.1% lighter
    This graphics card is lighter than the average graphics card (222 g vs 1,014 g). The average graphics card weighs 1,014 g.
    222 g vs 1,014 g
  • 52.1% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,201 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    1,201 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 8 GB less VRAM
    This graphics card has fewer VRAM than the average graphics card (4 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    4 GB vs 12 GB
  • 40 fewer ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has fewer ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    0 vs 40
  • 2 fewer fans
    This graphics card has fewer fans than the average graphics card (1 vs 3).
    1 vs 3
  • 24 fewer compute units
    This graphics card has fewer compute units than the average graphics card (16 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    16 vs 40
  • Less advanced frame generation
    This graphics card has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (no vs multi frame generation).
  • No CUDA support
    This graphics card does not support CUDA, the average graphics card does.
  • 2.8x larger process node
    This graphics card uses a larger manufacturing process than the average graphics card (14 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a manufacturing process of 5 nm.
    14 nm vs 5 nm
  • 52.6% lower sentiment score
    3.7 vs 7.8
  • 7.2% worse value for money
    AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 has worse value for money than the average graphics card (6.92 vs 7.4).
    6.92 vs 7.41
  • 52.1% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,201 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    1,201 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 40 fewer ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has fewer ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    0 vs 40
  • 24 fewer compute units
    This graphics card has fewer compute units than the average graphics card (16 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    16 vs 40
  • No CUDA support
    This graphics card does not support CUDA, the average graphics card does.
  • 41.4% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,125 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    1,125 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • 120 fewer TMUs
    This graphics card has fewer TMUs than the average graphics card (64 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    64 vs 184
  • 79.7% lower texture rate
    This graphics card has a lower texture rate than the average graphics card (76.9 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 378 GTexel/s.
    76.86 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s
  • 88.1% lower pixel rate
    This graphics card has a lower pixel rate than the average graphics card (19.2 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s). The average graphics card has a pixel rate of 161.3 GPixel/s.
    19.22 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s
  • 48 fewer ROPs
    This graphics card has fewer ROPs than the average graphics card (16 vs 64). The average graphics card has 64 ROPs.
    16 vs 64
  • 144 fewer AI cores
    This graphics card has fewer AI cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 144). The average graphics card has 144 AI cores.
    0 vs 144
  • 89.1% lower FP32 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP32 performance than the average graphics card (2.5 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP32 performance of 22.6 TFLOPS.
    2.46 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS
  • 7 years older
    This graphics card was released earlier than the average graphics card (2016 vs 2023).
    November 2016
    2016 vs 2023
  • 83.7% lower PassMark score
    This graphics card has a lower PassMark score than the average graphics card (3,694 points vs 22,638 points). The average graphics card has a PassMark score of 22,638 points.
    3,694 points vs 22,638 points
  • 89.7% lower gaming score
    This graphics card has a lower gaming score than the average graphics card (1,524 points vs 14,779 points). The average graphics card has a gaming score of 14,779 points.
    1,524 points vs 14,779 points
  • 88% lower compute score
    This graphics card has a lower compute score than the average graphics card (1,451 points vs 12,70.5 points). The average graphics card has a compute score of 12,070.5 points.
    1,451 points vs 12,070.5 points
  • 91.7% lower FP16 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP16 performance than the average graphics card (2.5 TFLOPS vs 29.5 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP16 performance of 29.5 TFLOPS.
    2.46 TFLOPS vs 29.5 TFLOPS
  • 68.8% lower FP64 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP64 performance than the average graphics card (0.2 TFLOPS vs 0.48 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP64 performance of 0.48 TFLOPS.
    0.15 TFLOPS vs 0.48 TFLOPS
  • 3,328 fewer FP32 units
    This graphics card has fewer FP32 units than the average graphics card (1,024 vs 4,352). The average graphics card has 4,352 FP32 units.
    1,024 vs 4,352
  • 8 GB less VRAM
    This graphics card has fewer VRAM than the average graphics card (4 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    4 GB vs 12 GB
  • 78.6% lower memory bandwidth
    This graphics card has a lower memory bandwidth than the average graphics card (96 GB/s vs 448 GB/s). The average graphics card has a memory bandwidth of 448 GB/s.
    96 GB/s vs 448 GB/s
  • 68.4% slower memory speed
    This graphics card has a lower effective memory speed than the average graphics card (6,000 MHz vs 19,000 MHz). The average graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 19,000 MHz.
    6,000 MHz vs 19,000 MHz
  • 64 bit narrower memory bus
    This graphics card has a narrower memory bus than the average graphics card (128 bit vs 192 bit). The average graphics card has a memory bus width of 192 bit.
    128 bit vs 192 bit
  • 87.5% smaller L1 cache
    This graphics card has fewer L1 cache than the average graphics card (16 KB vs 128 KB). The average graphics card has 128 KB L1 cache.
    16 KB vs 128 KB
  • 14.3% slower VRAM clock
    This graphics card has a lower VRAM clock than the average graphics card (1,500 MHz vs 1,750 MHz). The average graphics card runs its VRAM at 1,750 MHz.
    1,500 MHz vs 1,750 MHz
  • Less advanced frame generation
    This graphics card has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (no vs multi frame generation).
  • 2.8x larger process node
    This graphics card uses a larger manufacturing process than the average graphics card (14 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a manufacturing process of 5 nm.
    14 nm vs 5 nm
  • No DLSS support
    This graphics card does not support DLSS, the average graphics card does.
  • No ray tracing
    This graphics card does not support ray tracing, the average graphics card does.
  • Fewer PCIe lanes
    This graphics card has fewer PCIe lanes than the average graphics card (x8 vs x16). The average graphics card has x16 PCIe lanes.
    x8 vs x16
  • Older PCIe version
    This graphics card supports an older PCIe version than the average graphics card (3 vs 4).
    3 vs 4
  • No AI upscalers
    This graphics card does not support AI upscalers, the average graphics card does.
  • No mesh shaders
    This graphics card does not support mesh shaders, the average graphics card does.
  • No DirectStorage support
    This graphics card does not support DirectStorage, the average graphics card does.
  • No Resizable BAR
    This graphics card does not support Resizable BAR, while the average graphics card does. 76.4% of Graphics cards support it.
  • Older Vulkan version
    This graphics card supports an older Vulkan version than the average graphics card (1.3 vs 1.4).
    1.3 vs 1.4
  • Older DirectX version
    This graphics card supports an older DirectX version than the average graphics card (12 vs 12 Ultimate).
    12 vs 12 Ultimate
  • No sampler feedback
    This graphics card does not support sampler feedback, the average graphics card does.
  • Older OpenCL version
    This graphics card supports an older OpenCL version than the average graphics card (2.1 vs 3).
    2.1 vs 3
  • 86.9% fewer transistors
    This graphics card has fewer transistors than the average graphics card (3,000 million vs 22,900 million). The average graphics card has 22,900 million transistors.
    3,000 million vs 22,900 million
  • Older shader model
    This graphics card supports an older shader model than the average graphics card (6.7 vs 6.8).
    6.7 vs 6.8
  • No AV1 encoding
    This graphics card does not support AV1 encoding, the average graphics card does.
  • No AV1 decoding
    This graphics card does not support AV1 decoding, the average graphics card does.
  • More basic codec support
    This graphics card encodes more basic formats than the average graphics card (H.264/H.265 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9).
    H.264/H.265 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9
  • Older DisplayPort version
    This graphics card supports an older DisplayPort version than the average graphics card (1.4 vs 1.4a).
    1.4 vs 1.4a
  • No HDMI output
    This graphics card does not include HDMI output, the average graphics card does.
  • Older HDCP version
    This graphics card supports an older HDCP version than the average graphics card (2.2 vs 2.3).
    2.2 vs 2.3
  • 2 fewer monitors per output type
    This graphics card supports fewer monitors per output type than the average graphics card (1 vs 3). The average graphics card supports 3 monitors per output type.
    1 vs 3
  • Lower display resolution
    This graphics card supports a lower maximum digital resolution than the average graphics card (5120x2880 vs 7680x4320). The average graphics card supports a maximum digital resolution of 7680x4320.
    5120x2880 vs 7680x4320
  • 75% lower DisplayPort bandwidth
    This graphics card has a lower DisplayPort bandwidth than the average graphics card (5.4 Gbps vs 21.6 Gbps). The average graphics card has DisplayPort bandwidth of 21.6 Gbps.
    5.4 Gbps vs 21.6 Gbps
  • 2 fewer fans
    This graphics card has fewer fans than the average graphics card (1 vs 3).
    1 vs 3
  • No dual BIOS
    This graphics card does not include dual BIOS, the average graphics card does.
  • No fan stop
    This graphics card does not support fan stop, the average graphics card does.
  • 15 °C lower thermal ceiling
    This graphics card has a lower thermal ceiling than the average graphics card (110 °C vs 95 °C). The average graphics card has a thermal ceiling of 95 °C.
    110 °C vs 95 °C
  • 30 dB noisier at idle
    This graphics card has a higher idle noise level than the average graphics card (30 dB vs 0 dB). The average graphics card has an idle noise level of 0 dB.
    30 dB vs 0 dB
  • 11 °C higher load temperature
    This graphics card has a higher load temperature than the average graphics card (78 °C vs 67 °C). The average graphics card has a load temperature of 67 °C.
    78 °C vs 67 °C
  • No backplate
    This graphics card does not include a backplate, the average graphics card does.
  • No RGB lighting
    This graphics card does not include RGB lighting, the average graphics card does.

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

7.0
BasicDadTech
≈ estimated
19/03/2024
Hands-on test · gaming in a small form factor PC
Verdict
AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 is a decent budget option for small form factor builds that do light gaming.
8.0
LOHTEC
≈ estimated
16/03/2022
Hands-on test · overclocked gaming at 720p and 1080p
Verdict
AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 is good value for a low-profile card, though it cannot hold 60 fps everywhere.
7.0
Miyconst
≈ estimated
27/08/2022
Overclocking test · benchmarks against GTX 1060
Verdict
AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 is weak for modern games, but it suits old workstations that need a compact card with multiple displays.
5.0
Miyconst
≈ estimated
07/08/2022
Preview · unboxing and faulty unit report
Verdict
AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 arrived faulty, so there are no benchmarks, but it may find a niche in old, compact low-power builds.
Not graded
Overview video
Not graded
Overview video

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

8.0
hothardware.com
✓ explicit
20/12/2016
Hands-on test · Half-height pro card
Verdict
The Radeon Pro WX 4100 suits slim workstations doing CAD, fitting half-height cases without a power connector, though its 2.4 TFLOPS trails the bigger Radeon Pro cards.
8.0
techgage.com
≈ estimated
03/02/2017
Benchmark review · Workstation cards
Verdict
The Radeon Pro WX 4100 is a low-profile CAD card that fits small workstation cases, but its 4GB and 2.4 TFLOPS hold back rendering and gaming.
9.0
develop3d.com
≈ estimated
06/04/2017
Hands-on test · Compact CAD
Verdict
The Radeon Pro WX 4100 is a strong pick for 3D CAD in small workstations, but it struggles with game-engine visualization at 4K.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100

  • Excellent for small form factor (SFF) builds due to its low-profile, single-slot design
  • Low power consumption (50W TDP) and does not require external PCIe power connectors
  • Supports up to four 4K displays via 4x Mini-DisplayPort outputs, ideal for digital signage and multi-monitor setups
  • Reliable performance for entry-level 2D/3D CAD applications like AutoCAD and SolidWorks at FHD resolution
  • Quiet operation and runs relatively cool during typical workstation tasks
  • Compatible with modern macOS (Hackintosh) and various Linux distributions

What customers don't like about AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100

  • Performance significantly degrades at 4K resolution, often dropping to sluggish frame rates (6-10 FPS) in demanding apps
  • Not suitable for heavy compute or high-end rendering tasks, where it is easily outperformed by more powerful GPUs
  • Limited for modern gaming, often reaching 100% GPU usage even in budget-oriented scenarios
  • Lacks support for NVIDIA-exclusive features like CUDA, which may be required for specific professional workflows
  • Reports of occasional graphical glitches, freezes, or bugs from some users

Verdict

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 is a professional-grade, low-profile graphics card built on the 14nm Polaris architecture, featuring 1024 stream processors and a peak single-precision compute performance of 2.46 TFLOPS. It is equipped with 4GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit interface, delivering a memory bandwidth of 96 GB/s, and operates at a base clock of 1125 MHz with a boost up to 1201 MHz. Its primary strengths lie in its energy efficiency, consuming a maximum of only 50W without needing external power connectors, and its support for multi-display setups via four Mini-DisplayPort 1.4 outputs capable of driving four 4K displays or a single 5K monitor. However, its small form factor blower-style cooler can lead to high operating temperatures under heavy load, and it is generally unsuitable for demanding 4K rendering or high-end compute tasks due to its entry-level positioning.

Compare AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 with other products in the Graphics cards category

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 and other products in the Graphics cards category

No results found