Radeon R7 260 vs Radeon Pro WX 4170
Radeon R7 260
Popular choices:
Radeon Pro WX 4170
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - GPU
About G3D Mark
G3D Mark is a standard benchmark that measures graphics performance in real-world gaming scenarios. It simplifies comparing cards from different brands, where higher scores directly correlate with better fps and smoother gaming experiences.
Value Upgrade Path
This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (G3D Mark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar
Performance Per Dollar Radeon Pro WX 4170
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The Radeon R7 260 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 0.8% higher G3D Mark score. However, the Radeon Pro WX 4170 offers more VRAM, which may be beneficial for texture-heavy scenarios at higher resolutions.
| Insight | Radeon R7 260 | Radeon Pro WX 4170 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+0.8%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-0.8%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2013 / GCN 2.0 (2013−2017)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2016 / GCN 4.0 (2016−2020)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+300%) |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly | — |
💎 Value Proposition
The Radeon R7 260 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. While both GPUs are considered legacy components by modern standards, the Radeon R7 260 holds the technical lead. Priced at $110 (vs $120), it costs 8% less, resulting in a 9.9% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | Radeon R7 260 | Radeon Pro WX 4170 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+9.9%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($110) | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($120) |
Performance Check
Real-world benchmarks and performance projections based on comprehensive hardware analysis and comparative metrics. Values represent expected performance on High/Ultra settings at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. Modeled using a Ryzen 7 7800X3D reference profile to minimize specific CPU bottlenecks.
Note: Performance behavior can vary per game. Specific architectures may perform better or worse depending on game engine optimizations and API implementation.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Radeon R7 260 and Radeon Pro WX 4170
Radeon R7 260
The Radeon R7 260 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in December 17 2013. It features the GCN 2.0 architecture. The boost clock speed is 1100 MHz. It has 768 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 95W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 2,892 points. Launch price was $109.
Radeon Pro WX 4170
The Radeon Pro WX 4170 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in November 10 2016. It features the GCN 4.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 1125 MHz to 1201 MHz. It has 1024 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 50W. Manufactured using 14 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 2,870 points. Launch price was $399.
Graphics Performance
The Radeon R7 260 scores 2,892 and the Radeon Pro WX 4170 reaches 2,870 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 0.8% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Radeon R7 260 is built on GCN 2.0 while the Radeon Pro WX 4170 uses GCN 4.0, both on 28 nm vs 14 nm. Shader units: 768 (Radeon R7 260) vs 1,024 (Radeon Pro WX 4170). Raw compute: 1.536 TFLOPS (Radeon R7 260) vs 2.46 TFLOPS (Radeon Pro WX 4170). Boost clocks: 1100 MHz vs 1201 MHz.
| Feature | Radeon R7 260 | Radeon Pro WX 4170 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 2,892 | 2,870 |
| Architecture | GCN 2.0 | GCN 4.0 |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Shading Units | 768 | 1024+33% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 1.536 TFLOPS | 2.46 TFLOPS+60% |
| Boost Clock | 1100 MHz | 1201 MHz+9% |
| ROPs | 16 | 16 |
| TMUs | 48 | 64+33% |
| L1 Cache | 192 KB | 256 KB+33% |
| L2 Cache | 0.25 MB | 1 MB+300% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Radeon R7 260 | Radeon Pro WX 4170 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | FSR 1.0 (Software) |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | AMD Anti-Lag | AMD Anti-Lag |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The Radeon R7 260 comes with 1 GB of VRAM, while the Radeon Pro WX 4170 has 4 GB. The Radeon Pro WX 4170 offers 300% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 128-bit vs 64-bit. L2 Cache: 0.25 MB (Radeon R7 260) vs 1 MB (Radeon Pro WX 4170) — the Radeon Pro WX 4170 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | Radeon R7 260 | Radeon Pro WX 4170 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 1 GB | 4 GB+300% |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 128-bit+100% | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 0.25 MB | 1 MB+300% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (12_0) (Radeon R7 260) vs 12 (12_0) (Radeon Pro WX 4170). Vulkan: 1.2 vs 1.3. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 4.
| Feature | Radeon R7 260 | Radeon Pro WX 4170 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 (12_0) |
| Vulkan | 1.2 | 1.3+8% |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Max Displays | 3 | 4+33% |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: VCE 2.0 (Radeon R7 260) vs VCE 3.4 (Polaris) (Radeon Pro WX 4170). Decoder: UVD 4.2 vs UVD 6.3. Supported codecs: H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2,MVC (Radeon R7 260) vs H.264,HEVC,VP9 (Decode Only),AV1 (Decode Only) (Radeon Pro WX 4170).
| Feature | Radeon R7 260 | Radeon Pro WX 4170 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | VCE 2.0 | VCE 3.4 (Polaris) |
| Decoder | UVD 4.2 | UVD 6.3 |
| Codecs | H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2,MVC | H.264,HEVC,VP9 (Decode Only),AV1 (Decode Only) |
Power & Dimensions
The Radeon R7 260 draws 95W versus the Radeon Pro WX 4170's 50W — a 62.1% difference. The Radeon Pro WX 4170 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 400W (Radeon R7 260) vs 350W (Radeon Pro WX 4170). Power connectors: 1x 6-pin vs PCIe-powered. Typical load temperature: 80 vs 80°C.
| Feature | Radeon R7 260 | Radeon Pro WX 4170 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 95W | 50W-47% |
| Recommended PSU | 400W | 350W-13% |
| Power Connector | 1x 6-pin | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 170mm | — |
| Height | 112mm | — |
| Slots | 2 | 0-100% |
| Temp (Load) | 80 | 80°C |
| Perf/Watt | 30.4 | 57.4+89% |
Value Analysis
The Radeon R7 260 launched at $109 MSRP and currently averages $110, while the Radeon Pro WX 4170 launched at $400 and now averages $120. The Radeon R7 260 costs 8.3% less ($10 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 26.3 (Radeon R7 260) vs 23.9 (Radeon Pro WX 4170) — the Radeon R7 260 offers 10% better value. The Radeon Pro WX 4170 is the newer GPU (2016 vs 2013).
| Feature | Radeon R7 260 | Radeon Pro WX 4170 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $109-73% | $400 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $110-8% | $120 |
| Performance per Dollar | 26.3+10% | 23.9 |
| Codename | Bonaire | Baffin |
| Release | December 17 2013 | November 10 2016 |
| Ranking | #591 | #526 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on Radeon R7 260 and Radeon Pro WX 4170
