CPU
GPU
Radeon R9 255
Popular choices:
FirePro W4100
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 FirePro W4100
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The Radeon R9 255 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 0.3% higher G3D Mark score. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the FirePro W4100.
| Insight | Radeon R9 255 | FirePro W4100 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+0.3%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-0.3%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2014 / GCN 3.0 (2014−2019)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2014 / GCN 1.0 (2012−2020)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+0%) |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | — | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly |
💎 Value Proposition
The Radeon R9 255 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. While both GPUs are considered legacy components by modern standards, the Radeon R9 255 holds the technical lead. Priced at $30 (vs $183), it costs 84% less, resulting in a 512% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | Radeon R9 255 | FirePro W4100 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+512%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($30) | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($183) |
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 R9 255 and FirePro W4100
Radeon R9 255
The Radeon R9 255 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in September 2 2014. It features the GCN 3.0 architecture. The core clock speed is 918 MHz. It has 1792 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 190W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 1,501 points. Launch price was $249.
FirePro W4100
The FirePro W4100 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in August 13 2014. It features the GCN 1.0 architecture. The core clock speed is 630 MHz. It has 512 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 50W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 1,496 points.
Graphics Performance
The Radeon R9 255 scores 1,501 and the FirePro W4100 reaches 1,496 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 0.3% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Radeon R9 255 is built on GCN 3.0 while the FirePro W4100 uses GCN 1.0, both on a 28 nm process. Shader units: 1,792 (Radeon R9 255) vs 512 (FirePro W4100). Raw compute: 3.29 TFLOPS (Radeon R9 255) vs 0.6451 TFLOPS (FirePro W4100).
| Feature | Radeon R9 255 | FirePro W4100 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 1,501 | 1,496 |
| Architecture | GCN 3.0 | GCN 1.0 |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 1792+250% | 512 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 3.29 TFLOPS+410% | 0.6451 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32+100% | 16 |
| TMUs | 112+250% | 32 |
| L1 Cache | 448 KB+250% | 128 KB |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB+100% | 256 KB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Radeon R9 255 | FirePro W4100 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
Both cards feature 2 GB of GDDR5. Bus width: 128-bit vs 64-bit. L2 Cache: 512 KB (Radeon R9 255) vs 256 KB (FirePro W4100) — the Radeon R9 255 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | Radeon R9 255 | FirePro W4100 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 2 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 128-bit+100% | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB+100% | 256 KB |
Power & Dimensions
The Radeon R9 255 draws 190W versus the FirePro W4100's 50W — a 116.7% difference. The FirePro W4100 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 400W (Radeon R9 255) vs 350W (FirePro W4100). Power connectors: 1x 6-pin vs PCIe-powered.
| Feature | Radeon R9 255 | FirePro W4100 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 190W | 50W-74% |
| Recommended PSU | 400W | 350W-13% |
| Power Connector | 1x 6-pin | PCIe-powered |
| Length | — | 171mm |
| Height | — | 69mm |
| Slots | — | 1 |
| Temp (Load) | — | 90°C |
| Perf/Watt | 7.9 | 29.9+278% |
Value Analysis
The Radeon R9 255 launched at $139 MSRP and currently averages $30, while the FirePro W4100 launched at $183 and now averages $183. The Radeon R9 255 costs 83.6% less ($153 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 50.0 (Radeon R9 255) vs 8.2 (FirePro W4100) — the Radeon R9 255 offers 509.8% better value.
| Feature | Radeon R9 255 | FirePro W4100 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $139-24% | $183 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $30-84% | $183 |
| Performance per Dollar | 50.0+510% | 8.2 |
| Codename | Tonga | Cape Verde |
| Release | September 2 2014 | August 13 2014 |
| Ranking | #365 | #766 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on Radeon R9 255 and FirePro W4100
