Radeon Pro WX 3200 vs GeForce GTX 550 Ti
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 550 Ti with Radeon Pro WX 3200, including specs and performance data.
Pro 3200 outperforms 550 Ti by a considerable 43% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 776 | 676 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.71 | 2.40 |
| Power efficiency | 2.49 | 6.38 |
| Architecture | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) |
| GPU code name | GF116 | Polaris 23 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Release date | 15 March 2011 (15 years ago) | 2 July 2019 (7 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $149 | $199 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Pro WX 3200 has 238% better value for money than GTX 550 Ti.
Performance to price scatter graph
Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 192 | 640 |
| Core clock speed | 900 MHz | 1082 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,170 million | 2,200 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 116 Watt | 65 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 100 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 28.80 | 34.62 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.6912 TFLOPS | 1.385 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 24 | 16 |
| TMUs | 32 | 32 |
| L1 Cache | 256 KB | 160 KB |
| L2 Cache | 384 KB | 512 KB |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).
| Bus support | 16x PCI-E 2.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
| Length | 210 mm | no data |
| Height | 4.376" (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | MXM Module |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin | None |
| SLI options | + | - |
VRAM capacity and type
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 192 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 4.1 GB/s | 1000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 98.4 GB/s | 64 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | Two Dual Link DVI-IMini HDMI | 4x mini-DisplayPort |
| Multi monitor support | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (12_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.2 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | + | - |
Synthetic benchmarks
Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark score.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.
3DMark 11 Performance GPU
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
3DMark Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| 900p | 38
−31.6%
| 50−55
+31.6%
|
| Full HD | 37
+94.7%
| 19
−94.7%
|
| 4K | 5−6
−60%
| 8
+60%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 4.03
+160%
| 10.47
−160%
|
| 4K | 29.80
−19.8%
| 24.88
+19.8%
|
- GTX 550 Ti has 160% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- Pro WX 3200 has 20% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 9−10
−44.4%
|
12−14
+44.4%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
−66.7%
|
24−27
+66.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
−57.1%
|
10−12
+57.1%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 9−10
−44.4%
|
12−14
+44.4%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
−64.3%
|
21−24
+64.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
−66.7%
|
24−27
+66.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
−57.1%
|
10−12
+57.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
−81.8%
|
20
+81.8%
|
| Fortnite | 21−24
−45.5%
|
30−35
+45.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
−38.9%
|
24−27
+38.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−11
−50%
|
14−16
+50%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
−25%
|
20−22
+25%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
−20.8%
|
60−65
+20.8%
|
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 9−10
−44.4%
|
12−14
+44.4%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
−64.3%
|
21−24
+64.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
−66.7%
|
24−27
+66.7%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 65−70
−33.8%
|
90−95
+33.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
−57.1%
|
10−12
+57.1%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−35
−44.1%
|
49
+44.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
−63.6%
|
18
+63.6%
|
| Fortnite | 21−24
−45.5%
|
30−35
+45.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
−38.9%
|
24−27
+38.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−11
−50%
|
14−16
+50%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 10−12
−63.6%
|
18−20
+63.6%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7−8
−42.9%
|
10
+42.9%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
−25%
|
20−22
+25%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
−25%
|
15
+25%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
−20.8%
|
60−65
+20.8%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
−64.3%
|
21−24
+64.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
−57.1%
|
10−12
+57.1%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−35
−2.9%
|
35
+2.9%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
−54.5%
|
17
+54.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
−38.9%
|
24−27
+38.9%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
−25%
|
20−22
+25%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+20%
|
10
−20%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
−20.8%
|
60−65
+20.8%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 21−24
−45.5%
|
30−35
+45.5%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−42.9%
|
10−11
+42.9%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 27−30
−41.4%
|
40−45
+41.4%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
−19.4%
|
35−40
+19.4%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−45.9%
|
50−55
+45.9%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−66.7%
|
10−11
+66.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
−44.4%
|
12−14
+44.4%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−40%
|
7−8
+40%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 7−8
−42.9%
|
10−11
+42.9%
|
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Valorant | 16−18
−35.3%
|
21−24
+35.3%
|
4K
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 1−2 |
| Dota 2 | 12−14
+33.3%
|
9
−33.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−100%
|
8−9
+100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
4K
High
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5
+0%
|
5
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
This is how GTX 550 Ti and Pro WX 3200 compete in popular games:
- Pro WX 3200 is 32% faster in 900p
- GTX 550 Ti is 95% faster in 1080p
- Pro WX 3200 is 60% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Dota 2, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 550 Ti is 33% faster.
- in Grand Theft Auto V, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the Pro WX 3200 is 150% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- GTX 550 Ti performs better in 2 tests (3%)
- Pro WX 3200 performs better in 53 tests (90%)
- there's a draw in 4 tests (7%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.74 | 5.36 |
| Recency | 15 March 2011 | 2 July 2019 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 116 Watt | 65 Watt |
Pro WX 3200 has a 43% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 186% more advanced lithography process, and 78% lower power consumption.
The Radeon Pro WX 3200 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 550 Ti in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 550 Ti is a desktop graphics card while Radeon Pro WX 3200 is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
