AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660

#ad
Buy
VS
#ad
Buy

Combined performance score

GTX 1660
30.16
+382%

GeForce GTX 1660 outperforms Radeon Pro WX 3200 by 382% in our combined benchmark results.

General info

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in performance ranking170542
Place by popularity48not in top-100
Value for money25.033.15
ArchitectureTuring (2018−2021)Polaris (2016−2019)
GPU code nameTuring TU116Polaris 12
Market segmentDesktopWorkstation
Release date14 March 2019 (5 years old)26 September 2019 (4 years old)
Launch price (MSRP)$219 $199
Current price$252 (1.2x MSRP)$740 (3.7x MSRP)
Value for money

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GTX 1660 has 695% better value for money than Pro WX 3200.

Technical specs

General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores1408640
Core clock speed1530 MHz1082 MHz
Boost clock speed1785 MHzno data
Number of transistors6,600 million2,200 million
Manufacturing process technology12 nm14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)120 Watt65 Watt
Texture fill rate157.141.44

Size and 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).

InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x8
Length229 mmno data
Width2-slotMXM Module
Supplementary power connectors1x 8-pinNone

Memory

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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount6 GB4 GB
Memory bus width192 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed8000 MHz6000 MHz
Memory bandwidth192.1 GB/s64 GB/s
Shared memory--

Video outputs and ports

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display Connectors1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort4x mini-DisplayPort
HDMI+no data

API support

List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 (12_1)12 (12_0)
Shader Model6.56.4
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.22.0
Vulkan1.2.1311.2.131
CUDA7.5no data

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

GTX 1660 30.16
+382%
Pro WX 3200 6.26

GeForce GTX 1660 outperforms Radeon Pro WX 3200 by 382% in our combined benchmark results.


Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.

Benchmark coverage: 25%

GTX 1660 11692
+382%
Pro WX 3200 2427

GeForce GTX 1660 outperforms Radeon Pro WX 3200 by 382% in Passmark.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 17%

GTX 1660 71229
+468%
Pro WX 3200 12538

GeForce GTX 1660 outperforms Radeon Pro WX 3200 by 468% in 3DMark Vantage Performance.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 17%

GTX 1660 21131
+387%
Pro WX 3200 4338

GeForce GTX 1660 outperforms Radeon Pro WX 3200 by 387% in 3DMark 11 Performance GPU.

3DMark Fire Strike Graphics

Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

Benchmark coverage: 14%

GTX 1660 14055
+345%
Pro WX 3200 3156

GeForce GTX 1660 outperforms Radeon Pro WX 3200 by 345% in 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics.

3DMark Cloud Gate GPU

Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.

Benchmark coverage: 14%

GTX 1660 80889
+329%
Pro WX 3200 18866

GeForce GTX 1660 outperforms Radeon Pro WX 3200 by 329% in 3DMark Cloud Gate GPU.

3DMark Ice Storm GPU

Ice Storm Graphics is an obsolete benchmark, part of 3DMark suite. Ice Storm was used to measure entry level laptops and Windows-based tablets performance. It utilizes DirectX 11 feature level 9 to display a battle between two space fleets near a frozen planet in 1280x720 resolution. Discontinued in January 2020, it is now superseded by 3DMark Night Raid.

Benchmark coverage: 8%

GTX 1660 524782
+396%
Pro WX 3200 105833

GeForce GTX 1660 outperforms Radeon Pro WX 3200 by 396% in 3DMark Ice Storm GPU.

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 maya-04

Benchmark coverage: 3%

GTX 1660 120
+445%
Pro WX 3200 22

GeForce GTX 1660 outperforms Radeon Pro WX 3200 by 445% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 maya-04.

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 sw-03

Benchmark coverage: 3%

GTX 1660 49
+22%
Pro WX 3200 40

GeForce GTX 1660 outperforms Radeon Pro WX 3200 by 22% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 sw-03.

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 snx-02

Benchmark coverage: 3%

GTX 1660 9
Pro WX 3200 32
+266%

Radeon Pro WX 3200 outperforms GeForce GTX 1660 by 266% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 snx-02.

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 catia-04

Benchmark coverage: 3%

GTX 1660 60
+116%
Pro WX 3200 28

GeForce GTX 1660 outperforms Radeon Pro WX 3200 by 116% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 catia-04.

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 creo-01

Benchmark coverage: 3%

GTX 1660 40
+18.5%
Pro WX 3200 34

GeForce GTX 1660 outperforms Radeon Pro WX 3200 by 18% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 creo-01.

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 mediacal-01

Benchmark coverage: 3%

GTX 1660 27
+235%
Pro WX 3200 8

GeForce GTX 1660 outperforms Radeon Pro WX 3200 by 235% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 mediacal-01.

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 showcase-01

Benchmark coverage: 3%

GTX 1660 63
+257%
Pro WX 3200 18

GeForce GTX 1660 outperforms Radeon Pro WX 3200 by 257% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 showcase-01.

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 energy-01

Benchmark coverage: 3%

GTX 1660 6
+263%
Pro WX 3200 2

GeForce GTX 1660 outperforms Radeon Pro WX 3200 by 263% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 energy-01.

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:

Full HD86
+353%
19
−353%
1440p48
+433%
9−10
−433%
4K28
+250%
8
−250%

Performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 71
+610%
10−11
−610%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 55−60
+375%
12−14
−375%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 59
+743%
7−8
−743%
Battlefield 5 90−95
+370%
20−22
−370%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 112
+489%
18−20
−489%
Cyberpunk 2077 58
+480%
10−11
−480%
Far Cry 5 100
+400%
20
−400%
Far Cry New Dawn 95
+533%
14−16
−533%
Forza Horizon 4 132
+529%
21−24
−529%
Hitman 3 110
+633%
14−16
−633%
Horizon Zero Dawn 82
+583%
12−14
−583%
Red Dead Redemption 2 73
+564%
10−12
−564%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 93
+520%
14−16
−520%
Watch Dogs: Legion 78
+767%
9−10
−767%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 55−60
+375%
12−14
−375%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 42
+500%
7−8
−500%
Battlefield 5 90−95
+370%
20−22
−370%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 85
+347%
18−20
−347%
Cyberpunk 2077 47
+370%
10−11
−370%
Far Cry 5 92
+411%
18
−411%
Far Cry New Dawn 89
+493%
14−16
−493%
Forza Horizon 4 123
+486%
21−24
−486%
Hitman 3 90
+500%
14−16
−500%
Horizon Zero Dawn 61
+408%
12−14
−408%
Metro Exodus 57
+470%
10
−470%
Red Dead Redemption 2 40
+264%
10−12
−264%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 78
+420%
14−16
−420%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 102
+580%
15
−580%
Watch Dogs: Legion 66
+633%
9−10
−633%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 55−60
+375%
12−14
−375%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 37
+429%
7−8
−429%
Battlefield 5 90−95
+370%
20−22
−370%
Cyberpunk 2077 40
+300%
10−11
−300%
Far Cry 5 86
+406%
17
−406%
Far Cry New Dawn 82
+447%
14−16
−447%
Forza Horizon 4 98
+367%
21−24
−367%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 57
+470%
10
−470%
Watch Dogs: Legion 29
+222%
9−10
−222%

1440p
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 57
+533%
9−10
−533%
Hitman 3 57
+470%
10−11
−470%
Horizon Zero Dawn 40
+233%
12−14
−233%
Metro Exodus 33
+725%
4−5
−725%
Red Dead Redemption 2 25
+525%
4−5
−525%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 48
+433%
9−10
−433%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 30−35
+560%
5−6
−560%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 27
+2600%
1−2
−2600%
Battlefield 5 65−70
+1220%
5−6
−1220%
Cyberpunk 2077 24
+700%
3−4
−700%
Far Cry 5 59
+490%
10−11
−490%
Far Cry New Dawn 59
+743%
7−8
−743%
Forza Horizon 4 76
+660%
10−11
−660%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 35−40
+550%
6−7
−550%
Watch Dogs: Legion 19
+850%
2−3
−850%

4K
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 32
+700%
4−5
−700%
Hitman 3 31
+417%
6−7
−417%
Horizon Zero Dawn 11
+37.5%
8−9
−37.5%
Metro Exodus 20
+1900%
1−2
−1900%
Red Dead Redemption 2 16−18
+433%
3−4
−433%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 24
+1100%
2−3
−1100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 35
+600%
5
−600%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 20−22
+567%
3−4
−567%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 15
+400%
3−4
−400%
Battlefield 5 35−40
+1700%
2−3
−1700%
Cyberpunk 2077 10 0−1
Far Cry 5 30
+400%
6−7
−400%
Far Cry New Dawn 31
+288%
8−9
−288%
Forza Horizon 4 50
+733%
6−7
−733%
Watch Dogs: Legion 12
+1100%
1−2
−1100%

This is how GTX 1660 and Pro WX 3200 compete in popular games:

1080p resolution:

  • GTX 1660 is 353% faster than Pro WX 3200

1440p resolution:

  • GTX 1660 is 433% faster than Pro WX 3200

4K resolution:

  • GTX 1660 is 250% faster than Pro WX 3200

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Assassin's Creed Valhalla, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 1660 is 2600% faster than the Pro WX 3200.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Without exception, GTX 1660 surpassed Pro WX 3200 in all 67 of our tests.

Advantages and disadvantages


Performance score 30.16 6.26
Recency 14 March 2019 26 September 2019
Cost $219 $199
Maximum RAM amount 6 GB 4 GB
Chip lithography 12 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 120 Watt 65 Watt

The GeForce GTX 1660 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon Pro WX 3200 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 1660 is a desktop card while Radeon Pro WX 3200 is a workstation one.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

User ratings

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660
GeForce GTX 1660
AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200
Radeon Pro WX 3200

Similar GPU comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

User ratings: view and submit

Here you can see the user rating of the graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


4.1 4591 vote

Rate NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.2 72 votes

Rate AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions and comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.