Radeon Pro WX 3200 vs HD Graphics

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared HD Graphics with Radeon Pro WX 3200, including specs and performance data.


HD Graphics
2012
35 Watt
0.72

Pro 3200 outperforms HD Graphics by a whopping 638% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1227666
Place by popularity60not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data3.23
Power efficiency1.586.29
ArchitectureGeneration 7.0 (2012−2013)GCN 4.0 (2016−2020)
GPU code nameIvy Bridge GT1Polaris 23
Market segmentDesktopWorkstation
Release date1 April 2012 (14 years ago)2 July 2019 (6 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$199

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

no data

Performance to price scatter graph

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores48640
Core clock speed650 MHz1082 MHz
Boost clock speed1050 MHzno data
Number of transistors392 million2,200 million
Manufacturing process technology22 nm14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt65 Watt
Texture fill rate6.30034.62
Floating-point processing power0.1008 TFLOPS1.385 TFLOPS
ROPs116
TMUs632
L1 Cacheno data160 KB
L2 Cacheno data512 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).

InterfacePCIe 1.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x8
WidthIGPMXM Module
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 typeSystem SharedGDDR5
Maximum RAM amountSystem Shared4 GB
Memory bus widthSystem Shared128 Bit
Memory clock speedSystem Shared1000 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data64 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 ConnectorsNo outputs4x mini-DisplayPort

API and SDK support

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX11.1 (11_0)12 (12_0)
Shader Model5.06.4
OpenGL4.04.6
OpenCL1.22.0
Vulkan1.1.801.2.131

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.

HD Graphics 0.72
Pro WX 3200 5.31
+638%

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.

HD Graphics 302
Samples: 823
Pro WX 3200 2232
+639%
Samples: 54

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.

HD Graphics 300
Pro WX 3200 3156
+952%

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 HD2−3
−850%
19
+850%
4K1−2
−700%
8
+700%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data10.47
4Kno data24.88

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Resident Evil 4 Remake 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Far Cry 5 20
+0%
20
+0%
Fortnite 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Valorant 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Dota 2 49
+0%
49
+0%
Far Cry 5 18
+0%
18
+0%
Fortnite 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Metro Exodus 10
+0%
10
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 15
+0%
15
+0%
Valorant 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Dota 2 35
+0%
35
+0%
Far Cry 5 17
+0%
17
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10
+0%
10
+0%
Valorant 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Metro Exodus 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Valorant 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5
+0%
5
+0%
Valorant 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Dota 2 9
+0%
9
+0%
Far Cry 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

This is how HD Graphics and Pro WX 3200 compete in popular games:

  • Pro WX 3200 is 850% faster in 1080p
  • Pro WX 3200 is 700% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 57 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.72 5.31
Recency 1 April 2012 2 July 2019
Chip lithography 22 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 35 Watt 65 Watt

HD Graphics has 86% lower power consumption.

Pro WX 3200, on the other hand, has a 638% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, and a 57% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon Pro WX 3200 is our recommended choice as it beats the HD Graphics in performance tests.

Be aware that HD Graphics 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.

Community ratings

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


2.4 3002 votes

Rate HD Graphics on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.3 93 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about HD Graphics or Radeon Pro WX 3200, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.