Radeon Pro WX 3200 vs Pro Vega 64

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon Pro Vega 64 and Radeon Pro WX 3200, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

Pro Vega 64
2017
16 GB HBM2, 250 Watt
33.19
+435%

Pro Vega 64 outperforms Pro WX 3200 by a whopping 435% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking162585
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data12.81
Power efficiency9.266.65
ArchitectureGCN 5.0 (2017−2020)GCN 4.0 (2016−2020)
GPU code nameVega 10Polaris 23
Market segmentWorkstationWorkstation
Release date27 June 2017 (7 years ago)2 July 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$199

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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 cores4096640
Core clock speed1250 MHz1082 MHz
Boost clock speed1350 MHzno data
Number of transistors12,500 million2,200 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)250 Watt65 Watt
Texture fill rate345.634.62
Floating-point processing power11.06 TFLOPS1.385 TFLOPS
ROPs6416
TMUs25632

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 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x8
Length267 mmno data
WidthIGPMXM Module
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone

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 typeHBM2GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount16 GB4 GB
Memory bus width2048 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed786 MHz1000 MHz
Memory bandwidth402.4 GB/s64 GB/s
Shared memory--

Connectivity and outputs

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 ConnectorsNo outputs4x mini-DisplayPort

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)12 (12_0)
Shader Model6.46.4
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.02.0
Vulkan1.1.1251.2.131

Synthetic benchmark performance

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. 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.

Pro Vega 64 33.19
+435%
Pro WX 3200 6.20

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.

Pro Vega 64 12920
+435%
Pro WX 3200 2414

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 HD95−100
+428%
18
−428%
4K45−50
+400%
9
−400%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data11.06
4Kno data22.11

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Metro Exodus 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Valorant 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Dota 2 16
+0%
16
+0%
Far Cry 5 15
+0%
15
+0%
Fortnite 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Metro Exodus 4
+0%
4
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Valorant 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
World of Tanks 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Dota 2 35
+0%
35
+0%
Far Cry 5 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Valorant 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
World of Tanks 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Far Cry 5 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Metro Exodus 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Valorant 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Dota 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Metro Exodus 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Dota 2 9
+0%
9
+0%
Far Cry 5 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Fortnite 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Valorant 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%

This is how Pro Vega 64 and Pro WX 3200 compete in popular games:

  • Pro Vega 64 is 428% faster in 1080p
  • Pro Vega 64 is 400% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 63 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 33.19 6.20
Recency 27 June 2017 2 July 2019
Maximum RAM amount 16 GB 4 GB
Power consumption (TDP) 250 Watt 65 Watt

Pro Vega 64 has a 435.3% higher aggregate performance score, and a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount.

Pro WX 3200, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years, and 284.6% lower power consumption.

The Radeon Pro Vega 64 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon Pro WX 3200 in performance tests.


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

Vote for your favorite

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


AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64
Radeon Pro Vega 64
AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200
Radeon Pro WX 3200

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.


4 21 vote

Rate Radeon Pro Vega 64 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.2 85 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

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