Radeon Graphics vs Pro WX 3200

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

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

Pro WX 3200
2019
4 GB GDDR5, 65 Watt
5.42
+217%

Pro WX 3200 outperforms Graphics by a whopping 217% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking590910
Place by popularitynot in top-10011
Cost-effectiveness evaluation13.61no data
Power efficiency6.599.00
ArchitectureGCN 4.0 (2016−2020)GCN 5.1 (2018−2022)
GPU code namePolaris 23Renoir
Market segmentWorkstationDesktop
Release date2 July 2019 (5 years ago)no data
Launch price (MSRP)$199 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

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 cores640448
Core clock speed1082 MHzno data
Boost clock speedno data1500 MHz
Number of transistors2,200 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology14 nm7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)65 Watt15 Watt
Texture fill rate34.6242.00
Floating-point processing power1.385 TFLOPS1.344 TFLOPS
ROPs168
TMUs3228

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 x8IGP
WidthMXM ModuleIGP
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno data

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 typeGDDR5System Shared
Maximum RAM amount4 GBSystem Shared
Memory bus width128 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed1000 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth64 GB/sno data
Shared memory-no data

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 Connectors4x mini-DisplayPortNo outputs

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_0)12 (12_1)
Shader Model6.4no data
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.0no data
Vulkan1.2.131-

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.

Pro WX 3200 5.42
+217%
Radeon Graphics 1.71

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 WX 3200 2420
+217%
Radeon Graphics 764

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 HD19
+280%
5−6
−280%
4K8
+300%
2−3
−300%

Cost per frame, $

1080p10.47no data
4K24.88no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 14−16
+250%
4−5
−250%
Counter-Strike 2 27−30
+238%
8−9
−238%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+300%
3−4
−300%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 14−16
+250%
4−5
−250%
Battlefield 5 24−27
+257%
7−8
−257%
Counter-Strike 2 27−30
+238%
8−9
−238%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+300%
3−4
−300%
Far Cry 5 20
+233%
6−7
−233%
Fortnite 35−40
+250%
10−11
−250%
Forza Horizon 4 27−30
+238%
8−9
−238%
Forza Horizon 5 16−18
+220%
5−6
−220%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 21−24
+267%
6−7
−267%
Valorant 65−70
+219%
21−24
−219%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 14−16
+250%
4−5
−250%
Battlefield 5 24−27
+257%
7−8
−257%
Counter-Strike 2 27−30
+238%
8−9
−238%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 95−100
+227%
30−33
−227%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+300%
3−4
−300%
Dota 2 49
+250%
14−16
−250%
Far Cry 5 18
+260%
5−6
−260%
Fortnite 35−40
+250%
10−11
−250%
Forza Horizon 4 27−30
+238%
8−9
−238%
Forza Horizon 5 16−18
+220%
5−6
−220%
Grand Theft Auto V 21−24
+250%
6−7
−250%
Metro Exodus 10
+233%
3−4
−233%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 21−24
+267%
6−7
−267%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 15
+275%
4−5
−275%
Valorant 65−70
+219%
21−24
−219%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 24−27
+257%
7−8
−257%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+300%
3−4
−300%
Dota 2 35
+250%
10−11
−250%
Far Cry 5 17
+240%
5−6
−240%
Forza Horizon 4 27−30
+238%
8−9
−238%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 21−24
+267%
6−7
−267%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10
+233%
3−4
−233%
Valorant 65−70
+219%
21−24
−219%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 35−40
+250%
10−11
−250%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+350%
2−3
−350%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 45−50
+221%
14−16
−221%
Grand Theft Auto V 7−8
+250%
2−3
−250%
Metro Exodus 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 35−40
+270%
10−11
−270%
Valorant 65−70
+267%
18−20
−267%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 9−10
+350%
2−3
−350%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%
Far Cry 5 12−14
+300%
3−4
−300%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
+250%
4−5
−250%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10
+350%
2−3
−350%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 12−14
+300%
3−4
−300%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%
Grand Theft Auto V 16−18
+240%
5−6
−240%
Metro Exodus 1−2 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5
+400%
1−2
−400%
Valorant 30−33
+233%
9−10
−233%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3 0−1
Dota 2 9
+350%
2−3
−350%
Far Cry 5 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
Forza Horizon 4 9−10
+350%
2−3
−350%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%

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

  • Pro WX 3200 is 280% faster in 1080p
  • Pro WX 3200 is 300% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 5.42 1.71
Chip lithography 14 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 65 Watt 15 Watt

Pro WX 3200 has a 217% higher aggregate performance score.

Graphics, on the other hand, has a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 333.3% lower power consumption.

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

Be aware that Radeon Pro WX 3200 is a workstation graphics card while Radeon Graphics is a desktop one.

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 WX 3200
Radeon Pro WX 3200
AMD Radeon Graphics
Radeon Graphics

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.


3.2 85 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.9 7007 votes

Rate Radeon Graphics on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

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