Radeon Pro WX 3200 vs R7 240

Place in the ranking	855	584
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.16	12.81
Power efficiency	5.36	6.66
Architecture	GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)	GCN 4.0 (2016−2020)
GPU code name	Oland	Polaris 23
Market segment	Desktop	Workstation
Design	reference	no data
Release date	8 October 2013 (11 years ago)	2 July 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$69	$199

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

Pro WX 3200 has 7906% better value for money than R7 240.

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 cores	320	640
Core clock speed	no data	1082 MHz
Boost clock speed	780 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	950 million	2,200 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	50 Watt	65 Watt
Texture fill rate	14.00	34.62
Floating-point processing power	0.448 TFLOPS	1.385 TFLOPS
ROPs	8	16
TMUs	20	32

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	PCIe 3.0	no data
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x8	PCIe 3.0 x8
Length	168 mm	no data
Width	1-slot	MXM Module
Supplementary power connectors	N/A	None

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	128 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	1150 MHz	1000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	72 GB/s	64 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 Connectors	1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA	4x mini-DisplayPort
HDMI	+	-

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

CrossFire	+	-
FreeSync	+	-
DDMA audio	+	no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX	DirectX® 12	12 (12_0)
Shader Model	5.1	6.4
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	2.0
Vulkan	-	1.2.131

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.

R7 240 2.33

Pro WX 3200 6.28
+170%

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.

R7 240 896

Pro WX 3200 2414
+169%

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.

R7 240 1220

Pro WX 3200 3156
+159%

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 HD	6−7 −200%	18 +200%
4K	3−4 −200%	9 +200%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	11.50 −4%	11.06 +4%
4K	23.00 −4%	22.11 +4%

R7 240 and Pro WX 3200 have nearly equal cost per frame in 1080p
R7 240 and Pro WX 3200 have nearly equal cost per frame in 4K

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	20−22 +0%	20−22 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	14−16 +0%	14−16 +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	14−16 +0%	14−16 +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	14−16 +0%	14−16 +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%
Counter-Strike 2	5−6 +0%	5−6 +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	12−14 +0%	12−14 +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	12−14 +0%	12−14 +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 R7 240 and Pro WX 3200 compete in popular games:

Pro WX 3200 is 200% faster in 1080p
Pro WX 3200 is 200% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 64 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	2.33	6.28
Recency	8 October 2013	2 July 2019
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	4 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	50 Watt	65 Watt

R7 240 has 30% lower power consumption.

Pro WX 3200, on the other hand, has a 169.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon Pro WX 3200 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 240 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R7 240 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.