Radeon Pro WX 3200 vs R7 250X

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R7 250X with Radeon Pro WX 3200, including specs and performance data.

R7 250X
2014
2 GB GDDR5, 80 Watt
5.89

Pro WX 3200 outperforms R7 250X by a small 6% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking592578
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.6312.41
Power efficiency5.056.60
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2011−2020)GCN 4.0 (2016−2020)
GPU code nameCape VerdePolaris 23
Market segmentDesktopWorkstation
Designreferenceno data
Release date13 February 2014 (10 years ago)2 July 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$99 $199

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

Pro WX 3200 has 1870% better value for money than R7 250X.

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 cores640640
Core clock speedno data1082 MHz
Boost clock speed1000 MHzno data
Number of transistors1,500 million2,200 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)80 Watt65 Watt
Texture fill rate38.0034.62
Floating-point processing power1.216 TFLOPS1.385 TFLOPS
ROPs1616
TMUs4032

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 supportPCIe 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x8
Length210 mmno data
Width2-slotMXM Module
Supplementary power connectors1 x 6-pinNone

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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount2 GB4 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1625 MHz1000 MHz
Memory bandwidth96 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 Connectors1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 2x mini-DisplayPort4x mini-DisplayPort
Eyefinity+-
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.

DirectXDirectX® 1212 (12_0)
Shader Model5.16.4
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.22.0
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 250X 5.89
Pro WX 3200 6.26
+6.3%

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 250X 2268
Pro WX 3200 2414
+6.4%

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 250X 2860
Pro WX 3200 3156
+10.3%

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 HD18−20
−11.1%
20
+11.1%
4K7−8
−14.3%
8
+14.3%

Cost per frame, $

1080p5.509.95
4K14.1424.88

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Battlefield 5 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Far Cry 5 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Hitman 3 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Metro Exodus 24
+0%
24
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Battlefield 5 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Far Cry 5 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Hitman 3 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Metro Exodus 14
+0%
14
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Far Cry 5 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Hitman 3 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10
+0%
10
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Hitman 3 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Metro Exodus 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Hitman 3 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Metro Exodus 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5
+0%
5
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%

This is how R7 250X and Pro WX 3200 compete in popular games:

  • Pro WX 3200 is 11% faster in 1080p
  • Pro WX 3200 is 14% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 71 test (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 5.89 6.26
Recency 13 February 2014 2 July 2019
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 4 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 80 Watt 65 Watt

Pro WX 3200 has a 6.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 23.1% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Radeon R7 250X and Radeon Pro WX 3200.

Be aware that Radeon R7 250X 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.

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 R7 250X
Radeon R7 250X
AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200
Radeon Pro WX 3200

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


3.9 162 votes

Rate Radeon R7 250X on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.3 83 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.