Radeon Pro WX 3200 vs ATI X1600 PRO
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon X1600 PRO with Radeon Pro WX 3200, including specs and performance data.
Pro 3200 outperforms X1600 PRO by a whopping 2209% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1437 | 666 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 3.23 |
| Power efficiency | 0.43 | 6.29 |
| Architecture | R500 (2005−2007) | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) |
| GPU code name | RV530 | Polaris 23 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Release date | 1 October 2007 (18 years ago) | 2 July 2019 (6 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $199 | $199 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
ATI X1600 PRO and Pro WX 3200 have a nearly equal value for money.
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 cores | no data | 640 |
| Core clock speed | 500 MHz | 1082 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 157 million | 2,200 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 90 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 41 Watt | 65 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 2.000 | 34.62 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 1.385 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 4 | 16 |
| TMUs | 4 | 32 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 160 KB |
| L2 Cache | no data | 512 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).
| Interface | PCIe 1.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
| Width | 1-slot | MXM Module |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 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 | GDDR3 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 256 MB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 390 MHz | 1000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 12.48 GB/s | 64 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 Connectors | 1x DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-Video | 4x mini-DisplayPort |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 9.0c (9_3) | 12 (12_0) |
| Shader Model | 3.0 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 2.0 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | N/A | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2.131 |
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.
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.
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 | 0−1 | 19 |
| 4K | -0−1 | 8 |
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 10.47 |
| 4K | no data | 24.88 |
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%
|
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 57 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.23 | 5.31 |
| Recency | 1 October 2007 | 2 July 2019 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 256 MB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 90 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 41 Watt | 65 Watt |
ATI X1600 PRO has 59% lower power consumption.
Pro WX 3200, on the other hand, has a 2209% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, a 1500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 543% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon Pro WX 3200 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon X1600 PRO in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon X1600 PRO 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.
