AMD FirePro W5000 vs AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a single benchmark comparison between these two professional workstation GPUs: Geekbench OpenCL. In this test, the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 scores 11,228 points, while the AMD FirePro W5000 scores 9,803 points. The resulting delta is 14.5% in favor of the newer Radeon Pro WX 3200. This is a decisive win for the WX 3200, and it is the only head-to-head metric available in the database.

Looking at the broader context, the WX 3200’s score places it at the 50th percentile among all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals include the AMD FirePro W4300 at 11,225 points (a 0% delta), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M at 11,261 points (0.3% ahead of the WX 3200), and both NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q and RTX PRO 6000D Blackwell Max-Q at 11,088 points (each 1.3% behind the WX 3200). The WX 3200 sits in a tight cluster, essentially tied with the FirePro W4300 and within a couple of points of the GTX 780M. Its 14.5% lead over the FirePro W5000 is a much larger gap than any difference seen among its nearest rivals, which suggests that the architectural generational leap is more impactful than minor clock or core variations within the same era.

The FirePro W5000, by contrast, sits at the 47th percentile overall. Its nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 at 9,780 points (0.2% ahead of the W5000), the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M at 9,832 points (0.3% ahead), the NVIDIA Quadro 6000 at 9,846 points (0.4% ahead), and the NVIDIA Tesla M10 at 9,724 points (0.8% behind). The W5000 is therefore in a very different performance class, roughly 1,425 points lower than the WX 3200. The data indicates that the WX 3200 is not just marginally faster; it is substantially faster in OpenCL compute workloads. This aligns with the fact that the WX 3200 also has a higher average benchmark score of 11,228 versus 9,803 for the W5000.

Architecture Differences

The two cards are separated by two full generations of graphics architecture. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 uses the Polaris 23 chip built on GCN 4.0 architecture, fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The AMD FirePro W5000 uses the Pitcairn chip on the original GCN 1.0 architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. This process shrink from 28 nm to 14 nm is a major factor in the WX 3200’s efficiency and performance-per-watt advantage.

The WX 3200 packs 2,200 million transistors on a 103 mm² die, giving it a transistor density of 21.4 million per square millimeter. The W5000 has more transistors overall at 2,800 million, but on a much larger 212 mm² die, resulting in a lower density of 13.2 million per square millimeter. The WX 3200 is therefore a much denser, more modern chip.

Memory configurations differ significantly. The WX 3200 has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 96.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The W5000 has only 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 102.4 GB/s. Although the W5000 has a wider bus and slightly higher bandwidth, the WX 3200 has twice the capacity, which is often more important for modern professional workloads that need larger datasets in VRAM.

Compute resources tell a mixed story. The W5000 has more shading units (768 versus 640), more texture mapping units (48 versus 32), and more render output units (32 versus 16). However, the WX 3200 compensates with higher clock speeds and architectural efficiency. The WX 3200 achieves 1.658 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the W5000 achieves 1,267.2 GFLOPS (1.267 TFLOPS). The WX 3200 also supports FP16 at a 1:1 ratio (1.658 TFLOPS), while the W5000 has no recorded FP16 capability. Pixel rates are 20.72 GPixel/s for the WX 3200 versus 26.40 GPixel/s for the W5000, but texture rates are 41.44 GTexel/s for the WX 3200 versus 39.60 GTexel/s for the W5000. The W5000’s raw rasterization throughput is higher, but the WX 3200 wins in compute and texture fill.

API support also differs. The WX 3200 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The W5000 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The WX 3200 has a more modern feature set. Display outputs are another clear divergence: the WX 3200 offers four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, while the W5000 offers one DVI and two DisplayPort 1.2 outputs. The WX 3200 also uses a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface, while the W5000 uses a full PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, though the bandwidth difference is unlikely to matter for most workloads given the performance gap.

Power consumption is lower on the WX 3200 at 65 W TDP versus 75 W for the W5000. Both are single-slot cards with no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 250 W. Physical dimensions differ: the WX 3200 is 167 mm long and 69 mm tall, while the W5000 is 183 mm long and 111 mm tall. The WX 3200 is notably more compact.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in OpenCL compute?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 scores 11,228 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 14.5% higher than the AMD FirePro W5000’s score of 9,803.

Q: Do the cards have the same memory capacity?

A: No. The WX 3200 has 4 GB of GDDR5, while the W5000 has 2 GB of GDDR5.

Q: Which card has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The W5000 has 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth, slightly higher than the WX 3200’s 96.00 GB/s, despite the WX 3200 having twice the memory capacity.

Q: Are there differences in display outputs?

A: Yes. The WX 3200 provides four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, while the W5000 provides one DVI and two DisplayPort 1.2 outputs.

Q: What are the power requirements?

A: The WX 3200 has a 65 W TDP, and the W5000 has a 75 W TDP. Both have a suggested PSU of 250 W and require no power connectors.

Q: Which card has better API support?

A: The WX 3200 supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3, while the W5000 supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

The Verdict

The data points clearly to the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 as the superior performer. It wins the only head-to-head benchmark by 14.5%, and it does so while using less power (65 W versus 75 W), offering double the memory capacity (4 GB versus 2 GB), and supporting newer APIs and display standards. The WX 3200 also holds a higher percentile ranking (50th versus 47th) and a higher average benchmark score (11,228 versus 9,803).

The FirePro W5000 retains advantages in raw memory bandwidth (102.4 GB/s versus 96.00 GB/s), pixel fill rate (26.40 GPixel/s versus 20.72 GPixel/s), and a wider memory bus (256-bit versus 128-bit). It also has more shading units, TMUs, and ROPs. However, these hardware advantages do not translate into a benchmark win, likely due to the older GCN 1.0 architecture and slower memory clocks (800 MHz versus 1500 MHz).

For users choosing between these two in the used or legacy market, the WX 3200 is the better choice for compute-heavy professional workloads, larger textures, and modern software stacks. The W5000 may still be relevant for specific legacy applications that favor its wider bus and higher pixel throughput, but the data does not support it as a general-purpose winner. The WX 3200 is the recommended card based on recorded measurements.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 | AMD FirePro W5000 |

|---|---|---|

| Chip | Polaris 23 | Pitcairn |

| Architecture | GCN 4.0 | GCN 1.0 |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 28 nm |

| Foundry | GlobalFoundries | TSMC |

| Transistors | 2,200 million | 2,800 million |

| Die Size | 103 mm² | 212 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 21.4M / mm² | 13.2M / mm² |

| Memory Clock | 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective) | 800 MHz (3.2 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 2 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 96.00 GB/s | 102.4 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 640 | 768 |

| TMUs | 32 | 48 |

| ROPs | 16 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 20.72 GPixel/s | 26.40 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 41.44 GTexel/s | 39.60 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 1.658 TFLOPS | 1,267.2 GFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 1.658 TFLOPS (1:1) | None recorded |

| TDP | 65 W | 75 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort 1.2 |

| DirectX Support | 12 (12_0) | 12 (11_1) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.3 | 1.2.170 |

| Length | 167 mm (6.6 inches) | 183 mm (7.2 inches) |

| Height | 69 mm (2.7 inches) | 111 mm (4.4 inches) |

| Release Date | 2019-07-01 | 2012-08-06 |

| Launch MSRP | 199 USD | 599 USD |