AMD Radeon 660M vs AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains a single direct head-to-head comparison between the AMD Radeon 660M and the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200, conducted under the Geekbench OpenCL test. The results show a decisive victory for the Radeon 660M, which posted a score of 12,876 against the Pro WX 3200's 11,228. This translates to a delta of 14.7%, meaning the integrated Radeon 660M outperforms the dedicated Pro WX 3200 by nearly fifteen percent in raw compute throughput as measured by OpenCL.

Looking at the broader context of average benchmark scores, the Radeon 660M's advantage persists. The 660M holds an average score of 13,812 across all recorded tests, while the Pro WX 3200 trails with an average of 11,228. That gap of roughly 2,584 points places the 660M well ahead, a margin that exceeds the difference between the Pro WX 3200 and its own nearest rivals. For context, the Pro WX 3200's closest competitor, the AMD FirePro W4300, scores 11,225, a delta of 0%, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M sits at 11,261, a slight 0.3% ahead of the Pro WX 3200.

The Radeon 660M, by contrast, sits in a much higher performance tier. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA RTX A2000 Mobile at 13,821 (a delta of -0.1%), the AMD Radeon RX 570X at 13,871 (a delta of -0.4%), and the AMD Radeon RX 7900 XT at 13,745 (a delta of 0.5%). These deltas are all within a single percentage point, indicating that the 660M is performing at a level comparable to some of AMD's discrete desktop and mobile offerings, including the flagship RX 7900 XT. The Pro WX 3200, meanwhile, finds itself surrounded by older professional and mobile parts, with its nearest rival delta of 1.3% belonging to both NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q variants, which score 11,088.

The head-to-head result is consistent with the percentile rankings. The Radeon 660M sits at the 55th percentile among all GPUs, while the Pro WX 3200 sits at the 50th percentile. A five-point percentile gap may sound modest, but the actual score difference tells a clearer story: the 660M is delivering compute performance that places it in the upper half of the entire GPU landscape, whereas the Pro WX 3200 is right at the median.

Where Each One Wins

The Radeon 660M wins the only direct benchmark test recorded in the database, the Geekbench OpenCL test, with a 14.7% margin. This is the single most important data point for any user comparing these two parts. OpenCL is a general-purpose compute API, and the 660M's superior result suggests it handles a wide range of workloads, from image processing to physics simulations, with greater efficiency.

The Pro WX 3200 has no benchmark wins in the head-to-head comparison, but that does not mean it lacks strengths. Its dedicated 4 GB of GDDR5 memory with a 128-bit bus and 96.00 GB/s of bandwidth is a structural advantage. System-shared memory on the 660M means bandwidth is dependent on the host platform, which can vary widely. In scenarios where memory latency and bandwidth are critical, and where the host system has slower RAM, the Pro WX 3200 could close the gap or even take the lead, though the database does not include a dedicated memory-sensitive test to confirm this.

The Pro WX 3200 also wins on the basis of its intended use case. It is a professional workstation card, as indicated by its Radeon Pro branding, with four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. This makes it suited for multi-monitor professional environments, whereas the 660M's display outputs are portable-device dependent, meaning they vary with the laptop or mini PC it is integrated into.

For compute-heavy tasks, the 660M is the clear winner. For tasks that rely on consistent, dedicated memory bandwidth and professional display connectivity, the Pro WX 3200 has a structural edge, even if the recorded benchmarks do not show it winning any test.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs is substantial. The Radeon 660M is built on RDNA 2.0 architecture, using the Rembrandt chip, and is fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC. The Pro WX 3200 uses GCN 4.0 architecture, based on the Polaris 23 chip, and is fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The process node difference is enormous: 6 nm versus 14 nm, which directly impacts transistor density and power efficiency.

The Radeon 660M packs 13,100 million transistors into a die size of 208 mm², resulting in a transistor density of 63.0 million transistors per square millimeter. The Pro WX 3200, by contrast, has only 2,200 million transistors on a 103 mm² die, giving it a density of 21.4 million per square millimeter. The 660M has nearly six times the transistor count and roughly triple the density, which explains its superior compute performance despite being an integrated part.

Shader configuration also differs markedly. The Radeon 660M has 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 16 raster operation units. It also features 6 ray tracing cores, which the Pro WX 3200 lacks entirely. The Pro WX 3200 has 640 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Despite having more shading units and TMUs, the Pro WX 3200 still loses in raw throughput. The 660M achieves a pixel rate of 30.40 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 45.60 GTexel/s, while the Pro WX 3200 manages 20.72 GPixel/s and 41.44 GTexel/s. The 660M wins on both pixel fill and texture fill, despite fewer units, thanks to its higher clocks and architectural efficiency.

Compute throughput tells a similar story. The 660M delivers 1,459.2 GFLOPS of FP32 performance and 2.918 TFLOPS of FP16 performance (at a 2:1 ratio). The Pro WX 3200 offers 1.658 TFLOPS of FP32 and the same 1.658 TFLOPS of FP16 (at a 1:1 ratio). The 660M is slightly behind in FP32 (1,459.2 GFLOPS versus 1.658 TFLOPS), but massively ahead in FP16, where it nearly doubles the Pro WX 3200's output. For workloads that use FP16 arithmetic, such as certain machine learning inference tasks, the 660M is clearly superior.

API support also diverges. The Radeon 660M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Pro WX 3200 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The 660M's newer API versions, particularly DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4, enable features like hardware ray tracing and mesh shaders, which the Pro WX 3200 cannot handle.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every measurable specification. The Radeon 660M is an integrated graphics processor with a TDP of 40 W, while the Pro WX 3200 is a dedicated single-slot card with a 65 W TDP. The 660M requires no power connectors and has no suggested PSU, while the Pro WX 3200 also uses no power connectors but recommends a 250 W PSU. The 660M's bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x8, while the Pro WX 3200 uses PCIe 3.0 x8.

Memory is a major differentiator. The 660M uses system-shared memory, with type, bus width, and bandwidth all dependent on the host platform. The Pro WX 3200 has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, with 96.00 GB/s of bandwidth and a memory clock of 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective). The 660M's memory clock is listed as system-shared as well.

Clock speeds also differ. The 660M has a base clock of 1500 MHz and a boost clock of 1900 MHz. The Pro WX 3200 has no listed base or boost clock, only its memory clock. This absence likely reflects the card's workstation tuning, where clocks may be fixed or managed differently.

Physical dimensions are only recorded for the Pro WX 3200, which measures 167 mm in length (6.6 inches) and 69 mm in height (2.7 inches). The 660M is an IGP, so it has no slot width, while the Pro WX 3200 is single-slot. Display outputs differ: the 660M's are portable-device dependent, while the Pro WX 3200 offers four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs.

Release dates are far apart. The 660M launched on January 3, 2022, while the Pro WX 3200 launched on July 1, 2019. Both are end-of-life products. The 660M's predecessor is listed as Vega II IGP and its successor as Navi III IGP. The Pro WX 3200's predecessor is Radeon Pro GCN and its successor is Radeon Pro Vega. The Pro WX 3200 has a launch MSRP of 199 USD, while the 660M has no listed launch MSRP.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The AMD Radeon 660M is faster, scoring 12,876 against the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200's 11,228, a delta of 14.7%.

Q: Does the Radeon 660M support ray tracing?

A: Yes, the Radeon 660M has 6 ray tracing cores and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2). The Radeon Pro WX 3200 has no ray tracing cores and supports only DirectX 12 (12_0).

Q: What is the memory configuration of the Radeon Pro WX 3200?

A: The Radeon Pro WX 3200 has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, with 96.00 GB/s of bandwidth and a memory clock of 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective).

Q: Are both GPUs still in production?

A: No, both the AMD Radeon 660M and the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 are listed as end-of-life products.

Q: Which GPU has a higher transistor count?

A: The AMD Radeon 660M has 13,100 million transistors, while the Radeon Pro WX 3200 has 2,200 million. The 660M is built on a 6 nm process at TSMC, whereas the Pro WX 3200 uses a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each GPU?

A: The Radeon 660M has an average benchmark score of 13,812, placing it at the 55th percentile among all GPUs. The Radeon Pro WX 3200 has an average score of 11,228, placing it at the 50th percentile.