AMD Radeon 890M vs AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 Comparison

FAQ

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

A: The AMD Radeon 890M scores 37,254, while the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 scores 11,228. The delta is 69.9% in favor of the 890M.

Q: How do these two cards compare in terms of process technology?

A: The Radeon Pro WX 3200 uses a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries, while the Radeon 890M uses a 4 nm process at TSMC. The 890M also packs 34,000 million transistors on a 233 mm² die, versus 2,200 million on 103 mm² for the WX 3200.

Q: What are the memory configurations of each card?

A: The Radeon Pro WX 3200 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth. The Radeon 890M uses System Shared memory, with bus width and bandwidth listed as System Dependent.

Q: Which card supports ray tracing?

A: Only the Radeon 890M lists 16 ray tracing cores. The Radeon Pro WX 3200 has no ray tracing cores listed. The 890M also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the WX 3200 is limited to DirectX 12 (12_0).

Q: What is the thermal design power (TDP) difference?

A: The Radeon Pro WX 3200 has a TDP of 65 W and needs a 250 W suggested PSU. The Radeon 890M has a TDP of only 15 W and is an IGP, so it has no separate PSU requirement.

Q: What is the production status of each card?

A: The Radeon Pro WX 3200 is End-of-life, released in July 2019. The Radeon 890M is Active, released in July 2024.

Architecture Differences

The Radeon Pro WX 3200 is built on GCN 4.0 architecture with the Polaris 23 chip, manufactured on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The Radeon 890M uses RDNA 3.5 architecture with the Strix Point chip, built on a 4 nm process at TSMC. This process difference is substantial, with the 890M packing 34,000 million transistors on a 233 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 145.9M per mm². The WX 3200 has only 2,200 million transistors on a 103 mm² die, for a density of 21.4M per mm².

The compute configuration differs significantly. The WX 3200 has 640 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The 890M has 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, effectively doubling the TMU and ROP counts. The 890M also includes 16 ray tracing cores, which the WX 3200 lacks entirely. Both cards have a 1:1 FP16 to FP32 ratio.

The memory architecture is fundamentally different. The WX 3200 uses dedicated 4 GB GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth. The 890M relies on System Shared memory, meaning its performance scales with system RAM configuration. The WX 3200's memory clock is 1500 MHz, translating to 6 Gbps effective, while the 890M's memory clock is listed as System Shared.

API support also diverges. The 890M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while the WX 3200 only reaches DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The bus interface differs too: the WX 3200 uses PCIe 3.0 x8, while the 890M uses PCIe 4.0 x8.

The Verdict

The benchmark data clearly favors the Radeon 890M in raw compute performance. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 37,254 is 69.9% ahead of the WX 3200's 11,228. This is not a close contest in terms of raw throughput. However, the two cards serve completely different roles. The WX 3200 is a professional workstation card with 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, a single-slot design, and a 65 W TDP, intended for multi-display professional setups. The 890M is an integrated GPU for mobile Strix Point processors, with display outputs dependent on the portable device.

For users building a dedicated workstation with discrete GPU requirements, the WX 3200 offers the professional form factor and output configuration. For users with a Strix Point mobile platform, the 890M offers far higher compute performance at a fraction of the power draw. The data shows the 890M is the better performer, but the WX 3200 remains relevant for its specific professional niche.

Specification Differences

The Radeon Pro WX 3200 and Radeon 890M differ across nearly every specification field:

• Process Node: 14 nm (GlobalFoundries) vs 4 nm (TSMC)
• Transistors: 2,200 million vs 34,000 million
• Die Size: 103 mm² vs 233 mm²
• Transistor Density: 21.4M / mm² vs 145.9M / mm²
• Base Clock: Not listed vs 400 MHz
• Boost Clock: Not listed vs 2900 MHz
• Memory Clock: 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective) vs System Shared
• Memory Size: 4 GB GDDR5 vs System Shared
• Memory Bus: 128 bit vs System Shared
• Memory Bandwidth: 96.00 GB/s vs System Dependent
• Shading Units: 640 vs 1,024
• TMUs: 32 vs 64
• ROPs: 16 vs 32
• Ray Tracing Cores: None vs 16
• Pixel Rate: 20.72 GPixel/s vs 92.80 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 41.44 GTexel/s vs 185.6 GTexel/s
• FP32: 1.658 TFLOPS vs 5.939 TFLOPS
• TDP: 65 W vs 15 W
• Slot Width: Single-slot vs IGP
• Bus Interface: PCIe 3.0 x8 vs PCIe 4.0 x8
• Display Outputs: 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a vs Portable Device Dependent
• DirectX: 12 (12_0) vs 12 Ultimate (12_2)
• Vulkan: 1.3 vs 1.4
• Production Status: End-of-life vs Active
• Release Date: 2019-07-01 vs 2024-07-14

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable benchmark in the database is Geekbench OpenCL. The Radeon 890M scores 37,254, while the Radeon Pro WX 3200 scores 11,228. This gives the 890M a 69.9% advantage, which is a massive margin. The WX 3200 is essentially at one-third the performance level of the 890M in this test.

Looking at the rival data for context, the WX 3200's 11,228 score places it near the AMD FirePro W4300 (11,225, 0% delta) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M (11,261, -0.3% delta). The WX 3200 also edges out the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q (11,088, 1.3% delta). This suggests the WX 3200 is competitive with older mid-range discrete GPUs.

The 890M's 37,254 score is in a different league. Its nearest rivals in the database are the AMD Radeon Vega 8 (9,221, -0.1% delta), NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 (9,273, -0.7% delta), NVIDIA GeForce GTX 465 (9,294, -0.9% delta), and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 850M (9,302, -1% delta). Note that these rival scores are averages across multiple benchmarks, while the 890M's OpenCL score specifically is much higher. The 890M also has a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 590 and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 40,808, showing strong API versatility.

Where Each One Wins

AMD Radeon 890M wins on raw compute performance. Its OpenCL score is 69.9% higher. Its FP32 throughput of 5.939 TFLOPS is 3.58 times the WX 3200's 1.658 TFLOPS. Pixel rate is 92.80 GPixel/s versus 20.72 GPixel/s, a 4.48x advantage. Texture rate is 185.6 GTexel/s versus 41.44 GTexel/s, a 4.48x advantage. The 890M also supports ray tracing, DirectX 12 Ultimate, and Vulkan 1.4, features the WX 3200 completely lacks.

AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 wins on professional workstation features. It has 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, which is a concrete multi-display capability. The 890M's display outputs are listed as Portable Device Dependent, meaning they vary by laptop or mini-PC design. The WX 3200 is a single-slot discrete card with no power connectors, making it easy to install in a workstation. Its 65 W TDP is higher than the 890M's 15 W, but that power budget enables the dedicated GDDR5 memory with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth.

Use-case split: For mobile or compact systems powered by Strix Point, the 890M is the clear choice, offering 3.58x the FP32 compute and modern API support. For a professional workstation requiring multiple DisplayPort outputs and dedicated VRAM, the WX 3200 provides a stable, established platform. The 890M's performance lead is decisive, but the WX 3200's professional I/O and dedicated memory make it suitable for specific deployment scenarios. The database records only one head-to-head win, going to the 890M, which reflects the overall performance hierarchy.