AMD Radeon HD 8950M vs AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clear but narrow victory for the AMD Radeon HD 4500M. Across the single available head-to-head test, the AMD Radeon HD 4500M wins 1 to 0 over the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200. In the geekbench_opencl workload, the HD 4500M scored 13,772 against the WX 3200's 11,228. That is a 22.7% advantage for the older mobile part, a substantial margin in a compute-oriented test.

Looking at the database's average benchmark scores, the gap narrows considerably. The HD 4500M averages 13,376 across all recorded tests, while the WX 3200 averages 11,228. The HD 4500M sits in the 54th percentile of all GPUs, while the WX 3200 lands in the 50th percentile. Neither card is a standout; both occupy the lower-middle range of the performance spectrum, but the HD 4500M consistently outpaces its newer rival.

The nearest rivals for the HD 4500M reinforce its position. The AMD Radeon RX 5500M averages 13,356, just 0.2% behind the HD 4500M. The AMD FirePro M6100 matches at 13,354, again 0.2% behind. The AMD Radeon Pro 555 scores 13,407, which is 0.2% ahead, and the AMD Radeon Pro 555X scores 13,321, 0.4% behind. This clustering shows the HD 4500M sits in a tight pack of similar-performance mobile GPUs, with no single rival dominating it by more than a rounding error.

For the WX 3200, the nearest rivals tell a similar story of tight grouping. The AMD FirePro W4300 averages 11,225, essentially identical with a 0% delta. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M scores 11,261, which is 0.3% ahead. Two professional NVIDIA parts, the RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q and RTX PRO 6000D Blackwell Max-Q, both average 11,088, sitting 1.3% behind the WX 3200. The WX 3200 is thus bracketed by professional and older gaming parts, all within a narrow band of roughly 1.6%.

The benchmark data indicates that while the HD 4500M wins the direct comparison, the margin is not overwhelming in absolute terms. A 22.7% lead in OpenCL is meaningful, but both cards are firmly in entry-level territory. The HD 4500M's advantage comes from raw compute throughput, not from architectural efficiency, as will be explored in the next section.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different generations of AMD's graphics architecture, and that shows in nearly every physical and feature-level detail. The HD 4500M is built on GCN 2.0, using the Saturn chip, and belongs to the Solar System generation (HD 8900M series). The WX 3200 uses GCN 4.0, based on the Polaris 23 chip, part of the Radeon Pro Polaris (WX x200) generation. This is a two-generation architectural leap, from 2013 to 2019 in release terms.

The manufacturing process differs significantly. The HD 4500M uses a 28 nm node from TSMC, while the WX 3200 uses a 14 nm node from GlobalFoundries. The transistor counts are close: 2,080 million for the HD 4500M and 2,200 million for the WX 3200. However, the die sizes diverge sharply. The HD 4500M's die measures 160 mm², while the WX 3200's die is only 103 mm². This yields a transistor density of 13.0 million transistors per mm² for the HD 4500M and 21.4 million per mm² for the WX 3200. The newer process is clearly more efficient at packing transistors.

The compute resources differ in configuration. The HD 4500M has 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The WX 3200 has fewer of each: 640 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Despite fewer cores, the WX 3200 achieves nearly identical FP32 throughput: 1.658 TFLOPS versus 1.651 TFLOPS for the HD 4500M. The WX 3200 also lists FP16 performance at 1.658 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, while the HD 4500M has no recorded FP16 capability. The pixel rates favor the WX 3200 at 20.72 GPixel/s versus 17.20 GPixel/s, but the texture rate favors the HD 4500M at 51.60 GTexel/s versus 41.44 GTexel/s.

Memory systems are similar in width but differ in capacity and speed. Both use GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus. The HD 4500M has 2 GB, while the WX 3200 has 4 GB. Memory clocks are 1375 MHz (5.5 Gbps effective) for the HD 4500M and 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective) for the WX 3200. Bandwidth accordingly favors the WX 3200 at 96.00 GB/s versus 88.00 GB/s.

Power and physical characteristics are where the WX 3200 clearly differentiates itself. The HD 4500M has a TDP of 100 W and comes as an MXM module, designed for laptops. The WX 3200 has a TDP of 65 W, is a single-slot card with no power connectors, and requires only a 250 W PSU. It measures 167 mm in length and 69 mm in height. The bus interface also differs: PCIe 3.0 x16 for the HD 4500M, PCIe 3.0 x8 for the WX 3200. Display outputs are portable-device dependent for the HD 4500M, while the WX 3200 offers 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a.

API support shows generational progress. The HD 4500M supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The WX 3200 supports the same DirectX and OpenGL versions but moves to Vulkan 1.3. Both are end-of-life products, but the WX 3200's predecessor is listed as Radeon Pro GCN and its successor as Radeon Pro Vega, while the HD 4500M's predecessor is London and successor is Gem System.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance in OpenCL?

A: The AMD Radeon HD 8950M scores 13,772 in geekbench_opencl, which is 22.7% higher than the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200's 11,228. The HD 8950M wins this benchmark outright.

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare?

A: The HD 8950M averages 13,376 across all recorded tests, placing it in the 54th percentile. The WX 3200 averages 11,228, placing it in the 50th percentile. The HD 8950M holds a roughly 19% lead in average score.

Q: Which GPU has more memory and bandwidth?

A: The WX 3200 has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory compared to the HD 8950M's 2 GB. The WX 3200 also has higher bandwidth at 96.00 GB/s versus 88.00 GB/s, due to its faster 6 Gbps effective memory clock versus 5.5 Gbps.

Q: What are the power consumption differences?

A: The HD 8950M has a 100 W TDP, while the WX 3200 has a 65 W TDP. The WX 3200 requires no power connectors and a 250 W PSU, whereas the HD 8950M is an MXM module with no listed PSU requirement.

Q: Which GPU supports newer APIs?

A: Both support DirectX 12 (12_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The WX 3200 supports Vulkan 1.3, while the HD 8950M supports Vulkan 1.2.170. The WX 3200 also has FP16 support at 1:1 ratio, which the HD 8950M lacks.

Q: How does the WX 3200 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The WX 3200 is nearly identical to the AMD FirePro W4300 (0% delta), trails the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M by 0.3%, and leads both NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q and RTX PRO 6000D Blackwell Max-Q by 1.3%.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two GPUs:

• Architecture: GCN 2.0 (HD 8950M) vs GCN 4.0 (WX 3200)
• Chip: Saturn vs Polaris 23
• Generation: Solar System (HD 8900M) vs Radeon Pro Polaris (WX x200)
• Process Node: 28 nm (TSMC) vs 14 nm (GlobalFoundries)
• Transistors: 2,080 million vs 2,200 million
• Die Size: 160 mm² vs 103 mm²
• Transistor Density: 13.0M / mm² vs 21.4M / mm²
• Memory Clock: 1375 MHz (5.5 Gbps effective) vs 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective)
• Memory Size: 2 GB vs 4 GB
• Bandwidth: 88.00 GB/s vs 96.00 GB/s
• Shading Units: 768 vs 640
• TMUs: 48 vs 32
• Pixel Rate: 17.20 GPixel/s vs 20.72 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 51.60 GTexel/s vs 41.44 GTexel/s
• FP16: Not listed vs 1.658 TFLOPS (1:1)
• TDP: 100 W vs 65 W
• Slot Width: MXM Module vs Single-slot
• Power Connectors: Not listed vs None
• Suggested PSU: Not listed vs 250 W
• Bus Interface: PCIe 3.0 x16 vs PCIe 3.0 x8
• Display Outputs: Portable Device Dependent vs 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a
• Vulkan Version: 1.2.170 vs 1.3
• Dimensions: Not listed vs 167 mm length, 69 mm height
• Release Date: 2013-05-13 vs 2019-07-01
• Predecessor: London vs Radeon Pro GCN
• Successor: Gem System vs Radeon Pro Vega
• Launch MSRP: Not listed vs 199 USD

The Verdict

The data points to a split decision based on use case, but for raw compute, the HD 8950M is the stronger part. Its 22.7% OpenCL lead and higher average score (13,376 vs 11,228) make it the better choice for anyone prioritizing raw throughput in compute workloads. The HD 8950M also has more shading units (768 vs 640) and a higher texture rate (51.60 GTexel/s vs 41.44 GTexel/s), which explains its compute advantage.

However, the WX 3200 is the more efficient and practical card. It draws 35 W less power (65 W vs 100 W), runs on a single slot with no external power connectors, and requires only a 250 W PSU. It offers double the memory (4 GB vs 2 GB) and higher bandwidth (96.00 GB/s vs 88.00 GB/s). Its pixel rate is also higher at 20.72 GPixel/s versus 17.20 GPixel/s, and it supports newer Vulkan (1.3 vs 1.2.170) plus FP16 compute at a 1:1 ratio.

The architectural gap matters. The WX 3200's 14 nm process and 21.4M transistors per mm² density show a much more modern design, achieving nearly identical FP32 performance (1.658 TFLOPS vs 1.651 TFLOPS) with fewer cores and less power. This is a textbook case of generational efficiency gains.

For a professional workstation context, the WX 3200's feature set is more appropriate: 4 GB of VRAM, mini-DisplayPort outputs, and a low-power single-slot form factor. For a legacy laptop upgrade or compute-focused task where OpenCL matters most, the HD 8950M's higher scores are compelling.

Where Each One Wins

The HD 8950M wins in raw compute benchmarks. Its geekbench_opencl score of 13,772 versus 11,228 is the decisive data point. It also wins on shading unit count (768 vs 640), texture fill rate (51.60 GTexel/s vs 41.44 GTexel/s), and average benchmark score (13,376 vs 11,228). Its nearest rivals cluster around 13,300 to 13,400, confirming it belongs to a slightly higher performance tier than the WX 3200's group around 11,200.

The WX 3200 wins in efficiency and capacity. It has a lower TDP (65 W vs 100 W), a smaller die (103 mm² vs 160 mm²), higher transistor density (21.4M / mm² vs 13.0M / mm²), and double the memory (4 GB vs 2 GB). It also has higher memory bandwidth (96.00 GB/s vs 88.00 GB/s), a higher pixel rate (20.72 GPixel/s vs 17.20 GPixel/s), and superior API support with Vulkan 1.3 and FP16 at 1:1. Its single-slot, no-power-connector design with a 250 W PSU requirement makes it far easier to integrate into a workstation.

The verdict is clear: choose the HD 8950M for maximum compute performance in a mobile or MXM context, where its 22.7% OpenCL lead and higher average score directly translate to faster execution. Choose the WX 3200 for a modern, efficient, low-power workstation card with more memory, newer API support, and a form factor that slots into standard desktop systems. The WX 3200's 4 GB VRAM is particularly valuable for larger datasets, and its 65 W TDP means it can run in systems where the HD 8950M's 100 W draw would be prohibitive. Neither card is a performance leader, but each serves a distinct purpose, and the data clearly delineates their respective strengths.