AMD Radeon Pro 450 vs AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 Comparison

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 and the AMD Radeon Pro 450 are both GCN 4.0 professional parts aimed at different mobile and desktop workstation segments. The data shows a clear, if narrow, performance hierarchy, with the WX 3200 taking the sole head-to-head benchmark win. However, the Radeon Pro 450 counters with a higher average benchmark score across a broader set of tests, making the choice between them dependent on the specific workload and platform requirements.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available in the data is the Geekbench OpenCL test, where the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 decisively outperforms the AMD Radeon Pro 450. The WX 3200 scores 11,228, while the Pro 450 manages 9,002. This translates to a 24.7% advantage for the WX 3200, a substantial margin that indicates a significant raw compute advantage in this specific API.

This result aligns with the WX 3200’s higher peak specification figures, but it is essential to note that the Pro 450 has a broader benchmark portfolio. The Pro 450’s average score of 10,804 across its three registered tests (OpenCL, Metal, and Vulkan) is actually higher than the WX 3200’s single OpenCL score of 11,228, suggesting that the Pro 450 may be more balanced across different compute APIs, even if it loses the specific OpenCL matchup.

Looking at the broader competitive landscape, the WX 3200’s score places it in a tight cluster. It is virtually tied with the AMD FirePro W4300 (11,225, 0% delta) and only 0.3% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M (11,261). It also scores 1.3% higher than both the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q and the RTX PRO 6000D Blackwell Max-Q (both at 11,088). This suggests that in pure OpenCL throughput, the WX 3200 is competitive with a wide range of both older and newer professional and consumer parts.

The Radeon Pro 450’s average score of 10,804 puts it in a slightly lower tier but with similar competitive dynamics. It is 0.4% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro K2200 (10,761) and 1.1% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti (10,690). It trails the NVIDIA GeForce MX350 by 0.7% (10,883) and the AMD Radeon RX 6600S by 1.7% (10,629). The data shows that while the WX 3200 wins the direct head-to-head, the Pro 450 holds its own against a different set of rivals, indicating their performance classes are adjacent but not identical.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built on the same fundamental GCN 4.0 architecture and manufactured on the same 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. This shared base means they support identical API feature sets, including DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. Neither card features dedicated RT or Tensor cores, as these are not part of the GCN 4.0 design.

The key architectural divergence lies in their physical composition. The WX 3200 uses the Polaris 23 chip, which packs 2,200 million transistors onto a 103 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 21.4M / mm². In contrast, the Pro 450 uses the Baffin chip, which is larger at 123 mm² and contains more transistors at 3,000 million, yielding a higher density of 24.4M / mm². This makes the Baffin chip in the Pro 450 a more complex and denser design.

The memory subsystems also differ. The WX 3200 ships with 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, running at an effective 6 Gbps, delivering 96.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The Pro 450 has half the capacity at 2 GB of GDDR5 but on the same 128-bit bus. Its memory runs at a lower effective speed of 5.1 Gbps, resulting in 81.28 GB/s of bandwidth. This gives the WX 3200 a clear 18% bandwidth advantage, which is crucial for texture-heavy workloads.

Compute resource distribution is where the two chips diverge most interestingly. Both have 640 shading units and 16 ROPs. However, the WX 3200 has 32 TMUs, while the Pro 450 has 40 TMUs. This means the Pro 450 has 25% more texture units, a specification that typically benefits texturing and filtering tasks, even though its lower memory bandwidth might limit the practical impact. The raw compute throughput (FP32) favors the WX 3200 at 1.658 TFLOPS versus the Pro 450’s 1,024.0 GFLOPS, a difference that is directly reflected in the OpenCL benchmark results.

The physical design and power characteristics are starkly different. The WX 3200 is a single-slot, 167 mm long card with a 65 W TDP and no power connectors, relying on the PCIe slot for power. The Pro 450 is an MXM module, a mobile form factor, with a much lower 35 W TDP. This makes the Pro 450 a low-power, portable-device-oriented solution, while the WX 3200 is a more conventional desktop workstation card. The WX 3200 also has a defined 250 W suggested PSU, a detail absent for the Pro 450 due to its mobile nature.

FAQ

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

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 is significantly faster in Geekbench OpenCL, scoring 11,228 versus the Radeon Pro 450’s 9,002, a 24.7% advantage. This aligns with its higher FP32 throughput of 1.658 TFLOPS compared to 1,024.0 GFLOPS.

Q: Does the Radeon Pro 450 have any performance advantage?

A: Yes, when considering the average benchmark score across all its tested APIs, the Radeon Pro 450 leads with 10,804, compared to the WX 3200’s single-test average of 11,228. However, this average is pulled up by its strong Metal (12,893) and Vulkan (10,518) scores, which the WX 3200 does not have data for.

Q: What are the memory capacity and bandwidth differences?

A: The WX 3200 has a 4 GB GDDR5 frame buffer with a 128-bit bus and 96.00 GB/s bandwidth. The Pro 450 has a 2 GB GDDR5 frame buffer, also on a 128-bit bus, but with lower 81.28 GB/s bandwidth due to its slower 5.1 Gbps effective memory clock.

Q: Are these cards suitable for the same type of system?

A: No. The WX 3200 is a single-slot desktop card with a 65 W TDP and 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The Pro 450 is an MXM module with a 35 W TDP and "Portable Device Dependent" outputs, indicating it is designed for laptops or all-in-one systems.

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

A: It is essentially tied with the AMD FirePro W4300 (0% delta) and within 0.3% of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M. It also scores 1.3% higher than both the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q and RTX PRO 6000D Blackwell Max-Q.

Q: What is the transistor density difference between the two chips?

A: The Pro 450’s Baffin chip has a higher transistor density at 24.4M / mm² (3,000 million transistors on 123 mm²). The WX 3200’s Polaris 23 chip is less dense at 21.4M / mm² (2,200 million transistors on 103 mm²).

Specification Differences

The following table highlights only the fields where the two AMD Radeon Pro cards do not match.

| Field | AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 | AMD Radeon Pro 450 |

| :--- | :--- | :--- |

| Chip | Polaris 23 | Baffin |

| Generation | Radeon Pro Polaris (WX x200) | Radeon Pro Mac (400 Series) |

| Transistors | 2,200 million | 3,000 million |

| Die Size | 103 mm² | 123 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 21.4M / mm² | 24.4M / mm² |

| Memory Clock | 1500 MHz / 6 Gbps effective | 1270 MHz / 5.1 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 2 GB |

| Bandwidth | 96.00 GB/s | 81.28 GB/s |

| TMUs | 32 | 40 |

| Pixel Rate | 20.72 GPixel/s | 12.80 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 41.44 GTexel/s | 32.00 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 1.658 TFLOPS | 1,024.0 GFLOPS |

| FP16 | 1.658 TFLOPS (1:1) | 1,024.0 GFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 65 W | 35 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | MXM Module |

| Power Connectors | None | null |

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | null |

| Display Outputs | 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a | Portable Device Dependent |

| Dimensions | 167 mm / 6.6 inches length, 69 mm / 2.7 inches height | null |

| Release Date | 2019-07-01 | 2016-10-29 |

| Predecessor | Radeon Pro GCN | null |

| Successor | Radeon Pro Vega | null |

| Launch MSRP | 199 USD | null |

The Verdict

The data presents a clear trade-off. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 is the superior choice for raw compute tasks measured by OpenCL, offering a 24.7% performance lead over the Pro 450 in that specific test. Its larger 4 GB frame buffer and higher 96.00 GB/s memory bandwidth make it more suitable for large datasets and high-resolution textures. This card is a desktop workstation component, evidenced by its single-slot design and discrete display outputs.

The AMD Radeon Pro 450, while losing the direct OpenCL comparison, is not without merit. Its higher average benchmark score of 10,804, driven by strong Metal and Vulkan results, suggests it may be more adaptable to diverse software environments. Architecturally, it has more texture units (40 vs 32) and a denser transistor layout. However, its 2 GB memory capacity and lower bandwidth are limiting factors for modern workloads. Its role as an MXM module with a 35 W TDP clearly targets it for portable or compact systems where power efficiency is paramount over peak performance.

For a user building a desktop workstation and prioritizing OpenCL compute, the WX 3200 is the data-backed winner. For a system requiring a low-power, mobile form factor and balanced API support, the Pro 450 is the only viable option presented here. The WX 3200’s 199 USD launch MSRP also gives it a defined entry point, whereas the Pro 450 has no such data.

Where Each One Wins

AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 wins on:

• Raw OpenCL Compute: It holds a 24.7% lead in the Geekbench OpenCL test (11,228 vs 9,002).
• Memory Capacity and Bandwidth: Offers double the VRAM (4 GB vs 2 GB) and 18% more bandwidth (96.00 GB/s vs 81.28 GB/s).
• Peak Throughput: Higher FP32 (1.658 TFLOPS) and pixel/texture fill rates (20.72 GPixel/s and 41.44 GTexel/s).
• Desktop Integration: A single-slot card with 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs for direct monitor connectivity.

AMD Radeon Pro 450 wins on:

• Cross-API Average Score: Its average benchmark score of 10,804 is higher than the WX 3200’s single OpenCL result, indicating potential strengths in Metal (12,893) and Vulkan (10,518) workloads.
• Texture Processing Resources: Has 40 TMUs compared to the WX 3200’s 32, a 25% increase in texture unit count.
• Power Efficiency: Runs at a significantly lower 35 W TDP compared to the 65 W TDP of the WX 3200.
• Mobile Form Factor: Its MXM module design is intended for portable devices, whereas the WX 3200 is a desktop card.