AMD Radeon Pro 5500M vs AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 Comparison

The AMD Radeon Pro 5500M and the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 are both end-of-life professional mobile GPUs, but they represent vastly different performance tiers and architectural philosophies. The data shows a single head-to-head benchmark result, with the 5500M delivering a decisive victory over the WX 3200, yet their standings relative to other GPUs in the database reveal a more nuanced picture of their respective positions in the market.

Where Each One Wins

The performance split between these two cards is stark, with the AMD Radeon Pro 5500M holding a clear advantage in every measurable category. In the only direct comparison available, the Geekbench OpenCL test, the 5500M scores 31,088 against the WX 3200’s 11,228, translating to a 176.9% delta. This is not a marginal lead; it is a generational gap that places the 5500M in a completely different performance class.

The 5500M’s win condition is essentially any task that leverages raw compute or graphics throughput. Its benchmark suite shows strength across the board, from a Geekbench Metal score of 38,235 to a Vulkan score of 35,134, and a Passmark G3D score of 6,732. It also achieves a GPU compute score of 3,240, indicating robust general-purpose processing capability. The WX 3200, by contrast, has only a single recorded benchmark score in the database, which is the Geekbench OpenCL result of 11,228. This lack of data suggests that the WX 3200 is not typically evaluated in high-performance compute or gaming scenarios, but rather in specific professional workstation tasks where its feature set and stability are prioritized over raw speed.

The 5500M is the clear winner for users needing mobile graphics performance for 3D rendering, video editing, or GPU-accelerated compute. Its higher scores in DirectX 11 (42) and DirectX 9 (96) also indicate a better legacy application experience. The WX 3200’s domain would be limited to basic CAD or multi-display productivity, where its lower power draw and compact single-slot design are more relevant than peak performance.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are separated by more than just performance; they are built on fundamentally different architectures. The 5500M uses the Navi 14 chip based on the RDNA 1.0 architecture, while the WX 3200 is built on the Polaris 23 chip with the older GCN 4.0 architecture. This architectural shift is a primary driver of the performance gap.

The process technology highlights this divide. The 5500M is fabricated on a 7 nm process at TSMC, packing 6,400 million transistors into a 158 mm² die. This results in a transistor density of 40.5 million per mm². In contrast, the WX 3200 uses a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries, with only 2,200 million transistors on a 103 mm² die, yielding a density of 21.4 million per mm². The newer, denser process allows the 5500M to offer significantly more hardware resources.

In terms of execution units, the 5500M has 1,536 shading units, 96 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 32 render output units (ROPs). The WX 3200 is much more modest, with 640 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This nearly 2.4x difference in shading units directly translates to higher fill rates and compute throughput. The 5500M’s pixel rate is 46.40 GPixel/s and its texture rate is 139.2 GTexel/s, dwarfing the WX 3200’s 20.72 GPixel/s and 41.44 GTexel/s, respectively.

Memory architecture also differs. The 5500M comes with 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 192.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The WX 3200 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on the same 128-bit bus, but its bandwidth is halved to 96.00 GB/s. The 5500M’s memory runs at 12 Gbps effective, while the WX 3200’s is at 6 Gbps effective. The 5500M also supports PCIe 4.0 x8, whereas the WX 3200 is limited to PCIe 3.0 x8.

Furthermore, the FP32 compute output is 4.454 TFLOPS for the 5500M versus 1.658 TFLOPS for the WX 3200. The 5500M also offers FP16 performance of 8.909 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, while the WX 3200’s FP16 is identical to its FP32 at 1.658 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio. The API support also differs, with the 5500M supporting DirectX 12_1 and Vulkan 1.4, whereas the WX 3200 supports DirectX 12_0 and Vulkan 1.3.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison in the data is the Geekbench OpenCL test. In this test, the AMD Radeon Pro 5500M scores 31,088, while the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 scores 11,228. The delta is 176.9%, meaning the 5500M is nearly 2.8 times faster than the WX 3200 in this compute workload. This is a massive margin that underscores the fundamental performance difference between the two.

Looking at the broader benchmark context, the 5500M’s other scores reinforce this dominance. Its Geekbench Metal score of 38,235 and Vulkan score of 35,134 are significantly higher than its OpenCL result, suggesting that the architecture is well-optimized for modern graphics APIs. The Passmark G3D score of 6,732 places it at the 51st percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 11,528.

The WX 3200’s single score of 11,228 gives it a 50th percentile ranking, with an average benchmark score of 11,228. This places it in a very different competitive bracket. Its nearest rivals include the AMD FirePro W4300 with a delta of 0%, and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M which is 0.3% faster. Interestingly, the WX 3200 is also 1.3% faster than the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q, a modern flagship, according to the data.

The 5500M’s nearest rivals are all more powerful desktop parts. The NVIDIA Tesla K20c is 0.4% faster, the AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT is 0.8% faster, and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 is 1.3% faster. The 5500M is 2.4% faster than the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M. This shows that while the 5500M is a strong mobile part, it sits just below desktop mid-range GPUs from a few generations ago.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in compute tasks?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 5500M is significantly faster. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, it scores 31,088 compared to the WX 3200’s 11,228, a 176.9% difference.

Q: What are the memory specifications for each card?

A: The 5500M has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory with a bandwidth of 192.0 GB/s. The WX 3200 has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory with a bandwidth of 96.00 GB/s.

Q: How do their rendering capabilities compare?

A: The 5500M has a pixel rate of 46.40 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 139.2 GTexel/s. The WX 3200 has a pixel rate of 20.72 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 41.44 GTexel/s.

Q: What is the transistor count difference?

A: The 5500M uses 6,400 million transistors on a 7 nm process, while the WX 3200 uses 2,200 million transistors on a 14 nm process.

Q: Which card supports a newer version of Vulkan?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 5500M supports Vulkan 1.4, which is newer than the Vulkan 1.3 supported by the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200.

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

A: The 5500M has an average benchmark score of 11,528, while the WX 3200 has an average benchmark score of 11,228.

The Verdict

The data presents a straightforward conclusion: the AMD Radeon Pro 5500M is the superior GPU in nearly every aspect. Its 176.9% lead in the Geekbench OpenCL test is the definitive metric, but the architectural advantages in shading units, memory bandwidth, and process node all contribute to a product that is simply in a higher class. The 5500M is the choice for any mobile workstation task requiring substantial compute or graphics performance, such as 3D modeling, video rendering, or scientific computation.

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200, however, is not without merit. Its lower TDP of 65 W compared to the 5500M’s 85 W, combined with its single-slot design and 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, makes it a viable option for specialized multi-display setups or applications where power efficiency and a compact footprint are paramount. Its performance, while modest, is still competitive with other entry-level professional cards of its era, as evidenced by its 50th percentile ranking.

For the user who prioritizes raw speed and future-proofing, the 5500M is the only logical choice. For the user whose workload is light on GPU compute but heavy on display connectivity and low power draw, the WX 3200 fulfills a specific niche. The benchmark results are unambiguous, but the correct pick depends entirely on the intended use case. Given the overwhelming performance delta, the 5500M is the recommended part for any general-purpose professional workload.