AMD Radeon Pro 555 vs AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 Comparison

The AMD Radeon Pro 555 and AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 are both professional mobile and desktop graphics solutions built on the same GCN 4.0 architecture. The data shows two products aimed at different physical environments and workloads, with the Pro 555 carrying a higher compute ceiling and the WX 3200 offering more memory and a lower power envelope. This analysis relies entirely on recorded database measurements to separate the two.

The Verdict

The recorded data points to a clear, though narrow, overall performance leader: the AMD Radeon Pro 555. In the only shared benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, the Pro 555 scores 11,682 against the WX 3200’s 11,228. That is a 4% advantage for the Pro 555. Its average benchmark score of 13,407 across all recorded tests also places it well above the WX 3200’s 11,228, and the Pro 555 sits at the 54th percentile of all GPUs compared to the WX 3200’s 50th percentile.

However, the WX 3200 is not without its own claims. It doubles the memory capacity, offering 4 GB versus 2 GB, and has a higher pixel fill rate of 20.72 GPixel/s compared to 13.60 GPixel/s. Its TDP is lower at 65 W versus 75 W, and it comes in a single-slot form factor with dedicated display outputs. For a user prioritizing memory capacity for larger texture sets or driving multiple displays, the WX 3200 has a structural argument, even if raw compute scores are lower.

The verdict from the data is as follows: pick the Radeon Pro 555 if raw compute performance, specifically in OpenCL and broader Geekbench workloads, is the primary goal. Pick the Radeon Pro WX 3200 if you need more video memory, lower power consumption, and a standard slot-mounted card with fixed display outputs, and you can accept a 4% compute deficit.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built on GCN 4.0 and fabricated on the same 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The underlying architecture is identical, so the differences come down to die size, transistor count, and execution resource allocation.

The AMD Radeon Pro 555 uses the Polaris 21 chip, which contains 3,000 million transistors on a 123 mm² die. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 uses the smaller Polaris 23 chip, with 2,200 million transistors on a 103 mm² die. That is a 26.7% reduction in transistor count and a 16.3% smaller die area. The transistor density also differs, with the Pro 555 packing 24.4 million transistors per square millimeter versus 21.4 million on the WX 3200. This suggests the Pro 555 has a more complex or densely packed design despite the larger size.

The Pro 555 has 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 16 raster operations units. The WX 3200 has 640 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This means the Pro 555 has 20% more shading units and 50% more TMUs. In practice, more shading units generally translate to higher FP32 throughput, and more TMUs to higher texture filtering rates. The ROP count is identical at 16, which caps pixel fill rate, but the WX 3200 achieves a higher pixel rate due to its higher clock, which is discussed in the specification section.

Both cards support DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. Neither has dedicated ray tracing or tensor cores, as those are not present in the GCN 4.0 design. The FP16 and FP32 rates are identical within each card, indicating a 1:1 ratio and no separate half-rate path. The Pro 555 computes 1,305.6 GFLOPS FP32, while the WX 3200 reaches 1.658 TFLOPS. This is a notable point: despite having fewer shading units, the WX 3200 has a higher theoretical FP32 throughput due to its higher clock speed.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only head-to-head benchmark recorded is Geekbench OpenCL. In that test, the AMD Radeon Pro 555 scores 11,682 and the WX 3200 scores 11,228. The Pro 555 wins by 4%. This is a modest lead, not a dominant one. A 4% delta in a single workload suggests that in most OpenCL applications, the two cards would feel similar, but the Pro 555 should complete compute tasks slightly faster.

There is no direct comparison available for Geekbench Metal or Vulkan. However, the Pro 555 has individual scores for those tests: 16,236 in Metal and 12,303 in Vulkan. The WX 3200 has no recorded Metal or Vulkan scores in the database. Its single recorded benchmark is the OpenCL test. This lack of data is itself informative. The Pro 555 has a broader validation record, covering three API workloads, while the WX 3200 only has one.

The average benchmark score also favors the Pro 555. Its average of 13,407 is 19.4% higher than the WX 3200’s 11,228. This average is pulled up by the high Metal and Vulkan scores, which are not available for the WX 3200. Therefore, the comparison in raw compute is limited to OpenCL, and there the Pro 555 is ahead.

Looking at the nearest rivals for the Pro 555, its average score of 13,407 is 0.2% above the AMD Radeon HD 8950M (13,376) and 0.4% above the AMD Radeon RX 5500M (13,356). It is also 0.4% above the AMD FirePro M6100 (13,354). The closest competitor is actually the NVIDIA P106-090, which scores 13,470 and leads the Pro 555 by 0.5%. This places the Pro 555 in a tight band of mid-range mobile GPUs from the same era.

For the WX 3200, its average score of 11,228 is statistically tied with the AMD FirePro W4300 (11,225, delta 0%). The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M scores 11,261, which is 0.3% higher. Interestingly, the two NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 variants, the Blackwell Max-Q and the 6000D Blackwell Max-Q, both score 11,088, which is 1.3% lower than the WX 3200. This is a narrow range, and the WX 3200 sits in the middle, with a 50th percentile ranking.

Specification Differences

The most consequential differences are in memory capacity, bandwidth, and physical configuration.

The Pro 555 has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, giving a bandwidth of 81.60 GB/s. The WX 3200 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on the same 128-bit bus, but its memory clock is higher, resulting in 96.00 GB/s. This is a 17.6% higher bandwidth for the WX 3200, which directly helps with memory-heavy tasks such as large frame buffers or high-resolution textures.

The WX 3200 also uses a faster effective memory speed: 6 Gbps versus 5.1 Gbps for the Pro 555. The memory clock is listed as 1500 MHz versus 1275 MHz, respectively.

The compute rates are also different. The Pro 555 has a pixel rate of 13.60 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 40.80 GTexel/s. The WX 3200 has a pixel rate of 20.72 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 41.44 GTexel/s. The WX 3200 has a 52.4% advantage in pixel fill rate and a 1.6% advantage in texture fill rate. This is a significant pixel throughput win for the WX 3200, despite its lower shading unit count.

Power and form factor differ. The Pro 555 has a TDP of 75 W and is listed as an IGP (integrated GPU) with no power connectors and no length, height, or width dimensions. It is designed for portable devices, with display outputs described as "Portable Device Dependent". The WX 3200 has a TDP of 65 W, which is 13.3% lower. It is a single-slot card with a length of 167 mm and a height of 69 mm, uses no power connectors, and has a suggested power supply rating of 250 W. It outputs to 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a.

The bus interface is identical: PCIe 3.0 x8 for both.

The release dates are also different. The Pro 555 was released in June 2017, and the WX 3200 was released in July 2019. Both are marked as end-of-life production. The WX 3200 has a predecessor and successor listed in the database. The Pro 555 does not.

The WX 3200 has a launch MSRP of 199 USD. This is the only price information available; no pricing data exists for the Pro 555.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance in FP32?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 has a higher FP32 rating of 1.658 TFLOPS, compared to the Pro 555’s 1,305.6 GFLOPS. This is a 27% advantage for the WX 3200 in theoretical compute, despite its lower shading unit count.

Q: Why does the Pro 555 win the OpenCL benchmark if the WX 3200 has higher FP32?

A: The recorded Geekbench OpenCL score shows the Pro 555 at 11,682 versus the WX 3200’s 11,228, a 4% lead. Theoretical FP32 does not always translate to a better benchmark result, as memory access, driver, and other workload factors are also in play. The data shows the Pro 555 is faster in this specific test.

Q: Which card has more memory and higher bandwidth?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200. It has 4 GB of memory and a bandwidth of 96.00 GB/s, while the Pro 555 has 2 GB and 81.60 GB/s. The WX 3200 also has a faster effective memory rate of 6 Gbps.

Q: Are both cards compatible with the same APIs?

A: Yes. Both support DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. There is no difference in API support.

Q: Which card is more power efficient?

A: The WX 3200 has a lower TDP of 65 W, compared to the Pro 555’s 75 W. It also has a faster pixel and texture rate per watt, given its higher rates and lower power.

Q: How do they compare to the nearest rivals?

A: The Pro 555’s average score is within 0.5% of the NVIDIA P106-090, 0.2% of the HD 8950M, and 0.4% of the RX 5500M. The WX 3200’s average score is tied with the AMD FirePro W4300 and is 0.3% lower than the GeForce GTX 780M.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Pro 555 wins in raw compute benchmarks. Its OpenCL score is 4% higher, and it holds a 19.4% higher average benchmark score across all recorded tests. It also has a higher percentile ranking (54 vs 50). For tasks that are purely compute-bound, such as rendering, simulation, or OpenCL-accelerated applications, the data clearly favors the Pro 555. Its extra shading units and TMUs also suggest it will handle geometric and texture-heavy workloads better, even if the WX 3200 has a higher texture rate overall.

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 wins in memory capacity, bandwidth, pixel fill rate, and power efficiency. It has twice the memory, 17.6% higher bandwidth, and a 52.4% higher pixel rate. It also has a higher texture rate and a lower TDP. For tasks like driving multiple high-resolution displays, working with larger framebuffers, or using memory-intensive shaders, the WX 3200 is the stronger candidate. Its 4 GB capacity is important for modern professional workloads that exceed 2 GB. Its single-slot form with four DisplayPort connectors also makes it a better fit for a fixed workstation, whereas the Pro 555 is a portable device dependent on the host system’s display outputs.

In uses where the GPU is not the bottleneck, the WX 3200’s lower power draw and smaller physical footprint can be decisive. The data shows that the Pro 555 is a better pure performance processor, while the WX 3200 is a better balanced professional card for memory and display flexibility. There is no winner across all categories, but the Pro 555 has the higher overall score and wins the only direct head-to-head test.