AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 vs AMD Radeon R7 M380 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only recorded benchmark comparison between the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 and the AMD Radeon R7 M380 is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the result is decisive. The Pro WX 3200 scores 11,228 points against the R7 M380's 9,313 points, a 20.6% lead. This is not a marginal gap; it translates into a clear performance tier separation between the two mobile and workstation-oriented parts.

Looking at the broader competitive landscape, the Pro WX 3200 sits at the 50th percentile of all GPUs in the database, which places it squarely in the midrange. Its nearest rivals are the AMD FirePro W4300 with a score of 11,225 (a 0% difference, effectively a tie), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M at 11,261 (the Pro WX 3200 trails by 0.3%), and both the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q and RTX PRO 6000D Blackwell Max-Q at 11,088, which the Pro WX 3200 beats by 1.3%. The practical takeaway is that the Pro WX 3200 punches in the same weight class as a high-end mobile GeForce from a previous generation, despite its professional branding.

The R7 M380, by contrast, lands at the 46th percentile. Its nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 850M at 9,302 (the R7 M380 leads by 0.1%), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 465 at 9,294 (a 0.2% lead), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 at 9,273 (a 0.4% lead), and the AMD Radeon Vega 8 at 9,221 (a 1% lead). The R7 M380 is therefore competitive with entry-level discrete and integrated solutions from around its era, but it does not approach the performance of the Pro WX 3200.

The 20.6% delta between the two AMD cards is the single most important number in this comparison. It shows that despite sharing the same shading unit count and ROP count, the Pro WX 3200 extracts significantly more compute throughput from its hardware. The benchmark results indicate that any workload which leverages OpenCL compute will see a substantial advantage on the Pro WX 3200.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 wins the only recorded benchmark, so it is the clear choice for raw compute performance. Its 1.658 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput, paired with a 96.00 GB/s memory bandwidth, makes it suitable for GPU-accelerated tasks such as rendering, simulation, and professional content creation. The data shows that it outperforms the R7 M380 by 20.6% in OpenCL, which is a strong indicator for any application that offloads parallel workloads to the GPU. The Pro WX 3200 also supports a 1:1 FP16 rate at 1.658 TFLOPS, which is an advantage for workloads that can use reduced precision.

The AMD Radeon R7 M380 does not win any benchmark in the database, so its strengths are not reflected in performance scores. However, the specification sheet suggests it was designed for a different purpose. It has a higher texture fill rate relative to its compute performance, with 40 TMUs and a texture rate of 36.60 GTexel/s, compared to the Pro WX 3200's 32 TMUs and 41.44 GTexel/s. In practice, this means the R7 M380 may have been more balanced for older game workloads that relied heavily on texturing, even if its overall compute output was lower. The R7 M380 also uses a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface versus the Pro WX 3200's x8, which could theoretically reduce CPU-to-GPU transfer bottlenecks in some scenarios, though the benchmark data does not confirm any real-world advantage.

The Pro WX 3200 is the winner in every recorded performance metric. The R7 M380 is the older, slower part, and the data does not support any scenario where it would be preferable on performance grounds alone.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 than the AMD Radeon R7 M380 in OpenCL?

A: The Pro WX 3200 scores 11,228 points in Geekbench OpenCL, while the R7 M380 scores 9,313 points. That is a 20.6% lead for the Pro WX 3200.

Q: What is the FP32 performance difference between the two cards?

A: The Pro WX 3200 delivers 1.658 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the R7 M380 delivers 1,171.2 GFLOPS (approximately 1.17 TFLOPS). The Pro WX 3200 is the clear leader.

Q: Do both cards support the same DirectX version?

A: No. The Pro WX 3200 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the R7 M380 supports DirectX 12 (11_1). The Pro WX 3200 has a newer feature level.

Q: Which card has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The Pro WX 3200 has 96.00 GB/s of bandwidth using GDDR5 memory, whereas the R7 M380 has 32.00 GB/s using DDR3 memory. The Pro WX 3200 has three times the bandwidth.

Q: How do the two cards compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The Pro WX 3200 is effectively tied with the AMD FirePro W4300 (0% delta), trails the NVIDIA GTX 780M by 0.3%, and beats the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q by 1.3%. The R7 M380 leads the NVIDIA GTX 850M by 0.1%, the GTX 465 by 0.2%, the GTX 960 by 0.4%, and the AMD Radeon Vega 8 by 1%.

Q: Which GPU has a higher percentile ranking in the database?

A: The Pro WX 3200 is at the 50th percentile of all GPUs, while the R7 M380 is at the 46th percentile. The Pro WX 3200 ranks higher.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every core specification, despite sharing the same manufacturer and shading unit count.

| Specification | AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 | AMD Radeon R7 M380 |

|---|---|---|

| Process Node | 14 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 2,200 million | 1,500 million |

| Die Size | 103 mm² | 123 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 21.4M / mm² | 12.2M / mm² |

| Base Clock | Not specified | 900 MHz |

| Boost Clock | Not specified | 915 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1500 MHz, 6 Gbps effective | 1000 MHz, 2 Gbps effective |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | DDR3 |

| Memory Bandwidth | 96.00 GB/s | 32.00 GB/s |

| Texture Mapping Units | 32 | 40 |

| Pixel Rate | 20.72 GPixel/s | 14.64 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 41.44 GTexel/s | 36.60 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 1.658 TFLOPS | 1,171.2 GFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 1.658 TFLOPS (1:1) | Not specified |

| TDP | 65 W | Not specified |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a | Not specified |

| DirectX Support | 12 (12_0) | 12 (11_1) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.3 | 1.2.170 |

| Release Date | 2019-07-01 | 2015-05-04 |

| Launch MSRP | 199 USD | Not specified |

| Successor | Radeon Pro Vega | Polaris Mobile |

The Pro WX 3200 uses a smaller, denser chip with more transistors, faster memory, and higher clocks, which explains its performance lead. The R7 M380 has more TMUs but lower clock speeds and much slower memory, resulting in lower fill rates and compute throughput.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is significant, as they come from different generations of AMD's GCN design.

The Pro WX 3200 is built on the Polaris 23 chip using the GCN 4.0 architecture, manufactured on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It belongs to the Radeon Pro Polaris (WX x200) generation. The GCN 4.0 architecture brought improvements in power efficiency and clock speeds over earlier GCN iterations, which is reflected in the Pro WX 3200's higher pixel rate (20.72 GPixel/s) and texture rate (41.44 GTexel/s) despite having fewer TMUs than the R7 M380. The Pro WX 3200 also supports FP16 compute at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, a feature that is absent from the R7 M380's specifications.

The R7 M380 uses the Tropo chip with the GCN 1.0 architecture, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It belongs to the Gem System (R7 M300) generation, which is an older design. GCN 1.0 was AMD's first-generation Graphics Core Next architecture, and it lacks some of the refinements found in later versions. The R7 M380 has a larger die (123 mm²) but fewer transistors (1,500 million) and a much lower transistor density (12.2M / mm²), indicating a less efficient design. Its memory subsystem uses DDR3 instead of GDDR5, which severely limits bandwidth.

The Pro WX 3200 also has a more modern feature set: it supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3, while the R7 M380 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170. The Pro WX 3200 offers four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, making it a professional workstation card, whereas the R7 M380 has no listed display outputs and appears to be a mobile part. The Pro WX 3200 is a single-slot card with no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 250 W, while the R7 M380 has no TDP or power specifications listed.

The Verdict

From the recorded data, the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 is the superior product in every measurable way. It is 20.6% faster in OpenCL, offers triple the memory bandwidth, has a higher FP32 throughput (1.658 TFLOPS vs 1,171.2 GFLOPS), and supports newer API versions including DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3. It also ranks higher in the database at the 50th percentile versus the 46th percentile for the R7 M380.

The R7 M380 is a legacy part from 2015, based on older GCN 1.0 architecture and a 28 nm process. Its only advantage in the specifications is a wider PCIe interface (x16 versus x8) and a higher TMU count (40 versus 32), but the benchmark does not show any benefit from these features. The R7 M380's DDR3 memory with 32.00 GB/s bandwidth is a severe bottleneck compared to the Pro WX 3200's GDDR5 at 96.00 GB/s.

For a buyer making a choice between these two based solely on database measurements, the Pro WX 3200 is the only rational pick. It is a professional workstation GPU with a launch MSRP of 199 USD, and it delivers performance comparable to the NVIDIA GTX 780M while beating the RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q by 1.3%. The R7 M380 should only be considered if the specific system requires its older PCIe x16 interface or if the workload is exclusively texturing-bound, but the data does not support it as a competitive option for general compute tasks. The verdict is straightforward: choose the Pro WX 3200 for any workload that depends on GPU compute, and avoid the R7 M380 unless hardware compatibility forces its use.