AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 vs AMD Radeon R9 M375 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL compute performance?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 wins the only shared benchmark, scoring 11,228 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 10,457 for the Radeon R9 M375. That is a 7.4% advantage for the Pro WX 3200.

Q: How do these two GPUs compare in overall benchmark percentile ranking?

A: The Pro WX 3200 sits at the 50th percentile of all GPUs, while the R9 M375 sits at the 48th percentile. The Pro WX 3200’s average benchmark score is 11,228, compared to 10,070 for the R9 M375.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The Pro WX 3200 has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth. The R9 M375 has 2 GB of DDR3 memory on the same 128-bit bus but with only 28.80 GB/s bandwidth — a 3.3x difference in bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU supports newer API versions?

A: The Pro WX 3200 supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3, while the R9 M375 supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Q: What are the manufacturing process differences?

A: The Pro WX 3200 is built on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries with 2,200 million transistors on a 103 mm² die. The R9 M375 uses a 28 nm process at TSMC with 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die.

Q: Which GPU has higher pixel and texture fill rates?

A: The Pro WX 3200 has a pixel rate of 20.72 GPixel/s and texture rate of 41.44 GTexel/s. The R9 M375 has a pixel rate of 16.24 GPixel/s and texture rate of 40.60 GTexel/s. The Pro WX 3200 leads in both metrics.

Where Each One Wins

The data splits cleanly along workload type. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 wins the only direct benchmark comparison available — Geekbench OpenCL — with a 7.4% margin. That makes it the pick for general compute workloads that rely on OpenCL acceleration. Its memory subsystem is also decisively stronger: 96.00 GB/s versus 28.80 GB/s, which matters for memory-bound tasks like large buffer operations or texture streaming.

The Radeon R9 M375, however, has its own niche. It is the only one of the two with a Vulkan benchmark score in the data — 9,682 on Geekbench Vulkan. The Pro WX 3200 has no Vulkan benchmark listed, so for Vulkan-specific workloads, the R9 M375 is the only option with measured evidence. Its boost clock of 1015 MHz also gives it a slight edge in raw clock speed over the Pro WX 3200, whose base and boost clocks are not listed in the data.

For legacy application compatibility, the R9 M375 supports DirectX 12 (11_1) — a more limited feature level than the Pro WX 3200's 12_0. But the R9 M375 also carries a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface versus the Pro WX 3200's x8, which could matter for bandwidth-sensitive workloads that do not fit in the smaller memory pool.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different generations of AMD's Graphics Core Next design. The Pro WX 3200 uses GCN 4.0 architecture on the Polaris 23 chip, fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The R9 M375 uses the older GCN 1.0 architecture on the Tropo chip, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC.

The transistor counts reflect the generational gap. The Pro WX 3200 packs 2,200 million transistors into a 103 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 21.4M per mm². The R9 M375 has 1,500 million transistors spread across a larger 123 mm² die, for a density of just 12.2M per mm². The newer process node allows the Pro WX 3200 to fit 46.7% more transistors into a 16% smaller die area.

Shading unit counts are identical at 640 for both GPUs, and both have 16 ROPs. The R9 M375 has more texture mapping units — 40 versus 32 for the Pro WX 3200. Despite that, the Pro WX 3200 still achieves a higher texture rate (41.44 GTexel/s versus 40.60 GTexel/s) because its memory clock and architecture compensate.

The Pro WX 3200 supports FP16 compute at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, both rated at 1.658 TFLOPS. The R9 M375 has no FP16 data listed. The Pro WX 3200 also supports Vulkan 1.3, while the R9 M375 is capped at Vulkan 1.2.170 — a meaningful difference for modern cross-platform graphics workloads.

Specification Differences

The Pro WX 3200 has a 4 GB GDDR5 memory pool with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth; the R9 M375 has 2 GB DDR3 with 28.80 GB/s bandwidth. Both use a 128-bit bus, but the memory type and size differences are stark.

Clock speeds differ: the R9 M375 lists a base clock of 1000 MHz and boost clock of 1015 MHz, while the Pro WX 3200 has no base or boost clocks listed. The R9 M375's memory runs at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective), while the Pro WX 3200's memory runs at 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective).

Compute output favors the Pro WX 3200: 1.658 TFLOPS FP32 versus 1,299.2 GFLOPS (approximately 1.3 TFLOPS) for the R9 M375. Pixel rate is 20.72 GPixel/s versus 16.24 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 41.44 GTexel/s versus 40.60 GTexel/s.

The Pro WX 3200 has a 65 W TDP with no power connectors required and a suggested 250 W PSU. The R9 M375 has no TDP, power connector, or PSU data listed. The Pro WX 3200 is a single-slot card measuring 167 mm (6.6 inches) long and 69 mm (2.7 inches) high, with four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The R9 M375 has no dimensions, slot width, or display output data.

Bus interfaces differ: PCIe 3.0 x8 for the Pro WX 3200 versus PCIe 3.0 x16 for the R9 M375. The Pro WX 3200 launched on 2019-07-01 with a launch MSRP of 199 USD; the R9 M375 launched on 2015-05-04 with no MSRP listed. Both are end-of-life products.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single head-to-head benchmark in the data is Geekbench OpenCL. The Pro WX 3200 scores 11,228 against the R9 M375's 10,457, a 7.4% delta. This is the defining performance gap between the two cards.

Context from the rival lists reinforces the margin. The Pro WX 3200's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M at 11,261 (0.3% above) and the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q at 11,088 (1.3% below). The R9 M375's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 870M at 9,959 (1.1% below) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A at 10,273 (2% above).

Interpretation: the Pro WX 3200 sits in a performance tier roughly 7–8% above the R9 M375 in OpenCL compute. The delta is consistent across the rival landscape — the Pro WX 3200's closest competitors all score near 11,000, while the R9 M375's competitors cluster near 10,000.

The R9 M375 has one benchmark the Pro WX 3200 lacks: Geekbench Vulkan at 9,682. This cannot be compared head-to-head since the Pro WX 3200 has no Vulkan score in the data, but it shows the R9 M375 is capable of Vulkan compute. The Pro WX 3200's Vulkan 1.3 support is architecturally newer, so its absence from the benchmark list is a data gap, not necessarily a capability gap.

The Verdict

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 is the stronger GPU in every metric that both cards share. It wins OpenCL compute by 7.4%, offers 3.3x the memory bandwidth, delivers 27.6% higher pixel rate, and nearly 28% higher FP32 throughput. Its 14 nm process and GCN 4.0 architecture are a full generation ahead of the R9 M375's 28 nm GCN 1.0 design.

The R9 M375's only unique advantage is its Vulkan benchmark score — 9,682 — which the Pro WX 3200 does not have listed. If Vulkan compute is the only workload, the data contains evidence for the R9 M375 but no direct counter-evidence for the Pro WX 3200. The R9 M375 also has a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface versus x8, and more texture mapping units (40 versus 32).

For professional or workstation use, the Pro WX 3200 is the clear choice. It has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory versus 2 GB of DDR3, four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, a single-slot form factor, and a 65 W TDP with no external power connector. It also carries a launch MSRP of 199 USD. The R9 M375 has no display outputs listed, no dimensions, and no power data — making it harder to recommend for any specific system integration.

For legacy or Vulkan-specific workloads, the R9 M375 remains relevant. Its 2015 release date places it in an older generation, but its 1,299.2 GFLOPS FP32 output and 40.60 GTexel/s texture rate are respectable for its class. The data shows a modest 7.4% performance gap in OpenCL, so the R9 M375 is not obsolete — it is simply outclassed.

The verdict: choose the Pro WX 3200 for compute performance, memory capacity, modern API support, and professional features. Choose the R9 M375 only if Vulkan compute is the sole requirement and the Pro WX 3200's lack of a Vulkan benchmark score is disqualifying. Otherwise, the Pro WX 3200 wins on every measurable axis.