AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 vs AMD Radeon RX 550 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable benchmark between these two cards is Geekbench OpenCL, and the result is remarkably tight. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 scores 11,228 points, while the AMD Radeon RX 550 manages 11,063 points. That difference translates to a 1.5% advantage for the Pro WX 3200 — a margin that is effectively negligible in real-world terms, though it does register as a win in the head-to-head comparison. The data shows the Pro WX 3200 wins the single shared test, giving it a 1–0 record in direct matchups.

Context from the nearest rivals clarifies how narrow this gap truly is. The Pro WX 3200 sits within 0.3% of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M (11,261 points) and is 1.3% ahead of both NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q and NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000D Blackwell Max-Q (each at 11,088 points). Meanwhile, the RX 550 trails the same two RTX PRO 6000 variants by just 0.1%, sits 0.3% ahead of the GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER (11,047 points), and is 1.3% behind the AMD FirePro W4300 (11,225 points). Both cards land at the 50th percentile among all GPUs, meaning they are neither top-tier performers nor bottom-dwellers; they occupy the exact middle of the distribution. Benchmark results indicate that in pure compute throughput, these two GPUs are near-clones, with the Pro WX 3200 holding a hair-thin lead that would be imperceptible outside synthetic workloads.

The RX 550, however, shows a broader benchmark portfolio. Beyond OpenCL, it posts a Geekbench Metal score of 20,838 points and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 12,270 points, plus a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 127 points. The Pro WX 3200 has no corresponding scores in these tests, so cross-API comparisons are impossible from the available data. What can be stated is that the RX 550's average benchmark score across all its tests is 11,075 points, slightly below the Pro WX 3200's average of 11,228 points — a 1.4% gap in favor of the workstation card. Neither card demonstrates a decisive knockout blow; the data describes a statistical tie with a slight edge to the Pro WX 3200 in the one test where they meet directly.

Architecture Differences

Both cards are built on the same fundamental architecture: GCN 4.0, fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The transistor count is identical at 2,200 million, and the die size matches at 103 mm², yielding the same transistor density of 21.4M per mm². This is not a generational leap or a node shrink; it is the same underlying silicon family. The Pro WX 3200 uses the Polaris 23 chip, while the RX 550 uses the Lexa chip — but both belong to AMD's Polaris-era design philosophy.

The compute resources diverge in one key area. The Pro WX 3200 packs 640 shading units, whereas the RX 550 has 512 shading units — a 25% difference in raw ALU count. Texture mapping units are identical at 32, and render output units match at 16. This means the Pro WX 3200 should have an inherent advantage in shader-bound workloads, yet the benchmark scores barely reflect that. The RX 550 compensates with higher clocks: its base clock is 1,100 MHz and boost clock is 1,183 MHz, while the Pro WX 3200's base and boost clocks are not listed in the data. The memory clock also differs, with the RX 550 running at 1,750 MHz (7 Gbps effective) versus the Pro WX 3200's 1,500 MHz (6 Gbps effective). That higher memory clock gives the RX 550 a bandwidth advantage of 112.0 GB/s versus 96.00 GB/s for the Pro WX 3200, despite both using 128-bit GDDR5 buses.

Memory capacity is a clear differentiator: the Pro WX 3200 has 4 GB of GDDR5, while the RX 550 has 2 GB. For workloads that exceed 2 GB of frame buffer, the Pro WX 3200 is the only option. The resulting pixel and texture rates reflect the clock and core differences. The Pro WX 3200 achieves 20.72 GPixel/s and 41.44 GTexel/s, while the RX 550 delivers 18.93 GPixel/s and 37.86 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 1.658 TFLOPS for the Pro WX 3200 versus 1,211.4 GFLOPS for the RX 550, and both have 1:1 FP16 rates. The Pro WX 3200 is the faster card on paper, yet the benchmark gap is only 1.5% — suggesting that memory bandwidth or other bottlenecks limit the Pro WX 3200's additional shading units.

Power draw differs meaningfully: the Pro WX 3200 is rated at 65 W TDP, while the RX 550 is rated at 50 W. Neither requires external power connectors, and both list a suggested PSU of 250 W. The physical designs diverge: the Pro WX 3200 is single-slot with dimensions of 167 mm (6.6 inches) in length and 69 mm (2.7 inches) in height, while the RX 550 is dual-slot with a length of 145 mm (5.7 inches). Display outputs are also distinct — the Pro WX 3200 offers four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a connections, whereas the RX 550 has one DVI, one HDMI 2.0b, and one DisplayPort 1.4a. Both use PCIe 3.0 x8 and support DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The Pro WX 3200's four mini-DisplayPort outputs clearly target multi-monitor professional setups, while the RX 550's mixed outputs suit consumer displays.

FAQ

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 has 640 shading units, while the AMD Radeon RX 550 has 512 shading units — a 128-unit difference in favor of the workstation card.

Q: Is the RX 550 faster in the only shared benchmark?

A: No. The Pro WX 3200 scores 11,228 points in Geekbench OpenCL versus the RX 550's 11,063 points, giving the Pro WX 3200 a 1.5% lead.

Q: What memory capacity does each card offer?

A: The Pro WX 3200 has 4 GB of GDDR5, while the RX 550 has 2 GB of GDDR5. Both use a 128-bit bus, but the RX 550 has higher bandwidth at 112.0 GB/s versus 96.00 GB/s.

Q: Do the cards use the same architecture?

A: Yes, both are GCN 4.0 on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries, with identical transistor counts (2,200 million) and die size (103 mm²).

Q: Which card consumes less power?

A: The RX 550 is rated at 50 W TDP, while the Pro WX 3200 is rated at 65 W TDP. Neither requires a power connector, and both suggest a 250 W PSU.

Q: How do their display outputs differ?

A: The Pro WX 3200 provides four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, whereas the RX 550 provides one DVI, one HDMI 2.0b, and one DisplayPort 1.4a.

Specification Differences

| Field | AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 | AMD Radeon RX 550 |

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

| Chip | Polaris 23 | Lexa |

| Generation | Radeon Pro Polaris (WX x200) | Polaris (RX 500) |

| Memory Clock | 1500 MHz / 6 Gbps effective | 1750 MHz / 7 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 2 GB |

| Memory Bandwidth | 96.00 GB/s | 112.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 640 | 512 |

| Pixel Rate | 20.72 GPixel/s | 18.93 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 41.44 GTexel/s | 37.86 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 1.658 TFLOPS | 1,211.4 GFLOPS |

| FP16 | 1.658 TFLOPS (1:1) | 1,211.4 GFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 65 W | 50 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | Dual-slot |

| Display Outputs | 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0b, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a |

| Length | 167 mm / 6.6 inches | 145 mm / 5.7 inches |

| Height | 69 mm / 2.7 inches | Not listed |

| Base Clock | Not listed | 1100 MHz |

| Boost Clock | Not listed | 1183 MHz |

| Release Date | 2019-07-01 | 2017-04-19 |

| Predecessor | Radeon Pro GCN | Arctic Islands |

| Successor | Radeon Pro Vega | Vega |

| Launch MSRP | 199 USD | 79 USD |

The Verdict

The benchmark data paints a picture of two cards that are far more similar than their names suggest. The Pro WX 3200 wins the only head-to-head test by 1.5%, but that victory is narrow enough to be noise. The RX 550 counters with lower power draw (50 W versus 65 W), higher memory bandwidth (112.0 GB/s versus 96.00 GB/s), and a smaller physical footprint (145 mm versus 167 mm). The Pro WX 3200 offers double the memory (4 GB versus 2 GB), more shading units (640 versus 512), and higher compute rates across pixel, texture, and FP32 metrics.

For users prioritizing multi-monitor output, the Pro WX 3200's four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a connections are a clear advantage over the RX 550's single DVI, HDMI, and DisplayPort combo. The single-slot form factor of the Pro WX 3200 also enables denser system configurations. The RX 550, with its dual-slot design and lower TDP, is better suited for compact builds where power efficiency and space are paramount. Both cards are end-of-life, and both sit at the 50th percentile of all GPUs, so neither offers a performance tier advantage.

The data suggests a simple selection criterion: if the workload requires more than 2 GB of VRAM or multiple DisplayPort outputs, the Pro WX 3200 is the only choice. If power draw and physical size are the primary constraints, the RX 550 is the leaner option. For raw compute in the shared OpenCL test, the difference is 1.5% — a rounding error that should not drive any decision. The Pro WX 3200's launch MSRP of 199 USD versus the RX 550's 79 USD indicates a professional positioning, but the benchmark results do not justify a large performance premium; the value case rests entirely on features like memory capacity and display outputs, not on speed. Ultimately, the Pro WX 3200 is the workstation-oriented pick, while the RX 550 is the consumer-oriented pick, and the data shows their performance envelopes are nearly identical.