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

The AMD Radeon RX 5500M and the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 are both end-of-life mobile graphics solutions from AMD, but they target very different workloads and performance tiers. The recorded data shows a decisive overall victory for the RX 5500M, which delivers more than triple the compute performance of the WX 3200 in the shared benchmark. However, the WX 3200 holds its own as a professional-grade card with specific workstation features and a lower power draw, making it suitable for tasks where precision and stability are prioritized over raw speed.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 5500M has an average benchmark score of 13,356, while the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 has an average score of 11,228. This places the RX 5500M in the 54th percentile of all GPUs, compared to the WX 3200’s 50th percentile.

Q: How do the two cards compare in the only head-to-head benchmark available?

A: In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the RX 5500M scores 38,725, while the WX 3200 scores 11,228. The RX 5500M wins by a delta of 244.9%, meaning it is roughly 3.45 times faster in this compute workload.

Q: What are the memory specifications of each card?

A: Both cards have 4 GB of VRAM and a 128-bit memory bus. The RX 5500M uses GDDR6 memory with a bandwidth of 224.0 GB/s, while the WX 3200 uses GDDR5 with a bandwidth of 96.00 GB/s.

Q: Which GPU has a smaller manufacturing process node?

A: The RX 5500M is built on a 7 nm process at TSMC, while the WX 3200 uses a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The RX 5500M also packs more transistors (6,400 million versus 2,200 million) on a larger die (158 mm² versus 103 mm²).

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The RX 5500M has a TDP of 85 W, while the WX 3200 has a TDP of 65 W. The WX 3200 also lists a suggested PSU of 250 W, whereas the RX 5500M does not specify one.

Q: Which card supports which APIs?

A: Both support DirectX 12 and OpenGL 4.6. The RX 5500M supports Vulkan 1.4 and DirectX 12 (12_1), while the WX 3200 supports Vulkan 1.3 and DirectX 12 (12_0).

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on entirely different architectures, which explains most of their performance gap. The RX 5500M uses the Navi 14 chip based on RDNA 1.0, a modern gaming-oriented design. In contrast, the WX 3200 relies on the Polaris 23 chip with GCN 4.0, an older architecture originally designed for professional workloads.

The manufacturing process separates them further. The RX 5500M uses a 7 nm process at TSMC, while the WX 3200 uses a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. This difference is reflected in transistor density: the RX 5500M has 40.5 million transistors per square millimeter, while the WX 3200 has 21.4 million. The RX 5500M also carries 6,400 million transistors on a 158 mm² die, versus 2,200 million on a 103 mm² die for the WX 3200.

Compute resources differ massively. The RX 5500M has 1,408 shading units, 88 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 32 raster output units (ROPs). The WX 3200 has only 640 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This means the RX 5500M has more than double the shading units and TMUs, and exactly double the ROPs.

The pixel and texture rates illustrate the practical impact. The RX 5500M reaches 52.64 GPixel/s and 144.8 GTexel/s, while the WX 3200 achieves 20.72 GPixel/s and 41.44 GTexel/s. In floating-point performance, the RX 5500M delivers 4.632 TFLOPS for FP32 and 9.265 TFLOPS for FP16 (2:1 ratio). The WX 3200 provides 1.658 TFLOPS for both FP32 and FP16 (1:1 ratio), meaning it lacks the accelerated half-precision path.

Memory architecture also diverges. The RX 5500M uses GDDR6 at 14 Gbps effective, while the WX 3200 uses GDDR5 at 6 Gbps effective. Both have a 128-bit bus, but the bandwidth difference is stark: 224.0 GB/s versus 96.00 GB/s. The RX 5500M also supports PCIe 4.0 x8, while the WX 3200 is limited to PCIe 3.0 x8.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 5500M wins outright in raw performance. Its benchmark scores, compute rates, and memory bandwidth are all far superior. It is designed for gaming and general graphics tasks where high throughput matters. The data shows it dominates the only shared benchmark, and its architecture is built for modern gaming features like DirectX 12_1 and Vulkan 1.4.

The WX 3200 wins in efficiency and professional presentation. It draws 65 W versus 85 W, making it more power-efficient per unit of compute. It is a single-slot card with four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, suitable for multi-display workstation setups. Its GDDR5 memory and GCN 4.0 architecture are older, but the card is designed for stability and compatibility in professional applications. The WX 3200 also has a listed launch MSRP of 199 USD, though the RX 5500M has no such figure.

For users who need maximum compute performance, the RX 5500M is the clear choice. For those who prioritize low power consumption, single-slot form factor, and professional display outputs, the WX 3200 has distinct advantages. The RX 5500M’s performance comes at the cost of higher power and a mobile-only design with portable device dependent outputs.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every core specification. The RX 5500M uses the RDNA 1.0 architecture with a Navi 14 chip, while the WX 3200 uses GCN 4.0 with a Polaris 23 chip. The manufacturing process is 7 nm versus 14 nm, with transistor counts of 6,400 million versus 2,200 million and die sizes of 158 mm² versus 103 mm².

Clock speeds are only partially specified. The RX 5500M has a base clock of 1375 MHz, a boost clock of 1645 MHz, and a game clock of 1448 MHz. The WX 3200 has no base, boost, or game clock listed. Memory clocks also differ: the RX 5500M runs at 1750 MHz with 14 Gbps effective, while the WX 3200 runs at 1500 MHz with 6 Gbps effective.

Memory type and bandwidth are major separators. The RX 5500M uses 4 GB of GDDR6 with 224.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the WX 3200 uses 4 GB of GDDR5 with 96.00 GB/s. Both have a 128-bit bus, but the effective bandwidth is more than double on the RX 5500M.

Shading units, TMUs, and ROPs are all higher on the RX 5500M: 1,408 versus 640, 88 versus 32, and 32 versus 16 respectively. Pixel rate is 52.64 GPixel/s versus 20.72 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 144.8 GTexel/s versus 41.44 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 4.632 TFLOPS versus 1.658 TFLOPS, and FP16 performance is 9.265 TFLOPS (2:1) versus 1.658 TFLOPS (1:1).

Power draws are 85 W for the RX 5500M and 65 W for the WX 3200. The WX 3200 is a single-slot card with dimensions of 167 mm by 69 mm, while the RX 5500M has no dimensions listed. The WX 3200 has four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, while the RX 5500M has portable device dependent outputs. Bus interfaces are PCIe 4.0 x8 versus PCIe 3.0 x8. The WX 3200 lists a suggested PSU of 250 W, while the RX 5500M does not.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains only one direct benchmark comparison between these two GPUs: Geekbench OpenCL. In this test, the RX 5500M scores 38,725, while the WX 3200 scores 11,228. The delta is 244.9%, meaning the RX 5500M is more than three times faster. This is the single largest performance gap in the entire comparison and confirms the architectural advantage of RDNA 1.0 over GCN 4.0.

The RX 5500M also has a higher average benchmark score of 13,356 versus 11,228 for the WX 3200. This average includes a broader set of tests for the RX 5500M, which has recorded scores in Geekbench Metal (50,359), Geekbench Vulkan (35,693), Passmark DirectX 10 (39), DirectX 11 (35), DirectX 12 (28), DirectX 9 (100), G2D (414), G3D (5,848), and GPU Compute (2,316). The WX 3200 only has the OpenCL score recorded.

The nearest rivals for the RX 5500M are the AMD FirePro M6100 (average score 13,354), AMD Radeon HD 8950M (13,376), AMD Radeon Pro 555X (13,321), and AMD Radeon Pro 555 (13,407). All deltas are within 0.4%, showing that the RX 5500M sits in a tight competitive cluster. The WX 3200’s nearest rivals include the AMD FirePro W4300 (11,225), NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M (11,261), and two NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q variants (both 11,088). The WX 3200’s delta ranges from 0% to 1.3% against these.

These numbers show that the RX 5500M is not just faster than the WX 3200, but also placed in a completely different performance tier. The WX 3200 competes with older mobile GPUs, while the RX 5500M sits alongside mid-range Radeon Pro parts from the same era.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD Radeon RX 5500M is the superior performer by a wide margin. In the only shared benchmark, it wins with a 244.9% delta, and its average score is 19% higher. Its architecture, memory bandwidth, and compute resources are all decisively better. Anyone seeking raw graphics or compute performance should choose the RX 5500M.

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 has a different appeal. It draws 20 W less power, has a single-slot design with four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, and a lower suggested PSU requirement of 250 W. It is built for professional environments where multiple displays and stable, certified performance matter more than speed. Its GCN 4.0 architecture lacks the FP16 acceleration of the RX 5500M, but it offers a 1:1 FP16 ratio, which can be preferable for certain compute tasks.

The RX 5500M is the choice for gaming, general graphics, and compute-heavy applications. The WX 3200 is the choice for workstation setups that prioritize low power, compact size, and multi-display output. The performance gap is too large to ignore, but the WX 3200’s professional feature set gives it a niche. Based on the recorded data, the RX 5500M is the overall winner in every performance metric, while the WX 3200 wins on efficiency and form factor.