AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 vs AMD Radeon RX 550X Comparison

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 and the AMD Radeon RX 550X are both end-of-life, 14 nm graphics cards built on the same GCN 4.0 architecture, yet they target different corners of the market. The data available shows a single head-to-head benchmark result, but the underlying specifications reveal a more complex story. This analysis examines the Geekbench OpenCL score, architectural differences, and what the data implies for potential users.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison point in the data is the Geekbench OpenCL test. Here, the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 scores 11228 against the AMD Radeon RX 550X's 9662. This translates to a 16.2% advantage for the Pro card. This is a substantial margin, placing the WX 3200 firmly ahead in general-purpose compute workloads that leverage OpenCL. The WX 3200's nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M, scores 11261, which is only 0.3% higher, indicating the WX 3200 is competitive with that mobile flagship. On the other side, the RX 550X's average benchmark score of 10481 is dragged down by its lower OpenCL result, even though it has a higher Geekbench Vulkan score of 11299. This suggests the RX 550X may have specific API strengths that the single OpenCL test does not capture.

The data shows the WX 3200 wins the sole head-to-head benchmark, but the RX 550X is not without its own merits. The RX 550X's Vulkan score of 11299 is actually higher than the WX 3200's OpenCL score of 11228, hinting that the consumer card might be more optimized for modern graphics APIs. However, since there is no head-to-head Vulkan result, the OpenCL delta of 16.2% stands as the primary performance separator. The WX 3200's percentile rank of 50 places it at the median of all GPUs, while the RX 550X sits just below at the 49th percentile, reinforcing the idea that the Pro card holds a slight edge in the overall benchmark landscape.

The Verdict

From the data alone, the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 is the clear winner in raw compute performance. Its 16.2% lead in OpenCL is significant and directly translates to faster processing in many professional and scientific applications that rely on this API. The WX 3200 also offers a higher pixel rate (20.72 GPixel/s vs 18.93 GPixel/s) and texture rate (41.44 GTexel/s vs 37.86 GTexel/s), making it the more capable card for tasks that are fill-rate limited. For users prioritizing compute performance in a single-slot, low-profile form factor, the WX 3200 is the obvious choice.

However, the RX 550X is not without its appeal. It consumes less power (50 W vs 65 W), making it more efficient for basic display output. Its higher Vulkan score suggests it may be better suited for gaming or other Vulkan-based workloads, although this is not confirmed by a head-to-head test. The RX 550X is also a dual-slot card, which may offer better cooling in some chassis, but the WX 3200's single-slot design is more flexible for dense systems. Ultimately, the choice depends on the workload: the WX 3200 for compute-heavy professional tasks, the RX 550X for a lower-power, potentially more gaming-oriented setup.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 scores 11228, which is 16.2% higher than the AMD Radeon RX 550X's score of 9662.

Q: Is the AMD Radeon RX 550X better in any benchmark?

A: The RX 550X has a higher Geekbench Vulkan score of 11299, but there is no head-to-head Vulkan comparison. In the only shared benchmark, the WX 3200 wins.

Q: How does the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 compare to its nearest rival?

A: Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M, scores 11261, which is only 0.3% higher. The WX 3200 is also 1.3% ahead of the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q in this test.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each card?

A: The WX 3200 has an average benchmark score of 11228, while the RX 550X has an average of 10481, based on its OpenCL and Vulkan results.

Q: Which card has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 has a pixel rate of 20.72 GPixel/s, which is higher than the RX 550X's 18.93 GPixel/s.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in several key specifications beyond their benchmark scores. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 has 640 shading units, while the AMD Radeon RX 550X has 512. This is a major difference, explaining the WX 3200's higher FP32 performance of 1.658 TFLOPS compared to the RX 550X's 1,211.4 GFLOPS. Both cards have 32 TMUs and 16 ROPs, but the WX 3200's higher clock speeds result in better pixel and texture rates. The WX 3200 also has a higher TDP of 65 W versus the RX 550X's 50 W.

The physical design also differs: the WX 3200 is a Single-slot card with a length of 167 mm (6.6 inches) and a height of 69 mm (2.7 inches), while the RX 550X is a Dual-slot card with a shorter length of 145 mm (5.7 inches). Display outputs are another differentiator, with the WX 3200 offering 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs and the RX 550X offering a single DVI, HDMI 2.0b, and DisplayPort 1.4a. The RX 550X has a base clock of 1100 MHz and a boost clock of 1183 MHz, while the WX 3200's clock speeds are not listed in the data.

Architecture Differences

Both cards are built on the GCN 4.0 architecture using a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. They share the same die size of 103 mm² and have the same transistor count of 2,200 million. The key difference lies in the chip itself: the WX 3200 uses the Polaris 23 chip, while the RX 550X uses the Lexa chip. This explains the difference in shading units, as the Polaris 23 chip appears to be a more fully-featured implementation.

Both cards support DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3, and both have 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus with a bandwidth of 96.00 GB/s. They also share the same PCIe 3.0 x8 interface and require a suggested PSU of 250 W. The memory clock is identical at 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective). The fundamental architectural difference is the chip configuration, which grants the WX 3200 more compute units and, consequently, higher throughput rates.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 wins in scenarios that demand raw compute throughput. Its 16.2% lead in OpenCL makes it the stronger choice for professional applications like CAD, scientific simulations, and video rendering that utilize this API. The higher pixel and texture rates also make it better suited for multi-display setups that require high fill rates, especially given its 4x mini-DisplayPort outputs. Its single-slot design is a boon for compact workstations, and its higher shading unit count suggests better performance in compute-heavy workloads.

The AMD Radeon RX 550X wins in efficiency and specific API scenarios. Its lower 50 W TDP means it generates less heat and requires less power, making it a good choice for basic office PCs or home theater setups. The higher Vulkan score of 11299 suggests it may be better optimized for Vulkan-based games, although this is not confirmed by a head-to-head test. Its shorter length of 145 mm may fit in smaller cases, and its dual-slot design could offer more robust cooling. For users who prioritize a low-power, compact card for general use or Vulkan-based tasks, the RX 550X is the better option.