AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 vs AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT Comparison

The AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT and the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 are both end-of-life graphics cards with a launch MSRP of 199 USD, but they represent vastly different generations and design philosophies. The RX 6500 XT is a modern RDNA 2.0 gaming part built for high clock speeds, while the Pro WX 3200 is an older GCN 4.0 workstation card focused on efficiency and multi-display output. Benchmark data shows a stark performance gap, but architectural and specification differences reveal why each card exists.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT has an average benchmark score of 11842, while the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 scores 11228. This puts the RX 6500 XT roughly 5.5% ahead in overall average performance.

Q: How do the two cards compare in the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark?

A: The RX 6500 XT scores 48289 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the Pro WX 3200 scores 11228. The RX 6500 XT is 330.1% ahead, a dominant margin that reflects its much larger compute pipeline.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between the two cards?

A: The RX 6500 XT has a memory bandwidth of 143.9 GB/s using a 64-bit bus with GDDR6 memory, whereas the Pro WX 3200 has 96.00 GB/s bandwidth on a 128-bit bus with GDDR5 memory.

Q: Do both cards support ray tracing?

A: No. The RX 6500 XT includes 16 ray tracing cores, while the Pro WX 3200 has no ray tracing cores listed in its specifications.

Q: What are the process node differences?

A: The RX 6500 XT is built on TSMC's 6 nm process, while the Pro WX 3200 uses GlobalFoundries' 14 nm process. This contributes to the RX 6500 XT having over twice the transistor density.

Q: Which card has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The RX 6500 XT has a pixel rate of 90.08 GPixel/s, while the Pro WX 3200 has a pixel rate of 20.72 GPixel/s. The RX 6500 XT is over four times faster in this metric.

Architecture Differences

The RX 6500 XT is built on the RDNA 2.0 architecture, a modern design that powers the Radeon RX 6000 series. It uses the Navi 24 chip fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC, packing 5,400 million transistors into a 107 mm² die. This yields a transistor density of 50.5M / mm², a figure that reflects the efficiency of the newer manufacturing node. The architecture supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), Vulkan 1.4, and includes dedicated ray tracing hardware in the form of 16 RT cores.

In contrast, the Pro WX 3200 relies on the GCN 4.0 architecture, an older design that powers the Radeon Pro Polaris generation. It uses the Polaris 23 chip manufactured on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries, with 2,200 million transistors on a slightly smaller 103 mm² die. The transistor density is just 21.4M / mm², less than half that of the RX 6500 XT. The Pro WX 3200 supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3 but lacks any ray tracing cores.

The compute pipelines differ substantially. The RX 6500 XT has 1024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 32 raster operation units. The Pro WX 3200 has 640 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The RX 6500 XT also delivers FP32 performance of 5.765 TFLOPS and FP16 performance of 11.53 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), while the Pro WX 3200 offers 1.658 TFLOPS in both FP32 and FP16 (1:1 ratio). These numbers indicate the RX 6500 XT is designed for raw throughput, whereas the Pro WX 3200 prioritizes consistent FP16 performance for professional workloads.

Memory technology also separates the two. The RX 6500 XT uses 4 GB of GDDR6 memory with a 64-bit bus, while the Pro WX 3200 uses 4 GB of GDDR5 memory with a 128-bit bus. Despite the narrower bus, the RX 6500 XT achieves higher bandwidth due to faster memory clocks. The RX 6500 XT also features a PCIe 4.0 x4 interface, while the Pro WX 3200 uses PCIe 3.0 x8.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct head-to-head benchmark available is Geekbench OpenCL, and the results are decisive. The RX 6500 XT scores 48289, while the Pro WX 3200 scores 11228. This represents a 330.1% advantage for the RX 6500 XT, meaning it delivers more than four times the compute performance in this test. The delta is so large that it suggests the two cards operate in entirely different performance classes.

Looking at the broader benchmark context, the RX 6500 XT's average score of 11842 places it in the 51st percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080, which scores 11960 and is just 1% faster. The RX 6500 XT also edges out the GTX 1660 by 1.4% and the AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT by 1.9%, though it trails the GTX 960A by 1.3%. This clustering indicates the RX 6500 XT sits in a competitive performance band despite its modest specifications.

The Pro WX 3200, with an average score of 11228, sits in the 50th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rival is the AMD FirePro W4300, which scores 11225 and is essentially tied at 0% difference. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M is 0.3% faster, while both the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q and RTX PRO 6000D Blackwell Max-Q are 1.3% faster. The Pro WX 3200's performance profile is much closer to its peers, showing less variance around its score.

In the individual benchmark suite, the RX 6500 XT shows strong results across different APIs. It scores 9608 in Passmark G3D, 4456 in Passmark GPU Compute, and 54724 in Geekbench Vulkan. The Pro WX 3200 only has a Geekbench OpenCL score in the data, making direct comparisons limited. However, the available numbers consistently favor the RX 6500 XT by wide margins.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every technical specification. The process node is a major divide: the RX 6500 XT uses 6 nm, while the Pro WX 3200 uses 14 nm. Transistor counts are 5,400 million versus 2,200 million, and die sizes are 107 mm² versus 103 mm². The transistor density difference is stark at 50.5M / mm² versus 21.4M / mm².

Clock speeds show the RX 6500 XT's aggressive tuning. It has a base clock of 2310 MHz, a game clock of 2610 MHz, and a boost clock of 2815 MHz. The Pro WX 3200 does not list base, game, or boost clocks in the data. Memory clocks also differ: the RX 6500 XT runs at 2248 MHz with 18 Gbps effective speed, while the Pro WX 3200 runs at 1500 MHz with 6 Gbps effective speed.

The memory subsystems are distinct. The RX 6500 XT has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 143.9 GB/s bandwidth. The Pro WX 3200 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth. The RX 6500 XT's higher bandwidth despite a narrower bus shows the benefit of newer memory technology.

Compute resources favor the RX 6500 XT across the board. It has 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, versus 640 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs on the Pro WX 3200. The RX 6500 XT also has 16 RT cores, which the Pro WX 3200 lacks entirely. Pixel rate is 90.08 GPixel/s versus 20.72 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 180.2 GTexel/s versus 41.44 GTexel/s.

Power and physical specifications also differ. The RX 6500 XT has a TDP of 107 W, requires a 1x 6-pin power connector, and is a dual-slot card with a suggested PSU of 300 W. The Pro WX 3200 has a TDP of 65 W, requires no power connectors, and is a single-slot card with a suggested PSU of 250 W. The Pro WX 3200 measures 167 mm in length and 69 mm in height, while the RX 6500 XT's dimensions are not listed.

Display outputs diverge as well. The RX 6500 XT has 1x HDMI 2.1 and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a, while the Pro WX 3200 has 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a. This makes the Pro WX 3200 better suited for multi-monitor professional setups. The bus interface differs, with PCIe 4.0 x4 on the RX 6500 XT and PCIe 3.0 x8 on the Pro WX 3200.

The Verdict

The data points to the RX 6500 XT as the vastly more powerful card. Its 330.1% lead in Geekbench OpenCL and higher average benchmark score of 11842 versus 11228 make this clear. The RX 6500 XT also has superior specifications in nearly every category, including shading units, texture rate, pixel rate, and memory bandwidth. Gamers or users seeking raw performance should choose the RX 6500 XT without hesitation.

The Pro WX 3200 is not without merit, but its strengths lie outside raw compute. Its 65 W TDP and lack of power connectors make it a low-power solution that fits in single-slot configurations. The 4x mini-DisplayPort outputs support professional multi-display workflows that the RX 6500 XT cannot match with its single HDMI and single DisplayPort. For users who prioritize power efficiency and display connectivity over performance, the Pro WX 3200 remains a viable option.

Both cards are end-of-life products, so availability may be limited. The RX 6500 XT from the Radeon RX 6000 series is newer, with a release date of 2022-01-18, while the Pro WX 3200 from the Radeon Pro Polaris generation launched on 2019-07-01. The newer architecture and process node give the RX 6500 XT a clear technical advantage that is reflected in every benchmark.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 6500 XT wins in all performance-oriented scenarios. Its 5.765 TFLOPS FP32 performance and 90.08 GPixel/s pixel rate make it suitable for gaming and general-purpose graphics workloads. The 16 RT cores enable ray tracing effects that the Pro WX 3200 cannot process. The 143.9 GB/s memory bandwidth supports higher resolutions and texture detail. The RX 6500 XT's 1024 shading units and 64 TMUs allow it to handle complex shaders and heavy texturing with ease.

The Pro WX 3200 wins in specific professional and efficiency scenarios. Its 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs support up to four displays simultaneously, making it ideal for financial trading desks, control rooms, or any setup requiring multiple monitors from a single card. The 65 W TDP means it can be powered without external connectors, simplifying installation in compact or legacy systems. The single-slot design allows for denser configurations in servers or workstations where space is limited.

The Pro WX 3200's GCN 4.0 architecture with 1:1 FP16 ratio may also appeal to certain compute workloads that require consistent precision across data types. Its 96.00 GB/s bandwidth on a 128-bit bus provides more balanced memory access for smaller data sets. However, the RX 6500 XT's 2:1 FP16 ratio offers higher peak throughput for workloads that can utilize it.

In summary, the RX 6500 XT is the clear performance winner, dominating the single available head-to-head benchmark and offering superior specifications across the board. The Pro WX 3200 remains relevant only for niche use cases involving multi-display professional setups or extreme power constraints. For any task requiring compute performance, the RX 6500 XT is the obvious choice.