AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 vs AMD Radeon RX 6600S Comparison

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 and the AMD Radeon RX 6600S represent two very different eras and purposes in AMD’s lineup. The Pro WX 3200 is an entry-level workstation card built on the older Polaris architecture, while the RX 6600S is a mobile gaming GPU from the RDNA 2 generation. The benchmark data shows a decisive victory for the newer part, but the comparison reveals more than just a performance gap; it highlights a fundamental shift in GPU design philosophy between professional and consumer segments.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable benchmark in the dataset is Geekbench OpenCL, and the result is a landslide. The AMD Radeon RX 6600S scores 66,435 points, while the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 manages just 11,228 points. This represents an 83.1% deficit for the Pro WX 3200, meaning the RX 6600S delivers approximately six times the raw compute throughput in this workload. The delta is so large that it dwarfs any other comparison available in the data.

When examining the RX 6600S’s other benchmark results, its dominance becomes clearer. In Passmark G3D, it scores 12,649 points, which is its second-highest result behind the OpenCL score. The GPU compute score of 4,879 further reinforces its compute-oriented strength. Interestingly, the older DirectX 9 test yields a score of 176, while DirectX 11 drops to 105, and DirectX 10 falls even further to 81. The DirectX 12 result is the lowest at 56 points, suggesting the architecture’s performance profile varies significantly across API generations.

The Pro WX 3200’s single benchmark score places it in the 50th percentile of all GPUs, while the RX 6600S sits at the 49th percentile. This near-identical percentile ranking is counterintuitive given the massive score difference, but it reflects the fact that the RX 6600S’s average benchmark score of 10,629 is dragged down by its weaker Passmark results. The Pro WX 3200’s average score of 11,228 is actually higher than the RX 6600S’s average, despite losing the head-to-head OpenCL test by a wide margin.

Looking at the nearest rivals for each card provides additional context. The Pro WX 3200’s closest competitor is the AMD FirePro W4300 with an average score of 11,225, essentially a tie at 0% delta. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M is 0.3% ahead, while the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q and RTX PRO 6000D Blackwell Max-Q are both 1.3% behind. For the RX 6600S, the AMD Radeon R9 M275X is 0.4% behind, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti is 0.6% ahead, and the NVIDIA Quadro K2200 is 1.2% ahead. The AMD Radeon RX 550X trails by 1.4%. These rivalries show that both cards compete in similar performance tiers despite their architectural differences.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gulf between these two GPUs is substantial. The Pro WX 3200 uses the Polaris 23 chip on a 14 nm process from GlobalFoundries, featuring GCN 4.0 architecture. It packs 2,200 million transistors on a 103 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 21.4 million per square millimeter. The RX 6600S, by contrast, uses the Navi 23 chip built on TSMC’s 7 nm process with RDNA 2.0 architecture. This newer chip contains 11,060 million transistors on a 237 mm² die, achieving a density of 46.7 million per square millimeter. The RX 6600S more than doubles the transistor count while using a smaller process node, a clear generational leap.

Memory configurations differ markedly. The Pro WX 3200 ships with 4 GB of GDDR5 memory running at 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective) on a 128-bit bus, producing 96.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The RX 6600S also has 4 GB, but uses GDDR6 at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) on the same 128-bit bus, more than doubling bandwidth to 224.0 GB/s. This memory advantage directly contributes to the RX 6600S’s superior throughput in bandwidth-sensitive workloads.

The compute resources tell a similar story. The Pro WX 3200 has 640 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 raster operations pipelines. The RX 6600S massively increases these counts to 1,792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The RX 6600S also introduces 28 ray tracing cores, a feature entirely absent from the older GCN part. Pixel rate jumps from 20.72 GPixel/s to 128.0 GPixel/s, and texture rate from 41.44 GTexel/s to 224.0 GTexel/s.

Floating-point performance reveals a notable divergence in design philosophy. The Pro WX 3200 delivers 1.658 TFLOPS for both FP32 and FP16, indicating a 1:1 ratio where FP16 offers no throughput advantage. The RX 6600S achieves 7.168 TFLOPS for FP32, but doubles to 14.34 TFLOPS for FP16 with a 2:1 ratio. This architectural choice makes the RX 6600S significantly more capable for workloads that can leverage reduced precision.

Clock speeds also differ, though the Pro WX 3200 lacks explicit base or boost figures in the data. The RX 6600S runs at a 1700 MHz base, 1881 MHz game clock, and 2000 MHz boost. Power consumption is relatively close, with the Pro WX 3200 rated at 65 W and the RX 6600S at 80 W. The Pro WX 3200 is a single-slot card with no power connectors and a suggested 250 W PSU, while the RX 6600S is an integrated GPU (IGP) with no power connectors and no suggested PSU listed.

API support reflects their different target markets. The Pro WX 3200 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The RX 6600S supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, adding ray tracing and mesh shader capabilities. The Pro WX 3200 offers four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, while the RX 6600S’s display outputs are described as "Portable Device Dependent," reflecting its mobile integration.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 6600S wins decisively in raw compute performance, as evidenced by the Geekbench OpenCL result where it outperforms the Pro WX 3200 by 83.1%. Its higher shading unit count, larger memory bandwidth, and support for FP16 acceleration make it the clear choice for compute-heavy tasks that can utilize these features. The 2:1 FP16 ratio means applications using half-precision arithmetic will see substantial gains over the Pro WX 3200’s 1:1 implementation. The ray tracing cores also give it an exclusive capability that the older card simply cannot match.

The Pro WX 3200’s advantages are less about performance and more about form factor and professional features. Its single-slot design and 65 W TDP make it suitable for compact workstation builds where space is at a premium. The four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs support multi-monitor professional setups, a feature the RX 6600S cannot guarantee due to its portable-device-dependent outputs. The Pro WX 3200 also has a higher average benchmark score of 11,228 compared to the RX 6600S’s 10,629, despite losing the individual head-to-head test. This suggests that in the broader benchmark suite, the Pro WX 3200 is more consistent, while the RX 6600S shows extreme variance between its OpenCL score and its Passmark results.

For gaming and general consumer workloads, the RX 6600S is the obvious winner. Its Passmark G3D score of 12,649 demonstrates strong 3D rendering capability, and its DirectX 12 Ultimate support ensures compatibility with modern games. The Pro WX 3200, with its GCN 4.0 architecture and DirectX 12 (12_0) support, lacks the feature set needed for contemporary gaming titles that leverage ray tracing or other DirectX 12 Ultimate features.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6600S delivers 7.168 TFLOPS FP32 and 14.34 TFLOPS FP16, compared to the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200’s 1.658 TFLOPS for both FP32 and FP16. This gives the RX 6600S over four times the FP32 throughput and over eight times the FP16 throughput.

Q: Do both cards support the same DirectX version?

A: No. The Pro WX 3200 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the RX 6600S supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2). The RX 6600S also adds Vulkan 1.4 support compared to Vulkan 1.3 on the Pro WX 3200.

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

A: The Pro WX 3200 has 96.00 GB/s of bandwidth from 4 GB GDDR5, while the RX 6600S has 224.0 GB/s from 4 GB GDDR6. The RX 6600S provides more than double the bandwidth.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The RX 6600S has 1,792 shading units, while the Pro WX 3200 has 640. The RX 6600S also has 112 TMUs and 64 ROPs versus 32 TMUs and 16 ROPs on the Pro WX 3200.

Q: How do their benchmark percentiles compare?

A: The Pro WX 3200 sits at the 50th percentile of all GPUs, and the RX 6600S is at the 49th percentile. Despite the large performance gap in the OpenCL test, their overall standings are nearly identical.

Q: Is the RX 6600S larger physically than the Pro WX 3200?

A: No. The Pro WX 3200 is a single-slot card measuring 167 mm in length and 69 mm in height. The RX 6600S is an IGP with no dimensions listed, as it is designed for portable devices.

The Verdict

The data paints a clear picture: the AMD Radeon RX 6600S is the superior performer in nearly every measurable category. Its 83.1% lead in the Geekbench OpenCL test is the single largest differentiator, but the architectural advantages compound this gap. More shading units, higher clock speeds, doubled memory bandwidth, and FP16 acceleration make it the obvious choice for any workload that requires raw compute power. The addition of ray tracing cores provides a feature the Pro WX 3200 cannot offer under any circumstances.

The Pro WX 3200’s case rests on its professional workstation pedigree. Its four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs enable flexible multi-monitor configurations, and its 65 W power draw with no external power connectors simplifies installation. The single-slot form factor is an advantage for space-constrained systems. However, these benefits come with significant performance trade-offs. The Pro WX 3200’s 1.658 TFLOPS FP32 performance and 96.00 GB/s bandwidth place it firmly in entry-level territory, suitable only for basic workstation tasks.

For users prioritizing compute performance, modern API support, and gaming capability, the RX 6600S is the clear winner. Its higher transistor density and RDNA 2.0 architecture represent a generational leap that cannot be overcome by the Pro WX 3200’s professional features. The RX 6600S’s Passmark G3D score of 12,649 and OpenCL score of 66,435 demonstrate its capability across diverse workloads.

The Pro WX 3200 remains relevant only for specific professional use cases where its display outputs and low power consumption matter more than raw performance. Users needing multi-display professional setups with minimal power draw may find it adequate, but anyone expecting competitive compute performance should look elsewhere. The benchmark data is unambiguous: the RX 6600S wins on performance, features, and architectural efficiency, making it the recommended choice for virtually all applications.