AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 vs AMD Radeon RX 7900 XT Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records a single shared benchmark between these two cards: Geekbench OpenCL. In that test, the AMD Radeon RX 7900 XT scores 12,756, while the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 scores 11,228. That is a 13.6% advantage for the RX 7900 XT, a decisive gap but not the kind of blowout one might expect given the generational and architectural chasm between these products.

Looking at the RX 7900 XT's broader benchmark suite, its strength is most visible in PassMark G3D, where it records a score of 29,009. Its PassMark GPU Compute score of 16,828 further shows heavy compute capability. In contrast, the Pro WX 3200 has only the one recorded Geekbench OpenCL result in the database, so direct cross-referencing is limited. However, the average benchmark scores tell a stark story: the RX 7900 XT averages 13,745 across its tests, while the Pro WX 3200 averages 11,228. The RX 7900 XT's average sits 22.4% higher than the Pro WX 3200's sole score.

The RX 7900 XT's nearest rivals in the database include the AMD Radeon 660M (average 13,812, 0.5% higher), the NVIDIA RTX A2000 Mobile (average 13,821, 0.5% higher), and the AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT (average 13,543, 1.5% lower). This clustering shows the RX 7900 XT is performance-adjacent to a set of mid-range and mobile parts, despite its high-end positioning in the Radeon RX 7000 series. The Pro WX 3200's nearest rivals are the AMD FirePro W4300 (average 11,225, essentially tied), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M (average 11,261, 0.3% higher), and two NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q variants (both averaging 11,088, 1.3% lower).

The percentile data places the RX 7900 XT in the 55th percentile of all GPUs, while the Pro WX 3200 sits in the 50th percentile. That is a modest percentile difference, but the raw score gap in their shared test confirms the RX 7900 XT is the faster card. The RX 7900 XT wins the head-to-head count 1 to 0.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in the only benchmark both cards share?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 7900 XT wins Geekbench OpenCL with a score of 12,756 versus 11,228 for the Pro WX 3200, a 13.6% lead.

Q: How does the RX 7900 XT compare to its closest performance rivals?

A: The RX 7900 XT's average benchmark score of 13,745 is within 0.5% of the AMD Radeon 660M (13,812) and NVIDIA RTX A2000 Mobile (13,821), while it is 1.5% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT (13,543).

Q: What is the Pro WX 3200's position relative to its nearest rivals?

A: The Pro WX 3200's average score of 11,228 is effectively tied with the AMD FirePro W4300 (11,225), 0.3% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M (11,261), and 1.3% ahead of both NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q variants (11,088 each).

Q: Which card has the higher percentile ranking?

A: The RX 7900 XT ranks in the 55th percentile of all GPUs, while the Pro WX 3200 ranks in the 50th percentile.

Q: Do these cards support the same DirectX and Vulkan versions?

A: No. The RX 7900 XT supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4. The Pro WX 3200 supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The RX 7900 XT has 5,376 shading units, while the Pro WX 3200 has 640, a 8.4x difference.

Architecture Differences

The two cards are built on fundamentally different architectures. The RX 7900 XT uses the Navi 31 chip with RDNA 3.0 architecture, codenamed Plum Bonito, part of the Navi III generation. It is fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC, with 57,700 million transistors on a 529 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 109.1 million per square millimeter. The Pro WX 3200 uses the Polaris 23 chip with GCN 4.0 architecture, part of the Radeon Pro Polaris generation. It is built on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries, with 2,200 million transistors on a 103 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 21.4 million per square millimeter.

The RX 7900 XT is a modern, high-density design with dedicated ray tracing hardware: it includes 84 ray tracing cores. The Pro WX 3200 has no ray tracing cores at all. The RX 7900 XT also features a 2:1 FP16 ratio, delivering 103.0 TFLOPS of FP16 performance versus its 51.48 TFLOPS FP32. The Pro WX 3200 computes FP16 at a 1:1 ratio, meaning its FP16 throughput is identical to its FP32 at 1.658 TFLOPS.

Memory architecture is another major split. The RX 7900 XT uses 20 GB of GDDR6 on a 320-bit bus, with memory clocked at 2500 MHz (20 Gbps effective) for 800.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Pro WX 3200 uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, with memory clocked at 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective) for 96.00 GB/s bandwidth. The RX 7900 XT has 336 texture mapping units and 192 render output units, while the Pro WX 3200 has 32 TMUs and 16 ROPs. Pixel rate for the RX 7900 XT is 459.6 GPixel/s and texture rate is 804.4 GTexel/s, versus 20.72 GPixel/s and 41.44 GTexel/s for the Pro WX 3200.

Specification Differences

The cards differ across nearly every measurable specification. Process node: 5 nm (TSMC) versus 14 nm (GlobalFoundries). Transistors: 57,700 million versus 2,200 million. Die size: 529 mm² versus 103 mm². Transistor density: 109.1M per mm² versus 21.4M per mm².

Clock speeds: the RX 7900 XT has a base clock of 1387 MHz, a boost clock of 2394 MHz, and a game clock of 2025 MHz. The Pro WX 3200 has no recorded base, boost, or game clocks in the database. Memory clocks: 2500 MHz (20 Gbps effective) versus 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective).

Memory: 20 GB GDDR6 with 320-bit bus and 800.0 GB/s bandwidth versus 4 GB GDDR5 with 128-bit bus and 96.00 GB/s bandwidth. Shading units: 5,376 versus 640. TMUs: 336 versus 32. ROPs: 192 versus 16. Ray tracing cores: 84 versus none.

Pixel rate: 459.6 GPixel/s versus 20.72 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 804.4 GTexel/s versus 41.44 GTexel/s. FP32: 51.48 TFLOPS versus 1.658 TFLOPS. FP16: 103.0 TFLOPS versus 1.658 TFLOPS.

Power: TDP of 300 W versus 65 W. The RX 7900 XT requires two 8-pin power connectors and a suggested 700 W PSU, while the Pro WX 3200 needs no power connectors and suggests a 250 W PSU. Slot width: dual-slot versus single-slot.

Bus interface: PCIe 4.0 x16 versus PCIe 3.0 x8. Display outputs: 1x HDMI 2.1a, 2x DisplayPort 2.1, and 1x USB Type-C versus 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a.

Dimensions: the RX 7900 XT measures 276 mm (10.9 inches) long, 110 mm (4.3 inches) high, and 51 mm (2 inches) wide. The Pro WX 3200 measures 167 mm (6.6 inches) long and 69 mm (2.7 inches) high, with no recorded width.

API support: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) versus DirectX 12 (12_0), Vulkan 1.4 versus 1.3, both OpenGL 4.6. Release dates: 2022-11-02 versus 2019-07-01. Both are end-of-life.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 7900 XT wins in every performance category where both have data. It is faster in the shared Geekbench OpenCL test, has a higher average benchmark score, higher percentile, more shading units, more memory, higher bandwidth, faster pixel and texture rates, and higher FP32 and FP16 throughput. It is the clear compute and gaming winner.

The Pro WX 3200 wins in efficiency and physical integration. It consumes 65 W versus 300 W, fits in a single slot, requires no external power connectors, and suggests a 250 W PSU instead of 700 W. It is also shorter at 167 mm versus 276 mm. Its four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs may suit multi-display professional setups, while the RX 7900 XT offers a more modern output set with HDMI 2.1a, DisplayPort 2.1, and USB Type-C. The Pro WX 3200 is the card for constrained builds where power draw, slot count, and physical footprint matter more than raw performance.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD Radeon RX 7900 XT is the superior performer in every measured benchmark. It beats the Pro WX 3200 by 13.6% in their shared Geekbench OpenCL test, and its average score of 13,745 is 22.4% higher than the Pro WX 3200's 11,228. The RX 7900 XT also carries far more memory, bandwidth, shading units, and compute throughput, making it the obvious pick for any workload that demands graphics or GPGPU performance.

The Pro WX 3200 is not without purpose. Its 65 W TDP, single-slot design, and lack of power connectors make it suitable for low-power, space-constrained systems. Its 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs could drive multiple monitors in a professional environment. But its GCN 4.0 architecture, 4 GB GDDR5, and 1.658 TFLOPS FP32 performance place it in a different performance class entirely.

For a builder choosing between these two, the decision hinges on the workload. If the task requires modern gaming, ray tracing, high-resolution textures, or substantial compute, the RX 7900 XT is the only rational choice. If the system is a compact workstation with minimal power delivery and the workload is light, the Pro WX 3200 may suffice. The benchmark database shows no scenario where the Pro WX 3200 outperforms the RX 7900 XT; the only advantages are physical and electrical, not performance-based.