AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER Comparison

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER are both end-of-life graphics cards, but they target fundamentally different corners of the market. The data available shows a single head-to-head benchmark, the Geekbench OpenCL test, where the NVIDIA card delivers a score of 43,875 against the AMD card’s 11,228. This represents a deltaPct of -74.4% from the perspective of the AMD card, meaning the GTX 1650 SUPER is roughly 4 times faster in this compute-oriented workload. However, the surrounding specification and benchmark data paints a more nuanced picture than a simple knockout, revealing that the Radeon Pro WX 3200’s value lies in its professional positioning, low power draw, and compact design, rather than raw performance.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available in the data is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the result is decisive. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER scores 43,875, while the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 scores 11,228. The deltaPct of -74.4% indicates that the AMD card trails by a massive margin. This is a compute-heavy test, and the GTX 1650 SUPER’s superior hardware is clearly reflected here. The NVIDIA card’s FP32 performance is listed at 4.416 TFLOPS, while the AMD card is at 1.658 TFLOPS, a 2.66x difference that aligns with the benchmark gap. Furthermore, the GTX 1650 SUPER’s memory bandwidth of 192.0 GB/s is exactly double the WX 3200’s 96.00 GB/s, which likely contributes to its dominance in this test.

Beyond the direct head-to-head, the data provides context through each card’s own benchmark suite. The GTX 1650 SUPER shows a broader range of results, including a Geekbench Vulkan score of 50,519 and a Passmark G3D score of 10,179. The Radeon Pro WX 3200 has no such additional benchmarks listed, only the OpenCL score. This lack of data for the AMD card makes it difficult to assess its gaming or DirectX performance, but it also hints at its intended workload. The GTX 1650 SUPER’s performance in older DirectX APIs is notable: it scores 148 in Passmark DirectX 9, 73 in DirectX 11, and 50 in DirectX 10. Its Passmark GPU Compute score is 4,477. These numbers show a card that is competent across a spectrum of tasks, from legacy APIs to modern compute. The Radeon Pro WX 3200, with only a single OpenCL score, cannot be compared on these other fronts. The data suggests that in any compute or graphics task, the GTX 1650 SUPER is the unequivocal winner, but it does so with a significantly higher power footprint and a larger physical size.

The Verdict

From the data, the choice between these two cards is clear-cut for most users. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER is the superior performer in every measurable way, with a Geekbench OpenCL score that is 291% higher than the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200. Its specification list is also more robust, featuring a larger die (284 mm² vs 103 mm²), more shading units (1280 vs 640), and a higher transistor count (6,600 million vs 2,200 million). For any workload that depends on raw computational throughput—such as rendering, video editing, or gaming—the GTX 1650 SUPER is the obvious choice. Its 12 Gbps effective memory speed and 192.0 GB/s bandwidth provide a substantial advantage over the WX 3200’s 6 Gbps and 96.00 GB/s.

However, the Radeon Pro WX 3200 is not without its own merits, which are entirely distinct from performance. Its 65 W TDP is significantly lower than the GTX 1650 SUPER’s 100 W, and it requires no power connectors, drawing all power from the PCIe slot. It also occupies a single slot, compared to the dual-slot GTX 1650 SUPER, and it is shorter (167 mm vs 229 mm). For a professional workstation where space is at a premium and power consumption is a concern, the WX 3200 offers a viable, low-profile solution. Its four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs also suggest a multi-monitor productivity setup, a use case where its lower performance may be acceptable. The data indicates that the GTX 1650 SUPER is for users who need performance, while the WX 3200 is for users who need a compact, low-power card for professional, non-intensive tasks.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER scores 43,875, while the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 scores 11,228, making the NVIDIA card significantly faster in this test.

Q: What is the power draw difference between the two cards?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 has a TDP of 65 W and requires no power connectors, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER has a TDP of 100 W and needs a single 6-pin power connector.

Q: Are there any benchmark tests where the AMD card wins?

A: No. In the available head-to-head benchmark data, the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 has zero wins, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER has one win.

Q: How does the memory bandwidth compare?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER has a memory bandwidth of 192.0 GB/s, which is exactly double the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200’s 96.00 GB/s.

Q: Which card is larger in physical size?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER is larger, with a length of 229 mm and a height of 111 mm, while the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 is shorter at 167 mm and has a height of 69 mm. The NVIDIA card is also dual-slot, while the AMD card is single-slot.

Q: What are the DirectX support levels?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER supports DirectX 12 (12_1), indicating a slightly higher feature level for the NVIDIA card.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ on nearly every core specification. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 is built on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries, whereas the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER uses a 12 nm process at TSMC. The NVIDIA card’s die is significantly larger at 284 mm² compared to 103 mm², and it packs 6,600 million transistors versus the AMD card’s 2,200 million. Clock speeds are only listed for the NVIDIA card, with a base of 1530 MHz and a boost of 1725 MHz. The AMD card’s memory runs at 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective), while the NVIDIA card’s memory also runs at 1500 MHz but with 12 Gbps effective speed. Memory bandwidth is 192.0 GB/s for NVIDIA and 96.00 GB/s for AMD, despite both having a 128-bit bus and 4 GB of memory (GDDR6 vs GDDR5). The NVIDIA card has double the shading units (1280 vs 640), TMUs (80 vs 32), and ROPs (32 vs 16). Pixel rate is 55.20 GPixel/s for NVIDIA versus 20.72 GPixel/s for AMD, and texture rate is 138.0 GTexel/s versus 41.44 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 4.416 TFLOPS for NVIDIA and 1.658 TFLOPS for AMD. The NVIDIA card is dual-slot with a 1x 6-pin connector and a 300 W suggested PSU, while the AMD card is single-slot with no connectors and a 250 W suggested PSU. The bus interface is PCIe 3.0 x16 for NVIDIA and PCIe 3.0 x8 for AMD. Display outputs differ: NVIDIA offers 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a, while AMD offers 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gulf between these two cards is substantial. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 is based on the GCN 4.0 architecture with the Polaris 23 chip, part of the Radeon Pro Polaris (WX x200) generation. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER is based on the Turing architecture with the TU116 chip, part of the GeForce 16 generation. The AMD card is manufactured on a 14 nm node, while the NVIDIA card uses a 12 nm node. Neither card has dedicated ray tracing or tensor cores. The AMD card’s FP16 performance is 1.658 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio with FP32), while the NVIDIA card’s FP16 performance is 8.832 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), indicating a different approach to half-precision compute. The NVIDIA card supports Vulkan 1.4 and DirectX 12 (12_1), while the AMD card supports Vulkan 1.3 and DirectX 12 (12_0). Both support OpenGL 4.6. The transistor density is slightly higher on the NVIDIA card (23.2M / mm²) compared to the AMD card (21.4M / mm²). These architectural differences explain the performance gap, with the Turing-based card offering more compute units and a more modern feature set.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER wins in every performance-based category. Its 43,875 OpenCL score is a clear victory, and its higher pixel rate, texture rate, and FP32 performance make it the superior choice for gaming, 3D rendering, and any compute-intensive task. The GTX 1650 SUPER’s higher memory bandwidth of 192.0 GB/s also gives it an edge in bandwidth-sensitive workloads. Its support for DirectX 12 (12_1) over the AMD card’s 12_0 suggests better compatibility with modern game features. For any user whose priority is frames per second or render times, the data points exclusively to the NVIDIA card.

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200’s wins are in the physical and power domains. It has a 65 W TDP versus 100 W, meaning it generates less heat and requires less power. Its single-slot design and shorter length (167 mm vs 229 mm) make it ideal for small form factor workstations or servers where space is limited. It requires no power connectors, simplifying installation. Its four mini-DisplayPort outputs are a clear advantage for multi-monitor professional setups, allowing for more displays out of the box than the NVIDIA card’s single DisplayPort, HDMI, and DVI combination. For a productivity workstation that prioritizes low noise, low power, and compact size over raw speed, the Radeon Pro WX 3200 is the logical choice. The data shows a clear trade-off: performance versus form factor and efficiency.