AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Comparison

# NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 vs AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 and AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 occupy different corners of the GPU landscape, with the former built for consumer gaming and the latter aimed at professional workflows. The data shows a stark performance gap: in the only shared benchmark (Geekbench OpenCL), the GTX 1660 scores 47,850 versus 11,228 for the WX 3200, a 326.2% advantage. That single result frames the entire comparison, yet each card has its own rationale depending on the workload and system constraints.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 1660 wins decisively in raw compute and graphics throughput. Its average benchmark score of 11,680 places it in the 51st percentile of all GPUs, while the WX 3200 sits at 11,228 in the 50th percentile. On paper, the average scores look close, but the Geekbench OpenCL result reveals the real gulf: 47,850 vs 11,228. The GTX 1660 delivers 5.027 TFLOPS of FP32 performance versus 1.658 TFLOPS for the Radeon, meaning the NVIDIA card processes roughly three times as many floating-point operations per second.

For gaming and DirectX workloads, the GTX 1660 is the clear pick. Its PassMark DirectX 11 score of 79 and DirectX 12 score of 49 demonstrate solid API support, while the WX 3200 has no corresponding benchmark data in the pack. The GTX 1660 also wins on memory bandwidth: 192.1 GB/s across a 192-bit bus, compared to 96.00 GB/s on a 128-bit bus for the AMD card. That bandwidth advantage matters for texture-heavy scenes and higher resolutions.

The WX 3200 wins in efficiency and form factor, though not in raw speed. It sips power at 65 W TDP versus 120 W for the GTX 1660, and it fits in a single-slot, 167 mm length package with no external power connectors. That makes it viable for compact workstations or systems with limited power delivery. Its 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a output configuration also supports multi-monitor professional setups out of the box, whereas the GTX 1660 offers 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a. The AMD card’s 4 GB VRAM, while smaller than the GTX 1660’s 6 GB, is typical for entry-level professional tasks like CAD viewport rendering or light video editing.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and foundries. NVIDIA’s GTX 1660 uses the TU116 chip built on Turing architecture, fabricated by TSMC on a 12 nm process. The die measures 284 mm² and packs 6,600 million transistors, yielding a transistor density of 23.2M per mm². AMD’s Radeon Pro WX 3200 uses the Polaris 23 chip on GCN 4.0 architecture, manufactured by GlobalFoundries on a 14 nm node. That die is far smaller at 103 mm² with 2,200 million transistors, giving a density of 21.4M per mm². The GTX 1660’s larger die and newer process translate into substantially more compute resources: 1,408 shading units, 88 texture mapping units, and 48 ROPs versus 640 shaders, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs on the WX 3200.

Clocking behavior differs too. The GTX 1660 has explicit base and boost clocks of 1530 MHz and 1785 MHz, respectively, while the WX 3200 lists no base or boost figures in the data. Memory clocks also diverge: the GTX 1660 runs at 2001 MHz (8 Gbps effective), while the WX 3200 runs at 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective). FP16 support is asymmetric: the GTX 1660 achieves 10.05 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, while the WX 3200 delivers 1.658 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio, meaning the AMD card offers no half-precision speedup.

API support shows minor differences. Both support DirectX 12 and OpenGL 4.6, but the GTX 1660 supports DirectX 12_1 and Vulkan 1.4, whereas the WX 3200 supports DirectX 12_0 and Vulkan 1.3. The NVIDIA card also uses a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, while the AMD card uses PCIe 3.0 x8, halving the available bus bandwidth for data transfers. Neither card has ray tracing or tensor cores, keeping both firmly in the rasterization era.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance?

A: The GTX 1660 delivers 5.027 TFLOPS FP32, which is over three times the 1.658 TFLOPS of the WX 3200. In Geekbench OpenCL, the GTX 1660 scores 47,850 versus 11,228, a 326.2% lead.

Q: Is the Radeon Pro WX 3200 more power-efficient?

A: Yes, the WX 3200 has a 65 W TDP compared to the GTX 1660’s 120 W. It also requires no external power connectors and only a 250 W suggested PSU, versus a 300 W PSU and 1x 8-pin connector for the NVIDIA card.

Q: Which card offers more memory bandwidth?

A: The GTX 1660 provides 192.1 GB/s across a 192-bit bus, exactly double the WX 3200’s 96.00 GB/s on a 128-bit bus. The NVIDIA card also has 6 GB VRAM versus 4 GB on the AMD card.

Q: Do these GPUs support modern APIs?

A: Both support DirectX 12 and OpenGL 4.6. The GTX 1660 adds DirectX 12_1 and Vulkan 1.4, while the WX 3200 supports DirectX 12_0 and Vulkan 1.3.

Q: What are the physical size differences?

A: The GTX 1660 is 229 mm long, 111 mm tall, and 35 mm wide, occupying a dual-slot design. The WX 3200 is 167 mm long and 69 mm tall with a single-slot form factor, making it significantly more compact.

Q: Which card is better for multi-monitor professional setups?

A: The WX 3200 has four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, while the GTX 1660 offers one DVI, one HDMI 2.0, and one DisplayPort 1.4a. The AMD card natively supports more simultaneous displays.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 | AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | Turing | GCN 4.0 |

| Process Node | 12 nm | 14 nm |

| Transistors | 6,600 million | 2,200 million |

| Die Size | 284 mm² | 103 mm² |

| Shading Units | 1408 | 640 |

| TMUs | 88 | 32 |

| ROPs | 48 | 16 |

| FP32 | 5.027 TFLOPS | 1.658 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 10.05 TFLOPS (2:1) | 1.658 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| Memory Size | 6 GB GDDR5 | 4 GB GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus | 192 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 192.1 GB/s | 96.00 GB/s |

| Base Clock | 1530 MHz | Not specified |

| Boost Clock | 1785 MHz | Not specified |

| TDP | 120 W | 65 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | Single-slot |

| Power Connectors | 1x 8-pin | None |

| Suggested PSU | 300 W | 250 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |

| Display Outputs | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a | 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a |

| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (12_0) |

| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.3 |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison in the data is Geekbench OpenCL, and it is not close. The GTX 1660 scores 47,850, while the WX 3200 manages 11,228. That translates to a 326.2% delta, meaning the NVIDIA card is more than four times faster in this compute-oriented test. This result aligns with the architectural disparity: the GTX 1660 has more than double the shading units (1,408 vs 640), 2.75 times the TMUs, and three times the ROPs. The clock speed advantage compounds this, as the GTX 1660’s 1785 MHz boost versus the WX 3200’s unspecified clocks likely skews further in NVIDIA’s favor.

Beyond the shared benchmark, the GTX 1660’s individual results paint a picture of a well-rounded performer. In PassMark G3D, it scores 11,646, ranking in the 51st percentile of all GPUs. Its DirectX 9 score of 177 is notably strong for legacy titles, while DirectX 10 and 11 scores of 61 and 79 respectively show consistent scaling. The DirectX 12 score of 49 lags behind DirectX 11, which is typical for mid-range cards of this generation. The GTX 1660 also delivers 85.68 GPixel/s pixel fill rate and 157.1 GTexel/s texture fill rate, figures the WX 3200 cannot approach given its 20.72 GPixel/s and 41.44 GTexel/s.

The WX 3200’s lack of benchmark data beyond Geekbench OpenCL limits direct comparison, but its nearest rivals provide context. The AMD FirePro W4300 matches it at 11,225 (0% delta), while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M scores 11,261 (-0.3% delta), indicating the WX 3200 sits in a performance tier roughly equivalent to a high-end laptop GPU from several generations earlier. The GTX 1660, by contrast, trades blows with the AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT (11,627, 0.5% delta) and RX 6500 XT (11,842, -1.4% delta), placing it in the modern mid-range desktop class.

For professional users, the WX 3200’s appeal lies in its 4x mini-DisplayPort output and 65 W power envelope, not its compute speed. The GTX 1660, meanwhile, offers over four times the OpenCL performance, double the memory bandwidth, and a larger 6 GB frame buffer. The choice between them hinges on whether the workload prioritizes multi-display professional output or raw graphics and compute throughput. The benchmark data unequivocally favors the GTX 1660 for any performance-sensitive task.