AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER is the clear performance leader in this pairing. Across the sole head-to-head benchmark recorded in the database, the GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER wins outright. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 does not secure a single benchmark victory in the direct comparison. The data shows a one-sided contest: the GTX 1660 SUPER takes the only shared test, Geekbench OpenCL, by a decisive margin.

This split makes the use-case differentiation straightforward. The GTX 1660 SUPER is positioned for workloads where raw compute throughput matters, particularly OpenCL-accelerated tasks. Its average benchmark score of 12,986 places it at the 53rd percentile among all GPUs, indicating a mid-range but competitive standing. The Radeon Pro WX 3200, with an average score of 11,228, sits at the 50th percentile, which is a slightly lower overall rank. The performance gap in the shared test is substantial, but the WX 3200 is not without a role: its smaller footprint, lower power draw, and four mini-DisplayPort outputs suggest a niche in multi-display, space-constrained professional environments where compute peak is less critical.

For users prioritizing OpenCL performance, the GTX 1660 SUPER is the obvious choice. For those needing a compact, low-profile card with multiple display outputs and minimal power requirements, the WX 3200 holds appeal despite its lower compute scores. The recorded data does not show any test where the WX 3200 outperforms the GTX 1660 SUPER, so the use-case split is defined by form factor and connectivity rather than benchmark superiority.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and design philosophies. The GTX 1660 SUPER uses the TU116 chip built on NVIDIA's Turing architecture, fabricated on a 12 nm process at TSMC. It packs 6,600 million transistors into a 284 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 23.2 million per mm². The Radeon Pro WX 3200, in contrast, relies on the Polaris 23 chip with AMD's GCN 4.0 architecture, produced on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. Its die is much smaller at 103 mm², with 2,200 million transistors and a density of 21.4 million per mm².

Memory configurations differ sharply. The GTX 1660 SUPER carries 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus, delivering 336.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The WX 3200 uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, with 96.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The memory clock rates also diverge: the GTX 1660 SUPER runs at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective), while the WX 3200 runs at 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective). The bandwidth advantage of the GTX 1660 SUPER is more than threefold, which affects texture-heavy and large-data workloads.

Compute resources are similarly lopsided. The GTX 1660 SUPER has 1,408 shading units, 88 texture mapping units, and 48 raster output units. The WX 3200 has 640 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Neither card has dedicated ray tracing or tensor cores. The GTX 1660 SUPER achieves 5.027 TFLOPS FP32 performance and 10.05 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1 ratio). The WX 3200 delivers 1.658 TFLOPS FP32 and 1.658 TFLOPS FP16 (1:1 ratio). Notably, the WX 3200 does not benefit from accelerated FP16, while the GTX 1660 SUPER doubles its throughput in that mode.

Other distinctions include the bus interface: the GTX 1660 SUPER uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the WX 3200 uses PCIe 3.0 x8. Display outputs also differ: the GTX 1660 SUPER offers 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a, whereas the WX 3200 provides 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a. API support is close, with both supporting DirectX 12 (12_1 for NVIDIA, 12_0 for AMD), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan (1.4 for NVIDIA, 1.3 for AMD). Power and physical specs are covered below in the Specification Differences section.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable benchmark in the database is Geekbench OpenCL. The GTX 1660 SUPER scores 52,490, while the WX 3200 scores 11,228. This yields a delta of 367.5% in favor of the GTX 1660 SUPER. In practical terms, the GTX 1660 SUPER is over 4.5 times faster in this OpenCL test. That is not a small edge; it is a category-level difference.

Looking at the broader database context, the GTX 1660 SUPER's average score of 12,986 places it within 0.4% of the GeForce RTX 3050 Ti Mobile (12,940) and the Radeon RX 580 (12,928). It also trails the Tesla M2090 (13,075) by 0.7% and leads the Radeon 740M (12,870) by 0.9%. These are tight margins, indicating that the GTX 1660 SUPER sits in a well-populated performance band. Its percentile rank of 53 among all GPUs confirms this mid-pack positioning.

The WX 3200's average score of 11,228 is essentially tied with the FirePro W4300 (11,225, 0% delta) and the GeForce GTX 780M (11,261, -0.3% delta). It is 1.3% ahead of both the RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q and the RTX PRO 6000D Blackwell Max-Q, which both score 11,088. The WX 3200's 50th percentile rank places it just below the GTX 1660 SUPER in the overall distribution.

The single head-to-head result is stark. The GTX 1660 SUPER's OpenCL advantage comes from its larger memory bus, higher bandwidth, more shading units, and faster clock speeds. The WX 3200, despite being a professional-oriented card, cannot match the raw throughput of a consumer Turing GPU in this test. The database records no other shared benchmarks, so this one result defines the competitive relationship.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER has an average benchmark score of 12,986, while the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 averages 11,228. The GTX 1660 SUPER ranks at the 53rd percentile among all GPUs, versus the 50th percentile for the WX 3200.

Q: How large is the performance gap in the shared OpenCL benchmark?

A: In Geekbench OpenCL, the GTX 1660 SUPER scores 52,490 compared to 11,228 for the WX 3200, a delta of 367.5% in favor of the NVIDIA card.

Q: What memory specifications differ between the two cards?

A: The GTX 1660 SUPER uses 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus with 336.0 GB/s bandwidth. The WX 3200 uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth. Memory clocks are 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) for NVIDIA and 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective) for AMD.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The GTX 1660 SUPER has 1,408 shading units, compared to 640 on the WX 3200. It also has 88 TMUs and 48 ROPs versus 32 TMUs and 16 ROPs on the AMD card.

Q: Do these GPUs support hardware ray tracing?

A: No. Neither the GTX 1660 SUPER nor the WX 3200 includes dedicated ray tracing cores or tensor cores in their specifications.

Q: What are the power connector requirements for each card?

A: The GTX 1660 SUPER requires a single 8-pin power connector and has a 125 W TDP with a suggested 300 W PSU. The WX 3200 has no power connectors, a 65 W TDP, and a suggested 250 W PSU.

Specification Differences

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

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

| Chip | TU116 | Polaris 23 |

| Architecture | Turing | GCN 4.0 |

| Process node | 12 nm | 14 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | GlobalFoundries |

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

| Die size | 284 mm² | 103 mm² |

| Transistor density | 23.2M / mm² | 21.4M / mm² |

| Base clock | 1530 MHz | Not specified |

| Boost clock | 1785 MHz | Not specified |

| Memory clock | 1750 MHz, 14 Gbps effective | 1500 MHz, 6 Gbps effective |

| Memory size | 6 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory type | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |

| Memory bus width | 192 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory bandwidth | 336.0 GB/s | 96.00 GB/s |

| Shading units | 1408 | 640 |

| TMUs | 88 | 32 |

| ROPs | 48 | 16 |

| Pixel rate | 85.68 GPixel/s | 20.72 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 157.1 GTexel/s | 41.44 GTexel/s |

| FP32 performance | 5.027 TFLOPS | 1.658 TFLOPS |

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

| TDP | 125 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 support | 12 (12_1) | 12 (12_0) |

| Vulkan support | 1.4 | 1.3 |

| Length | 229 mm (9 inches) | 167 mm (6.6 inches) |

| Height | 111 mm (4.4 inches) | 69 mm (2.7 inches) |

| Width | 35 mm (1.4 inches) | Not specified |

| Launch MSRP | 229 USD | 199 USD |

| Release date | 2019-10-28 | 2019-07-01 |

| Predecessor | GeForce 10 | Radeon Pro GCN |

| Successor | GeForce 20 | Radeon Pro Vega |