AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits these two cards into very different use cases. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760 takes the single recorded head-to-head victory, but that win is narrow and tells only part of the story.

The GTX 760 wins in Geekbench OpenCL with a score of 11,299 against the WX 3200's 11,228, a margin of just 0.6%. That is effectively a statistical tie in raw compute throughput. OpenCL performance here does not separate them in any meaningful way for real-world workloads.

Where the cards diverge is in API coverage and software ecosystem. The WX 3200 supports Vulkan 1.3 and DirectX 12 (12_0), while the GTX 760 is limited to Vulkan 1.2.175 and DirectX 12 (11_0). For modern applications that lean on newer graphics APIs, the AMD card is the one that will not hit a compatibility wall.

The GTX 760 also has a Geekbench Metal score of 4,524, which the WX 3200 does not record. If the workload is macOS or Metal-centric, the NVIDIA card has measurable results where the AMD card has none in the database. The GTX 760 additionally shows a Vulkan score of 12,551, a figure that sits well above its OpenCL result, indicating stronger performance under that API for this particular chip.

The WX 3200's average benchmark score is 11,228, placing it at the 50th percentile of all GPUs in the database. The GTX 760's average is 9,458, which lands at the 46th percentile. The OpenCL numbers are close, but the GTX 760's Metal and Vulkan results drag its average down because those scores are lower, particularly Metal at 4,524.

For compute-heavy tasks that use OpenCL, neither card has a decisive edge. For Vulkan-based workloads, the GTX 760's recorded 12,551 score indicates a clear advantage. For older DirectX 11 titles, the GTX 760's architecture was built for that era. For modern API support and driver longevity on current operating systems, the WX 3200's newer feature set is the safer bet.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different manufacturing generations and design philosophies. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 uses the Polaris 23 chip on GCN 4.0 architecture, built on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760 uses the GK104 chip on Kepler architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC.

Transistor counts tell a curious story. The GTX 760 packs 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, while the WX 3200 has only 2,200 million on a 103 mm² die. The AMD card achieves a transistor density of 21.4 million per mm² versus 12.0 million per mm² for NVIDIA. The smaller, denser Polaris chip is a product of its newer process node.

The GTX 760 has substantially more execution resources. It carries 1,152 shading units, 96 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The WX 3200 has 640 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Those raw hardware counts favor NVIDIA in fill-rate and texture-heavy work. The GTX 760's texture rate of 99.07 GTexel/s versus 41.44 GTexel/s for the AMD card confirms this, as does pixel rate of 24.77 GPixel/s versus 20.72 GPixel/s.

Memory configurations differ in capacity and bandwidth. The WX 3200 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth. The GTX 760 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 192.3 GB/s. The NVIDIA card has double the bus width and roughly double the bandwidth. The AMD card has double the capacity, which matters for modern workloads that exceed 2 GB of video memory.

Clock behavior also differs. The GTX 760 has a base clock of 980 MHz and boost of 1032 MHz. The WX 3200 has no base or boost clock listed in the database, only a memory clock of 1500 MHz with 6 Gbps effective. FP32 compute output favors NVIDIA at 2.378 TFLOPS versus 1.658 TFLOPS. The WX 3200 offers FP16 at 1.658 TFLOPS (1:1), while the GTX 760 has no FP16 result recorded.

Power and physical design separate them further. The WX 3200 is a single-slot card with no power connectors and a 65 W TDP, suggesting a 250 W power supply. The GTX 760 is dual-slot, requires two 6-pin connectors, has a 170 W TDP, and suggests a 450 W power supply. The AMD card is 167 mm long, the NVIDIA card 241 mm. The WX 3200 uses PCIe 3.0 x8, the GTX 760 uses PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs are also distinct: the AMD card has four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, while the NVIDIA card has two DVI, one HDMI 1.4a, and one DisplayPort 1.2.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records a single head-to-head benchmark between these two cards: Geekbench OpenCL. The GTX 760 scores 11,299, the WX 3200 scores 11,228. The delta is -0.6% for the AMD card, meaning NVIDIA wins by six-tenths of a percent.

That margin is within normal run-to-run variance for benchmark testing. A 0.6% difference on a score near 11,300 is roughly 70 points, which is not a meaningful performance gap. In practical terms, these cards deliver equivalent OpenCL compute performance.

The wider benchmark set shows more separation. The GTX 760's Vulkan score of 12,551 is 11.1% above its own OpenCL score, suggesting Vulkan is a stronger API for this hardware. The WX 3200 has no Vulkan result recorded, so direct comparison is not possible from the database.

The GTX 760's Metal score of 4,524 is dramatically lower than its OpenCL result. That indicates the card is far weaker under Metal than under OpenCL, which is relevant for any macOS or Metal-based workflow. The WX 3200 has no Metal score, but its GCN architecture with newer API support would likely behave differently.

Average scores in the database place the WX 3200 at 11,228 and the GTX 760 at 9,458. The difference comes entirely from the GTX 760's Metal and Vulkan results being averaged in. The OpenCL scores are nearly identical, but the full picture shows the GTX 760 as a card with uneven API performance, while the WX 3200's single recorded score suggests more consistency.

FAQ

Q: Which card has better raw compute performance in OpenCL?

A: The GTX 760 scores 11,299 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 11,228 for the WX 3200, a 0.6% advantage. This is effectively a tie.

Q: Does the WX 3200 support newer graphics APIs?

A: Yes. The WX 3200 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The GTX 760 supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175.

Q: Which card has more video memory?

A: The WX 3200 has 4 GB of GDDR5, while the GTX 760 has 2 GB of GDDR5. The GTX 760 has higher bandwidth at 192.3 GB/s versus 96.00 GB/s.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The WX 3200 has a 65 W TDP, no power connectors, and suggests a 250 W power supply. The GTX 760 has a 170 W TDP, requires two 6-pin connectors, and suggests a 450 W power supply.

Q: Which card is better for Vulkan workloads?

A: The GTX 760 has a recorded Vulkan score of 12,551. The WX 3200 has no Vulkan benchmark result in the database, though it supports Vulkan 1.3 versus 1.2.175 for the NVIDIA card.

Q: How do the cards compare in physical size?

A: The WX 3200 is 167 mm long and single-slot. The GTX 760 is 241 mm long and dual-slot.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760 |

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

| Architecture | GCN 4.0 | Kepler |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 28 nm |

| Foundry | GlobalFoundries | TSMC |

| Transistors | 2,200 million | 3,540 million |

| Die Size | 103 mm² | 294 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 21.4M / mm² | 12.0M / mm² |

| Base Clock | Not listed | 980 MHz |

| Boost Clock | Not listed | 1032 MHz |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 2 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 96.00 GB/s | 192.3 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 640 | 1152 |

| TMUs | 32 | 96 |

| ROPs | 16 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 20.72 GPixel/s | 24.77 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 41.44 GTexel/s | 99.07 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 1.658 TFLOPS | 2.378 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 1.658 TFLOPS (1:1) | Not listed |

| TDP | 65 W | 170 W |

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

| Power Connectors | None | 2x 6-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | 450 W |

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

| Display Outputs | 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 1x DisplayPort 1.2 |

| DirectX Support | 12 (12_0) | 12 (11_0) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.3 | 1.2.175 |

| Length | 167 mm | 241 mm |

| Launch MSRP | 199 USD | 249 USD |

The Verdict

Choose the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 if you need modern API support, lower power consumption, or more video memory. Its Vulkan 1.3 and DirectX 12 (12_0) support make it the better fit for current software environments. The 4 GB frame buffer doubles the GTX 760's capacity, which matters for texture-heavy workloads or running multiple displays. The 65 W TDP with no power connectors means it drops into nearly any system, including small form-factor builds, and the single-slot 167 mm design fits where the GTX 760 will not.

Choose the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760 if you prioritize raw throughput in legacy APIs or need Metal support. Its OpenCL score of 11,299 edges out the WX 3200, and its Vulkan score of 12,551 is the highest recorded result between the two. The 2.378 TFLOPS FP32 output and 99.07 GTexel/s texture rate give it a real performance advantage in older DirectX 11-era games and compute tasks that scale with shading units. The 256-bit memory bus and 192.3 GB/s bandwidth also favor it for bandwidth-sensitive workloads.

The database shows the GTX 760 wins the only direct head-to-head benchmark, but the margin is negligible. The deciding factors are not raw score differences. They are architectural fit and system constraints. The WX 3200 is the modern, efficient, API-complete option. The GTX 760 is the older, hungrier, but more powerful-in-parts option. For a new build or professional workstation use, the WX 3200's feature set and lower demands make it the practical choice. For a retro gaming rig or any workload that specifically needs Metal or maximum Vulkan throughput, the GTX 760 has the recorded numbers to justify its selection.