AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M Comparison

NVIDIA’s GeForce GTX 780M and AMD’s Radeon Pro WX 3200 occupy the same percentile tier (50th) of all GPUs, yet they achieve that standing through very different designs. The GTX 780M is a 2013-era mobile flagship built on a large 28 nm Kepler die, while the WX 3200 is a 2019 professional card on a compact 14 nm Polaris chip. Their average benchmark scores are nearly identical—the GTX 780M at 11261 and the WX 3200 at 11228—separated by a razor-thin 0.3%. This makes the comparison less about raw speed and more about where each card’s strengths lie.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Only one direct benchmark comparison exists in the data: Geekbench OpenCL. In that test, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M scores 12769, while the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 scores 11228. That gives the GTX 780M a 13.7% lead. This is the single head-to-head data point, and it is decisive in favor of NVIDIA. The margin is substantial—not a marginal edge but a clear advantage in raw compute throughput for this particular workload.

Looking at the broader benchmark picture, the GTX 780M has three recorded scores: 8319 in Geekbench Metal, 12769 in OpenCL, and 12696 in Vulkan. Its average across these is 11261. The WX 3200 has only one recorded score, 11228 in OpenCL, which is also its average. The delta between their averages is just 0.3% in favor of NVIDIA, but this masks the distribution. The GTX 780M’s Vulkan score of 12696 is 13.1% above the WX 3200’s OpenCL result, and its Metal score of 8319 is 25.9% below. So while the averages are close, the GTX 780M shows a wider performance envelope—strong in OpenCL and Vulkan, weaker in Metal.

The nearestRivals data reinforces the tight grouping. The GTX 780M’s closest rival is the WX 3200 at a 0.3% delta, followed by the AMD FirePro W4300 at 0.3% and the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q at 1.6%. For the WX 3200, its closest rival is the FirePro W4300 at 0% delta, then the GTX 780M at -0.3%, and the RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q at 1.3%. Both cards sit in a cluster where 1.6% separates the top from the bottom, meaning neither has a dominant position across all benchmarks.

The wins tally is straightforward: the GTX 780M wins the one head-to-head test (OpenCL), and the WX 3200 wins none. However, the WX 3200’s OpenCL score of 11228 is within 0.3% of the GTX 780M’s average, so the gap in practice may be workload-dependent. For compute-heavy tasks using OpenCL, the data clearly favors the older NVIDIA part.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different manufacturing nodes and design philosophies. The GTX 780M uses TSMC’s 28 nm process with a GK104 chip, part of the Kepler architecture. It packs 3,540 million transistors onto a 294 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.0M per mm². The WX 3200 uses GlobalFoundries’ 14 nm process with a Polaris 23 chip, part of the GCN 4.0 architecture. It has 2,200 million transistors on a 103 mm² die, giving a density of 21.4M per mm². The WX 3200 is more than twice as dense per area, reflecting its newer process.

Clock speeds differ notably. The GTX 780M has a base clock of 771 MHz and a boost clock of 797 MHz. The WX 3200’s base and boost clocks are not listed in the data. Memory clocks differ as well: the GTX 780M runs at 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective), while the WX 3200 runs at 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective). Despite the WX 3200’s faster memory clock, its memory subsystem is narrower.

Compute resources are heavily skewed toward the GTX 780M. It has 1536 shading units, 128 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 32 render output units (ROPs). The WX 3200 has 640 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs—less than half in every category. This explains the GTX 780M’s higher throughput figures: 2.448 TFLOPS FP32 versus 1.658 TFLOPS for the WX 3200, 102.0 GTexel/s versus 41.44 GTexel/s, and 25.50 GPixel/s versus 20.72 GPixel/s.

Memory configuration also differs. Both have 4 GB of GDDR5, but the GTX 780M uses a 256-bit bus for 160.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the WX 3200 uses a 128-bit bus for 96.00 GB/s. The GTX 780M has a 66.7% bandwidth advantage, which matters for texture-heavy and large-buffer workloads. The WX 3200 does have an edge in FP16—it lists 1.658 TFLOPS (1:1) while the GTX 780M lists no FP16 capability—but for most general compute, FP32 dominates.

Form factor and power are major differentiators. The GTX 780M is an MXM module with no power connectors, rated at 122 W TDP. The WX 3200 is a single-slot card measuring 167 mm (6.6 inches) in length and 69 mm (2.7 inches) in height, with no power connectors and a 65 W TDP. The WX 3200 draws less than half the power. The WX 3200 also lists a suggested PSU of 250 W, while the GTX 780M has none listed. The GTX 780M uses an MXM-B (3.0) interface; the WX 3200 uses PCIe 3.0 x8.

API support shows the newer card’s advantages. The WX 3200 supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3, while the GTX 780M supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. Both support OpenGL 4.6. Display outputs differ: the WX 3200 has 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a, while the GTX 780M’s outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent" since it’s a mobile module.

The Verdict

The data paints a clear picture: choose the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M for raw compute performance, especially in OpenCL and Vulkan workloads. Its 13.7% lead in the only head-to-head test, combined with a 2.448 TFLOPS FP32 rate versus 1.658 TFLOPS, makes it the stronger choice for compute-heavy tasks. Its 256-bit memory bus and 160.0 GB/s bandwidth also give it an edge in bandwidth-sensitive applications.

Choose the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 for efficiency and modern feature support. It draws 65 W versus 122 W, fits in a single slot, and offers newer API versions (DirectX 12_0, Vulkan 1.3) plus FP16 support. Its smaller die (103 mm² versus 294 mm²) and higher transistor density (21.4M/mm² versus 12.0M/mm²) indicate a more modern process. The WX 3200 also has a lower suggested PSU requirement of 250 W.

Neither card dominates. The GTX 780M wins the only direct benchmark, but the WX 3200 matches its average score within 0.3%. For a system where power and space are constrained, the WX 3200 is the sensible pick. For maximum compute throughput in OpenCL, the GTX 780M is superior. The 2013 release date versus 2019 does matter for API support, but not for raw FP32.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M has an average benchmark score of 11261, compared to the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200’s 11228. The difference is 0.3% in favor of NVIDIA.

Q: How do the two cards compare in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The GTX 780M scores 12769, while the WX 3200 scores 11228. The GTX 780M wins by 13.7%.

Q: What are the FP32 computing capabilities of each card?

A: The GTX 780M delivers 2.448 TFLOPS FP32, while the WX 3200 delivers 1.658 TFLOPS FP32. The GTX 780M is 47.6% higher in this metric.

Q: Do both cards support the same DirectX version?

A: No. The WX 3200 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the GTX 780M supports DirectX 12 (11_0). The WX 3200 also supports Vulkan 1.3 versus Vulkan 1.2.175 on the GTX 780M.

Q: Which card has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The GTX 780M has 160.0 GB/s bandwidth via a 256-bit bus, while the WX 3200 has 96.00 GB/s via a 128-bit bus. The GTX 780M leads by 66.7%.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two?

A: The GTX 780M has a TDP of 122 W, while the WX 3200 has a TDP of 65 W. The WX 3200 draws 46.7% less power.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 780M wins in raw compute: it has more shading units (1536 versus 640), more TMUs (128 versus 32), more ROPs (32 versus 16), higher FP32 (2.448 versus 1.658 TFLOPS), higher texture rate (102.0 versus 41.44 GTexel/s), and higher pixel rate (25.50 versus 20.72 GPixel/s). It also wins in memory bandwidth (160.0 versus 96.00 GB/s) and has a wider bus (256-bit versus 128-bit). In the only head-to-head benchmark, it wins OpenCL by 13.7%.

The WX 3200 wins in efficiency and modern features: it has a lower TDP (65 W versus 122 W), a smaller physical footprint (single-slot versus MXM module), a newer process (14 nm versus 28 nm), higher transistor density (21.4M/mm² versus 12.0M/mm²), and newer API support (DirectX 12_0 versus 11_0, Vulkan 1.3 versus 1.2.175). It also has FP16 support at 1.658 TFLOPS, which the GTX 780M lacks, and a lower suggested PSU (250 W versus none listed). Its display outputs (4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a) are explicitly defined, whereas the GTX 780M’s are device-dependent.

For workloads that stress compute and bandwidth, the GTX 780M is the clear winner. For workloads that need modern API features, low power draw, or a compact card, the WX 3200 is preferable.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M | AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 |

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

| Architecture | Kepler | GCN 4.0 |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 14 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | GlobalFoundries |

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

| Die Size | 294 mm² | 103 mm² |

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

| Base Clock | 771 MHz | Not listed |

| Boost Clock | 797 MHz | Not listed |

| Memory Clock | 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective) | 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 160.0 GB/s | 96.00 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1536 | 640 |

| TMUs | 128 | 32 |

| ROPs | 32 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 25.50 GPixel/s | 20.72 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 102.0 GTexel/s | 41.44 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 2.448 TFLOPS | 1.658 TFLOPS |

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

| TDP | 122 W | 65 W |

| Slot Width | MXM Module | Single-slot |

| Suggested PSU | Not listed | 250 W |

| Bus Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 3.0 x8 |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a |

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

| Vulkan | 1.2.175 | 1.3 |

| Dimensions | Not listed | 167 mm length, 69 mm height |

| Release Date | 2013-05-10 | 2019-07-01 |

| Launch MSRP | Not listed | 199 USD |