AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A Comparison

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 is the decisive winner in this comparison, taking the sole benchmark in the data with a 9.3% lead over the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A. The WX 3200 delivers a Geekbench OpenCL score of 11228 against the GTX 950A’s 10273, placing it at the 50th percentile of all GPUs, while the GTX 950A sits at the 48th percentile. This is not a narrow margin; it is a clear performance gap that defines the entire matchup, though the GTX 950A holds a few structural advantages that matter in specific deployment scenarios.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 wins the only benchmark contest recorded, the Geekbench OpenCL test, with a score of 11228 versus 10273. That 9.3% delta is the single largest statistical separation between the two cards. The WX 3200’s lead is further contextualized by its nearest rivals: it edges out the AMD FirePro W4300 by a negligible 0% (11228 vs 11225) and actually beats the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q by 1.3% (11228 vs 11088). This suggests the WX 3200 is operating in a performance tier where its compute output is competitive with far more modern professional hardware, at least in OpenCL workloads.

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A, by contrast, wins no benchmark categories in this dataset. Its lone score of 10273 puts it behind not only the WX 3200 but also behind several of its own nearest rivals: the AMD Radeon RX 6500M scores 10362 (0.9% ahead), the NVIDIA Tesla C2075 scores 10400 (1.2% ahead), and the AMD Radeon RX 550X scores 10481 (2% ahead). The GTX 950A does beat the AMD Radeon R9 M375 by 2% (10273 vs 10070), but that is its only positive comparison among listed rivals. Where the GTX 950A wins is not in raw compute but in its physical and functional profile: it is a 75W MXM module with no external power connectors, making it a fit for portable or modular systems, whereas the WX 3200 is a 65W single-slot PCIe card with four mini-DisplayPort outputs.

The Verdict

The data directs a straightforward conclusion: the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 is the superior performer and should be selected by anyone prioritizing compute throughput. Its 11228 OpenCL score is 9.3% higher than the GTX 950A’s 10273, and it reaches the 50th percentile of all GPUs versus the GTX 950A’s 48th. For users running OpenCL-based workloads, the WX 3200 is the unequivocal choice. It also carries a professional Radeon Pro pedigree, with GCN 4.0 architecture and 4GB of GDDR5 memory, which positions it for workstation tasks rather than gaming.

The GTX 950A is not without a rationale, but that rationale is not performance. Its 993 MHz base clock and 1124 MHz boost clock are the only clock speeds listed in this comparison, and its 2GB of DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus yields 32.03 GB/s bandwidth—a fraction of the WX 3200’s 96.00 GB/s. The GTX 950A’s advantage lies in form factor and integration: it is an MXM-B (3.0) module, designed for laptops or compact systems, with portable-device-dependent display outputs. If the target system requires an MXM module, the GTX 950A is the only viable option here. Otherwise, the WX 3200 wins on every measurable metric, including a 65W TDP that is lower than the GTX 950A’s 75W.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The sole head-to-head benchmark is Geekbench OpenCL, where the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 scores 11228 against the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A’s 10273, a 9.3% delta in favor of AMD. That percentage is substantial enough to represent a real-world difference in compute-heavy tasks. To put it in perspective, the WX 3200’s score is within 0.3% of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M (11261) and exactly matches the AMD FirePro W4300 (11225), meaning it competes with older high-end mobile GPUs and professional workstation cards. The GTX 950A, on the other hand, trails the AMD Radeon RX 550X by 2% (10481) and the NVIDIA Tesla C2075 by 1.2% (10400), indicating it sits below even entry-level discrete GPUs from its own era.

The texture and pixel rates tell a story of trade-offs. The GTX 950A has a higher texture rate at 44.96 GTexel/s versus the WX 3200’s 41.44 GTexel/s, and it has more texture mapping units (40 vs 32). However, the WX 3200 counters with a higher pixel rate at 20.72 GPixel/s versus 17.98 GPixel/s, despite both having 16 ROPs. The WX 3200 also delivers 1.658 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the GTX 950A provides 1,438.7 GFLOPS (approximately 1.44 TFLOPS). The WX 3200 even supports FP16 at a 1:1 ratio (1.658 TFLOPS), a feature the GTX 950A lacks entirely, with no FP16 data listed. These architectural numbers align with the benchmark result: the WX 3200 is built for throughput, the GTX 950A for bandwidth-constrained texture work.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 scores 11228, which is 9.3% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A’s 10273.

Q: How does the memory bandwidth compare between the two cards?

A: The WX 3200 offers 96.00 GB/s from 4GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, while the GTX 950A offers 32.03 GB/s from 2GB of DDR3 on the same 128-bit bus.

Q: What is the percentile ranking of each GPU relative to all GPUs?

A: The WX 3200 is at the 50th percentile, while the GTX 950A is at the 48th percentile.

Q: Are both GPUs still in production?

A: No, both are listed as end-of-life products.

Q: Which GPU has a higher FP32 compute throughput?

A: The WX 3200 delivers 1.658 TFLOPS, while the GTX 950A delivers 1,438.7 GFLOPS; the WX 3200 is ahead in this metric.

Q: Does the GTX 950A support FP16 compute?

A: No, the GTX 950A has no FP16 data listed, whereas the WX 3200 supports FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 is built on the Polaris 23 chip using GCN 4.0 architecture, fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It packs 2,200 million transistors into a 103 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 21.4 million per square millimeter. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A uses the GM107 chip with Maxwell architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It contains 1,870 million transistors on a larger 148 mm² die, resulting in a lower density of 12.6 million per square millimeter. The WX 3200 belongs to the Radeon Pro Polaris generation (WX x200), while the GTX 950A belongs to the GeForce 900A generation.

Both GPUs have 640 shading units, but they diverge elsewhere. The WX 3200 has 32 TMUs and 16 ROPs, while the GTX 950A has 40 TMUs and 16 ROPs. The WX 3200 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3; the GTX 950A supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The WX 3200’s Vulkan support is older, but its DirectX feature level is higher. The WX 3200 also specifies FP16 compute at 1.658 TFLOPS (1:1), while the GTX 950A has no FP16 specification, indicating a lack of dedicated half-precision throughput.

Specification Differences

The process node differs significantly: the WX 3200 uses 14 nm, while the GTX 950A uses 28 nm. Transistor counts are 2,200 million versus 1,870 million, and die sizes are 103 mm² versus 148 mm². The WX 3200 has no listed base or boost clock, while the GTX 950A has a 993 MHz base and 1124 MHz boost. Memory configurations diverge sharply: the WX 3200 has 4GB of GDDR5 at 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective), and the GTX 950A has 2GB of DDR3 at 1001 MHz (2 Gbps effective). Memory bandwidth is 96.00 GB/s for the WX 3200 versus 32.03 GB/s for the GTX 950A.

The WX 3200’s TDP is 65 W, and it is a single-slot card with no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The GTX 950A has a 75 W TDP and is an MXM Module with no power connectors and no suggested PSU. The WX 3200 uses a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface and has four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, while the GTX 950A uses an MXM-B (3.0) interface with portable-device-dependent outputs. The WX 3200 measures 167 mm in length and 69 mm in height, while the GTX 950A has no listed dimensions. The WX 3200 was released on 2019-07-01 with a launch MSRP of 199 USD, while the GTX 950A was released on 2015-03-12 with no launch MSRP. The WX 3200’s predecessor is Radeon Pro GCN and its successor is Radeon Pro Vega; the GTX 950A’s predecessor is GeForce 800A and it has no listed successor.