AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 has a higher average benchmark score of 11,228, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 averages 9,273. The WX 3200 sits at the 50th percentile of all GPUs, whereas the GTX 960 is at the 45th percentile.

Q: How much faster is the GTX 960 in the only shared benchmark?

A: In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the GTX 960 scores 18,925 versus 11,228 for the WX 3200, a difference of 40.7% in favor of NVIDIA.

Q: What are the memory capacities of these two cards?

A: The Radeon Pro WX 3200 has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory, while the GeForce GTX 960 has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory. Both use a 128-bit memory bus.

Q: Do these cards support the same DirectX version?

A: No. The GTX 960 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the WX 3200 supports DirectX 12 (12_0). The GTX 960 has a higher feature level.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The WX 3200 has a TDP of 65 W with no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The GTX 960 has a TDP of 120 W, requires one 6-pin connector, and a suggested PSU of 300 W.

Q: What is the release date difference between the two?

A: The GTX 960 was released on January 21, 2015, while the WX 3200 followed on July 1, 2019.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 is built on GCN 4.0 architecture, using the Polaris 23 chip fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The GTX 960 uses NVIDIA's Maxwell 2.0 architecture with the GM206 chip, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC.

The transistor counts and die sizes reflect the different design philosophies. AMD packs 2,200 million transistors into a 103 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 21.4 million per square millimeter. NVIDIA fits 2,940 million transistors onto a 228 mm² die, which is a lower density of 12.9 million per square millimeter. The smaller, denser AMD chip is more efficient in terms of area per transistor.

Clock behavior differs significantly. The GTX 960 has explicit base and boost clocks of 1127 MHz and 1178 MHz respectively. The WX 3200's base and boost clocks are not recorded in the database, but its memory runs at 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective) versus 1753 MHz (7 Gbps effective) on the GTX 960.

The WX 3200 implements GCN 4.0 with 640 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The GTX 960 has 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. This doubling of execution resources explains the large compute advantage for NVIDIA.

Feature support also diverges. The WX 3200 supports Vulkan 1.3, while the GTX 960 supports Vulkan 1.4. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The WX 3200 provides four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, whereas the GTX 960 offers one DVI, one HDMI 2.0, and three DisplayPort 1.2 outputs. The WX 3200 connects via PCIe 3.0 x8, while the GTX 960 uses PCIe 3.0 x16.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains a single head-to-head benchmark result between these two cards: Geekbench OpenCL. In that test, the GTX 960 achieves a score of 18,925, while the WX 3200 scores 11,228. The delta is 40.7%, meaning the GTX 960 outperforms the WX 3200 by that margin in this OpenCL workload.

This is a substantial lead. The GTX 960's raw compute resources, 1024 shading units against 640, plus a higher boost clock, translate directly into a large performance gap in OpenCL. The WX 3200's FP32 throughput is 1.658 TFLOPS, while the GTX 960 delivers 2.413 TFLOPS, a 45.5% difference that tracks closely with the observed benchmark delta.

The pixel and texture rates tell the same story. The GTX 960 has a pixel rate of 37.70 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 75.39 GTexel/s. The WX 3200 manages 20.72 GPixel/s and 41.44 GTexel/s respectively. In both metrics, NVIDIA holds a decisive edge.

It is notably the WX 3200 has a higher average benchmark score overall, but that is because the database includes different test suites for each card. The GTX 960's average is dragged down by results from 3DMark Steel Nomad (162), Geekbench Metal (8,773), and Geekbench Vulkan (9,231), all of which are lower than its OpenCL result. The WX 3200 has only one recorded benchmark, the OpenCL test, which happens to be its strongest area relative to other workloads.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two cards:

• Process Node: WX 3200 uses 14 nm, GTX 960 uses 28 nm
• Foundry: GlobalFoundries versus TSMC
• Transistors: 2,200 million versus 2,940 million
• Die Size: 103 mm² versus 228 mm²
• Transistor Density: 21.4M / mm² versus 12.9M / mm²
• Memory Clock: 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective) versus 1753 MHz (7 Gbps effective)
• Memory Size: 4 GB versus 2 GB
• Memory Bandwidth: 96.00 GB/s versus 112.2 GB/s
• Shading Units: 640 versus 1024
• TMUs: 32 versus 64
• ROPs: 16 versus 32
• Pixel Rate: 20.72 GPixel/s versus 37.70 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 41.44 GTexel/s versus 75.39 GTexel/s
• FP32: 1.658 TFLOPS versus 2.413 TFLOPS
• FP16: 1.658 TFLOPS (1:1) on WX 3200, not recorded on GTX 960
• TDP: 65 W versus 120 W
• Slot Width: Single-slot versus Dual-slot
• Power Connectors: None versus 1x 6-pin
• Suggested PSU: 250 W versus 300 W
• Bus Interface: PCIe 3.0 x8 versus PCIe 3.0 x16
• Display Outputs: 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a versus 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.2
• DirectX Version: 12 (12_0) versus 12 (12_1)
• Vulkan Version: 1.3 versus 1.4
• Dimensions: 167 mm (6.6 inches) length, 69 mm (2.7 inches) height versus 241 mm (9.5 inches) length
• Release Date: 2019-07-01 versus 2015-01-21

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 960 wins the only direct benchmark comparison. Its OpenCL score is 40.7% higher than the WX 3200, and its raw specifications support that result in every compute metric: more shading units, more TMUs, more ROPs, higher clocks, and higher memory bandwidth. For any workload that relies on raw rasterization or general compute, the GTX 960 is the clear choice.

The WX 3200 wins in areas related to efficiency and form factor. It consumes 65 W versus 120 W, requires no power connector, fits in a single slot, and is much shorter at 167 mm versus 241 mm. It also has double the memory capacity at 4 GB versus 2 GB, which can matter for certain professional workloads that need larger working sets. Its memory bandwidth is lower at 96.00 GB/s versus 112.2 GB/s, but the extra capacity may compensate in some scenarios.

The WX 3200 also offers more modern display connectivity with four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, supporting higher bandwidth per display than the GTX 960's DisplayPort 1.2 outputs. The GTX 960's display output set includes an HDMI 2.0 and a DVI, which may be more convenient for consumer setups.

In terms of release timing, the WX 3200 is from 2019, while the GTX 960 is from 2015. This means the AMD card benefits from a newer process node and architecture, even though its raw compute is lower. The GTX 960's predecessor is the GeForce 700 series, and its successor is the GeForce 10 series. The WX 3200's predecessor is Radeon Pro GCN and its successor is Radeon Pro Vega.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear performance winner: the GeForce GTX 960. Its OpenCL score is 40.7% higher, its FP32 throughput is 2.413 TFLOPS versus 1.658 TFLOPS, and it has double the shading units, TMUs, and ROPs. In any compute or rasterization benchmark, the GTX 960 comes out ahead.

The Radeon Pro WX 3200, however, is not without its own strengths. It offers 4 GB of memory versus 2 GB, a much lower power draw of 65 W against 120 W, a compact single-slot design, and no external power connector. These are meaningful advantages for systems where space and power are constrained. Its 14 nm process and newer release date also suggest better architectural efficiency per watt.

For a user choosing between these two, the decision hinges on workload. If the task is raw graphics performance, compute throughput, or gaming, the GTX 960 is the better pick. Its benchmark superiority is unambiguous, and its higher memory bandwidth of 112.2 GB/s supports that performance.

If the task involves professional applications that benefit from more memory capacity, or if the system requires a low-profile, low-power card that fits in tight spaces, the WX 3200 is the more practical choice. Its 4 GB frame buffer and 65 W TDP make it suitable for multi-display workstation setups where the GTX 960's dual-slot, 120 W design would be less convenient.

The percentile rankings reflect this split: the WX 3200 sits at the 50th percentile of all GPUs, while the GTX 960 sits at the 45th percentile. The WX 3200's higher percentile is due to its single strong OpenCL result, while the GTX 960's average is depressed by lower scores in other tests. In the only direct comparison, NVIDIA wins decisively.

Both cards are end-of-life, so availability is limited. The launch MSRP for both was 199 USD, but the GTX 960 has been on the market for four years longer, so its current pricing is likely lower in the secondary market. The WX 3200, being a professional card with a smaller form factor, may command a premium in some channels.