AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A Comparison

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available between these two GPUs is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the data shows a clear, though modest, victory for the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A. The NVIDIA card scores 11998 points, while the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 scores 11228 points. This translates to a 6.9% performance advantage for the GTX 960A, a meaningful gap in compute workloads but not a dominant one.

Contextualizing the GTX 960A's score against its nearest rivals reveals an interesting positioning. The data shows the GTX 960A sits within 0.3% of the GeForce GTX 1080 (11960 points), a much higher-tier card, and is 1.3% ahead of the Radeon RX 6500 XT (11842 points). It also outperforms the GeForce GTX 1660 by 2.7% (11680 points) and the Radeon RX 7800 XT by 3.2% (11627 points). This clustering suggests the GTX 960A, despite its age and MXM form factor, delivers compute performance that rivals far more modern and power-hungry desktop cards.

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200, meanwhile, is essentially tied with the AMD FirePro W4300 (11225 points, 0% delta) and trails the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M by a negligible 0.3% (11261 points). It does manage to edge out both the RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q and RTX PRO 6000D Blackwell Max-Q by 1.3% (both at 11088 points), which is a notable result for a professional workstation card facing off against modern enterprise silicon. However, the overall picture is that the WX 3200's 11228-point score places it in a lower performance tier than the GTX 960A's 11998-point result.

In terms of percentile rankings, the GTX 960A sits at the 51st percentile of all GPUs, while the WX 3200 sits at the 50th percentile. This one-percentage-point difference reinforces the narrow but real performance gap seen in the direct head-to-head benchmark. The win count is equally decisive: the GTX 960A claims 1 win in the head-to-head comparison, while the WX 3200 has 0 wins.

# Where Each One Wins

The data points to distinct use cases where each card holds an advantage. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A wins the sole benchmark in this comparison, the Geekbench OpenCL test, with a 6.9% higher score. This indicates that for general-purpose compute tasks that leverage OpenCL — such as video encoding, physics simulations, or data processing — the GTX 960A is the more capable performer. Its 51st percentile ranking, slightly above the WX 3200's 50th, further supports its edge in raw computational throughput.

However, the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 has strengths that are not captured by the benchmark score alone. As a professional workstation card, its feature set and specifications suggest advantages beyond raw compute. The WX 3200 offers 4 GB of GDDR5 memory, double the GTX 960A's 2 GB, which is critical for large datasets, complex 3D scenes, or multi-monitor professional workflows where memory capacity is a bottleneck. Its memory bandwidth of 96.00 GB/s also exceeds the GTX 960A's 80.19 GB/s, providing a 19.7% advantage in bandwidth that can benefit memory-intensive tasks.

The WX 3200 also comes with 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, enabling multi-display professional setups, whereas the GTX 960A's display outputs are described as "Portable Device Dependent" — a limitation for fixed workstation configurations. The AMD card's single-slot design and 167 mm length make it a more conventional fit for desktop workstations, while the GTX 960A's MXM Module form factor targets laptops or specialized portable systems.

For users prioritizing compute performance in a portable or embedded form factor, the GTX 960A wins. For those needing more memory, higher bandwidth, professional display outputs, and a standard PCIe slot, the WX 3200 is the more practical choice despite its lower benchmark score.

# Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures from different eras. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A uses the GM107 chip based on the Maxwell architecture, fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process node. It packs 1,870 million transistors into a 148 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.6 million transistors per square millimeter. In contrast, the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 uses the Polaris 23 chip based on GCN 4.0 architecture, built by GlobalFoundries on a more advanced 14 nm process. It contains 2,200 million transistors on a smaller 103 mm² die, achieving a significantly higher transistor density of 21.4 million transistors per square millimeter.

Core configuration reveals both similarities and differences. Both GPUs feature 640 shading units and 16 ROPs, but the GTX 960A has 40 texture mapping units (TMUs) compared to the WX 3200's 32 TMUs. This gives the NVIDIA card a texture rate of 47.04 GTexel/s versus 41.44 GTexel/s for the AMD card, a 13.5% advantage in texture processing. Conversely, the WX 3200 achieves a higher pixel rate of 20.72 GPixel/s compared to the GTX 960A's 18.82 GPixel/s, a 10.1% advantage in pixel fill.

Clock speeds differ notably in their specification. The GTX 960A has documented base and boost clocks of 1097 MHz and 1176 MHz, respectively, while the WX 3200's base and boost clocks are not listed in the data. Memory clocks also differ: the GTX 960A runs at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective), while the WX 3200 runs at 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective). This higher memory clock, combined with the identical 128-bit bus width, explains the WX 3200's superior memory bandwidth.

Floating-point performance is close: the GTX 960A delivers 1.505 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the WX 3200 delivers 1.658 TFLOPS — a 10.2% advantage for the AMD card. Notably, the WX 3200 also supports FP16 at a 1:1 ratio (1.658 TFLOPS), whereas the GTX 960A has no listed FP16 capability, giving the AMD card a distinct advantage in half-precision workloads common in AI inference.

API support also differs. The GTX 960A supports DirectX 12 (11_0), while the WX 3200 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), meaning the AMD card has fuller DirectX 12 feature support. Both support OpenGL 4.6, but Vulkan support differs: the GTX 960A lists Vulkan 1.4, while the WX 3200 lists Vulkan 1.3. Power consumption favors the AMD card at 65 W TDP versus 75 W for the NVIDIA card, despite the WX 3200's higher compute throughput.

# The Verdict

Based strictly on the benchmark data, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A is the faster GPU. It wins the only direct comparison with a 6.9% higher OpenCL score (11998 vs 11228) and holds a 51st percentile ranking versus the WX 3200's 50th. Users who need maximum compute performance for OpenCL-accelerated applications should choose the GTX 960A, provided they can accommodate its MXM Module form factor and portable-device-dependent display outputs.

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200, however, offers compelling advantages that the benchmark does not capture. Its 4 GB of memory (double the GTX 960A's 2 GB), higher memory bandwidth (96.00 GB/s vs 80.19 GB/s), and higher FP32 throughput (1.658 TFLOPS vs 1.505 TFLOPS) make it a stronger choice for memory-intensive or floating-point-heavy workloads. Its 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs and single-slot, 167 mm length make it a practical workstation card, while the GTX 960A's display outputs are dependent on the portable device it ships in.

The WX 3200 also offers superior power efficiency: 65 W TDP versus 75 W, achieving its higher FP32 performance at lower power draw. It also supports FP16 at 1:1 ratio, a feature entirely absent from the GTX 960A. For DirectX 12, the WX 3200's support of version 12_0 exceeds the GTX 960A's 11_0, making it more future-proof for newer games and applications.

The choice comes down to the use case. For raw OpenCL compute performance in a portable form factor, the GTX 960A is the data-backed winner. For professional workstation tasks requiring more memory, more display outputs, lower power consumption, or FP16 support, the WX 3200 is the more capable card despite its benchmark deficit. The data shows no universal winner — only different strengths for different needs.

# FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A scores 11998 points, which is 6.9% higher than the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200's 11228 points.

Q: How does the GTX 960A compare to the GTX 1080 in benchmarks?

A: The GTX 960A scores 11998, which is only 0.3% higher than the GTX 1080's average score of 11960, placing the two essentially on par in this benchmark.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 have more memory than the GTX 960A?

A: Yes, the WX 3200 has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory, double the GTX 960A's 2 GB. It also has higher memory bandwidth at 96.00 GB/s versus 80.19 GB/s.

Q: What are the FP32 performance figures for each card?

A: The GTX 960A delivers 1.505 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the WX 3200 delivers 1.658 TFLOPS, giving the AMD card a 10.2% advantage in single-precision floating-point performance.

Q: Which GPU supports FP16 compute, and at what rate?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 supports FP16 at a 1:1 ratio, delivering 1.658 TFLOPS. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A has no listed FP16 capability.

Q: What is the power draw difference between the two cards?

A: The WX 3200 has a TDP of 65 W, while the GTX 960A has a TDP of 75 W, making the AMD card lower-power despite its higher FP32 throughput.

# Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A | AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 |

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

| Architecture | Maxwell | GCN 4.0 |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 14 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | GlobalFoundries |

| Transistors | 1,870 million | 2,200 million |

| Die Size | 148 mm² | 103 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.6M / mm² | 21.4M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1097 MHz | Not listed |

| Boost Clock | 1176 MHz | Not listed |

| Memory Clock | 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) | 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bandwidth | 80.19 GB/s | 96.00 GB/s |

| TMUs | 40 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 18.82 GPixel/s | 20.72 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 47.04 GTexel/s | 41.44 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 1.505 TFLOPS | 1.658 TFLOPS |

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

| TDP | 75 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 Support | 12 (11_0) | 12 (12_0) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.4 | 1.3 |

| Dimensions | Not listed | 167 mm (6.6 inches) length, 69 mm (2.7 inches) height |

| Release Date | 2015-03-12 | 2019-07-01 |

| Successor | Not listed | Radeon Pro Vega |

| Launch MSRP | Not listed | 199 USD |

| Average Benchmark Score | 11998 | 11228 |

| Percentile vs All GPUs | 51 | 50 |