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

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains one direct head-to-head comparison between these two GPUs: a Geekbench OpenCL run. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 scores 11228, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M scores 11045. That gives AMD a 1.7% advantage in this single test. The delta is modest, but it is a win nonetheless, and it places the WX 3200 ahead of its mobile rival in raw compute throughput as measured by OpenCL.

Looking at the broader benchmark landscape, the WX 3200 holds a 50th percentile position among all GPUs tracked in the database. Its nearest rivals in that ranking include the AMD FirePro W4300 at an average score of 11225 (a 0% delta), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M at 11261 (a -0.3% delta, meaning the 780M is fractionally ahead), and the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q at 11088 (a 1.3% delta in favor of the WX 3200). These numbers show that the WX 3200 sits in a tight cluster of workstation and mobile GPUs, where a few percent either way separates competitors.

The GTX 960M, by contrast, has a lower average benchmark score of 9645, pulled down by its second recorded test: a Geekbench Vulkan score of 8245. When averaging both its OpenCL and Vulkan results, the GTX 960M lands at the 46th percentile. Its nearest rivals in the database include the NVIDIA Quadro K5000 at 9637 (a 0.1% delta), the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 at 9653 (a -0.1% delta), the NVIDIA Quadro P4000 at 9665 (a -0.2% delta), and the NVIDIA Tesla C2070 at 9716 (a -0.7% delta). The GTX 960M is essentially tied with these cards, within measurement noise.

What the data implies is that the WX 3200, despite being a workstation-oriented card, outperforms the gaming-oriented GTX 960M in the one benchmark where they are directly compared. The 1.7% OpenCL margin is not large, but it is consistent. The WX 3200 also has a higher average score (11228 versus 9645) because the GTX 960M's Vulkan result drags its average down substantially. If the comparison were limited to OpenCL only, the gap would be just 1.7%; across all recorded tests, the WX 3200 leads by roughly 16.4% in average score.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and design philosophies. 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 NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M uses the Maxwell architecture with the GM107 chip, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The process node difference is significant: 14 nm versus 28 nm, which directly impacts transistor density. The AMD chip packs 2,200 million transistors into a 103 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 21.4 million transistors per square millimeter. The NVIDIA chip contains 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die, for a density of 12.6 million per square millimeter. The AMD chip is smaller in physical area yet holds more transistors, a direct consequence of the newer manufacturing process.

Both GPUs have 640 shading units and 16 ROPs. The similarity ends there. The AMD card has 32 texture mapping units, while the NVIDIA card has 40. This gives the GTX 960M a higher texture rate: 47.04 GTexel/s versus 41.44 GTexel/s for the WX 3200. However, the WX 3200 has a higher pixel rate at 20.72 GPixel/s compared to 18.82 GPixel/s for the GTX 960M. In raw FP32 compute, the WX 3200 outputs 1.658 TFLOPS, while the GTX 960M outputs 1.505 TFLOPS. The AMD card also supports FP16 at a 1:1 ratio (1.658 TFLOPS), whereas the GTX 960M has no recorded FP16 capability.

Memory configurations are similar in capacity and bus width: both have 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus. The difference is in speed. The WX 3200 runs its memory at 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective), yielding a bandwidth of 96.00 GB/s. The GTX 960M runs at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective), for a bandwidth of 80.19 GB/s. The AMD card has a 16 GB/s bandwidth advantage, which can matter in memory-bound workloads.

API support differs as well. The WX 3200 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The GTX 960M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Vulkan version is newer on the NVIDIA side, but the DirectX feature level is lower (11_0 versus 12_0). The power envelope also differs: the WX 3200 has a 65 W TDP, while the GTX 960M has a 75 W TDP, despite the AMD card delivering more compute throughput.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 wins the only direct head-to-head test in the database: Geekbench OpenCL, by 1.7%. Its higher FP32 throughput (1.658 TFLOPS versus 1.505 TFLOPS) and higher memory bandwidth (96.00 GB/s versus 80.19 GB/s) support this result. The WX 3200 also has a higher pixel rate, a 14 nm process, and support for FP16 at a 1:1 ratio, which can be leveraged in compute workloads that use half-precision arithmetic. Its average benchmark score of 11228 is well above the GTX 960M's 9645, though that gap is inflated by the NVIDIA card's weaker Vulkan result.

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M does have advantages in specific areas. Its texture rate is higher (47.04 GTexel/s versus 41.44 GTexel/s), which means it may handle texture-heavy workloads more efficiently. It also supports Vulkan 1.4, a newer API version than the WX 3200's Vulkan 1.3. In the Geekbench Vulkan test, the GTX 960M scores 8245, a figure that is not directly comparable to the WX 3200 because no Vulkan score is recorded for the AMD card. The GTX 960M also has a higher boost clock (1176 MHz versus no recorded boost clock for the WX 3200), which may help in short bursts of activity.

For use cases, the data suggests the WX 3200 is better suited for OpenCL-based compute tasks, where its higher FP32 and memory bandwidth give it an edge. The GTX 960M, with its higher texture rate and newer Vulkan support, may be preferable in scenarios that rely on texturing throughput or Vulkan-specific features. However, the GTX 960M's lower average score and older process node indicate it is the less capable overall part in the database's measurements.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two GPUs, based solely on the recorded data:

• Process node: AMD uses 14 nm (GlobalFoundries); NVIDIA uses 28 nm (TSMC).
• Transistors: AMD has 2,200 million; NVIDIA has 1,870 million.
• Die size: AMD is 103 mm²; NVIDIA is 148 mm².
• Transistor density: AMD is 21.4M per mm²; NVIDIA is 12.6M per mm².
• Base clock: NVIDIA has 1097 MHz; AMD has no recorded base clock.
• Boost clock: NVIDIA has 1176 MHz; AMD has no recorded boost clock.
• Memory clock: AMD is 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective); NVIDIA is 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective).
• Memory bandwidth: AMD is 96.00 GB/s; NVIDIA is 80.19 GB/s.
• Texture mapping units: AMD has 32; NVIDIA has 40.
• Pixel rate: AMD is 20.72 GPixel/s; NVIDIA is 18.82 GPixel/s.
• Texture rate: AMD is 41.44 GTexel/s; NVIDIA is 47.04 GTexel/s.
• FP32: AMD is 1.658 TFLOPS; NVIDIA is 1.505 TFLOPS.
• FP16: AMD is 1.658 TFLOPS (1:1); NVIDIA has no recorded FP16.
• TDP: AMD is 65 W; NVIDIA is 75 W.
• Slot width: AMD is single-slot; NVIDIA is MXM module.
• Bus interface: AMD is PCIe 3.0 x8; NVIDIA is MXM-B (3.0).
• Display outputs: AMD has 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a; NVIDIA is portable device dependent.
• DirectX support: AMD is 12 (12_0); NVIDIA is 12 (11_0).
• Vulkan support: AMD is 1.3; NVIDIA is 1.4.
• Dimensions: AMD is 167 mm (6.6 inches) long and 69 mm (2.7 inches) high; NVIDIA has no recorded dimensions.
• Suggested PSU: AMD is 250 W; NVIDIA has no recorded value.
• Release date: AMD is 2019-07-01; NVIDIA is 2015-03-12.
• Predecessor: AMD is Radeon Pro GCN; NVIDIA is GeForce 800M.
• Successor: AMD is Radeon Pro Vega; NVIDIA is GeForce 10 Mobile.
• Launch MSRP: AMD is 199 USD; NVIDIA has no recorded MSRP.

Both cards share 4 GB GDDR5 memory, a 128-bit bus, 640 shading units, 16 ROPs, no ray tracing cores, no tensor cores, no power connectors, and an end-of-life production status.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 scores 11228, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M scores 11045, giving AMD a 1.7% advantage in the direct head-to-head test.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each GPU?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 has an average benchmark score of 11228. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M has an average of 9645, which includes its Vulkan score of 8245 alongside its OpenCL score.

Q: How do the memory bandwidths compare?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 has a memory bandwidth of 96.00 GB/s, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M has 80.19 GB/s. Both use 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus.

Q: Which GPU has a smaller manufacturing process node?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 is built on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M uses a 28 nm process at TSMC. The AMD chip also has a higher transistor density at 21.4M per mm² versus 12.6M per mm².

Q: Does the NVIDIA GPU have any benchmark advantage?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M has a higher texture rate (47.04 GTexel/s versus 41.44 GTexel/s) and supports Vulkan 1.4, a newer version than the AMD card's Vulkan 1.3. It also has a recorded Vulkan score of 8245, though no Vulkan score is recorded for the AMD card.

Q: What are the TDP values for each GPU?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 has a TDP of 65 W, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M has a TDP of 75 W. The AMD card is also a single-slot design, whereas the NVIDIA card is an MXM module.

The Verdict

Based on the recorded data, the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 is the stronger performer. It wins the only direct head-to-head benchmark (Geekbench OpenCL) by 1.7%, has a higher average score (11228 versus 9645), higher FP32 throughput (1.658 TFLOPS versus 1.505 TFLOPS), higher memory bandwidth (96.00 GB/s versus 80.19 GB/s), higher pixel rate, and a lower TDP (65 W versus 75 W). It also uses a more advanced 14 nm process, which contributes to its higher transistor density and smaller die size.

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M is not without merits. Its texture rate is higher (47.04 GTexel/s), it supports Vulkan 1.4, and it has recorded boost clocks, which the AMD card lacks. These factors could be relevant in texture-bound workloads or Vulkan-specific applications. However, the GTX 960M's average score is dragged down by its Vulkan result, and in the one test where both cards are measured under identical conditions, it trails.

For users selecting between these two, the data points to the WX 3200 for compute-heavy tasks, OpenCL workloads, and scenarios where power efficiency and memory bandwidth matter. The GTX 960M may be preferred in cases where Vulkan support is critical or where texture throughput takes priority. But given the overall benchmark evidence, the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 is the more capable GPU in this comparison.