AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 vs NVIDIA GeForce MX350 Comparison

AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 leads the GeForce MX350 in the only directly comparable benchmark, scoring 11,228 to 8,689 in Geekbench OpenCL — a 29.2% advantage. However, the MX350 counters with a separate Vulkan score of 13,077, which the WX 3200 has no direct result for, and its average benchmark score across all tests (10,883) sits closer to the AMD card's sole result than the OpenCL gap suggests. The data indicates a split decision: the AMD card wins the raw compute race decisively, while the NVIDIA part shows better API versatility and sits at a similar overall percentile (49th vs 50th).

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single head-to-head result is unambiguous. In Geekbench OpenCL, the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 scores 11,228 against the GeForce MX350's 8,689, producing a 29.2% delta in AMD's favor. This is not a marginal win — it is a substantial margin that places the WX 3200 in a different performance tier for OpenCL compute workloads. The context from nearest rivals reinforces this: the WX 3200's score lands within 0.3% of the GeForce GTX 780M (11,261) and within 1.3% of the RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q (11,088), showing it holds its own against much larger desktop and professional parts.

The MX350's OpenCL result is weaker, but its average benchmark score tells a different story. With an average of 10,883 across its two tests, the MX350 is only 3.1% behind the WX 3200's single OpenCL score. This is because the MX350's Vulkan score of 13,077 is significantly higher than its OpenCL result, pulling the average up. When comparing averages, the two cards are nearly neck-and-neck: the WX 3200 averages 11,228 (only one test), while the MX350 averages 10,883. The delta between these averages is approximately 3.2% in favor of AMD.

Look at the nearest rival data for each card to see how they stack against other GPUs. The WX 3200's nearest rival is the AMD FirePro W4300 at 11,225 (0% delta), followed by the GeForce GTX 780M at 11,261 (-0.3%), and the RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q at 11,088 (1.3%). The MX350's nearest rival is the AMD Radeon Pro 450 at 10,804 (0.7% delta), then the Quadro K2200 at 10,761 (1.1%), the GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER at 11,047 (-1.5%), and the Radeon RX 550 at 11,075 (-1.7%). This shows the MX350's average is competitive with entry-level desktop cards like the RX 550, while the WX 3200's score aligns with mid-range laptop and professional parts.

The percentile ranking reinforces this close overall standing. The WX 3200 sits at the 50th percentile of all GPUs, while the MX350 is at the 49th percentile. A single percentile point separates them, meaning that in a broad database of GPUs, these two cards occupy nearly the same position in the performance hierarchy — even though the OpenCL test shows a large gap. The takeaway: if you rely on OpenCL, the WX 3200 is clearly superior; if you factor in Vulkan or average scores, the MX350 closes most of the distance.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in OpenCL compute?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 scores 11,228 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 29.2% higher than the GeForce MX350's 8,689. This is the only direct head-to-head benchmark available, and AMD wins it decisively.

Q: Does the GeForce MX350 have any benchmark advantage?

A: Yes. The MX350 has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 13,077, which is its best result and higher than the WX 3200's OpenCL score of 11,228. However, the WX 3200 has no Vulkan result listed, so this cannot be compared directly — it only shows the MX350's capability in that API.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The WX 3200 has an average score of 11,228 (based on one test), while the MX350 averages 10,883 across two tests. This puts the MX350 roughly 3.1% behind the WX 3200 on average, a much smaller gap than the 29.2% OpenCL deficit.

Q: Which card ranks higher among all GPUs?

A: The WX 3200 is at the 50th percentile of all GPUs, while the MX350 is at the 49th percentile. They are effectively tied in overall standing, with a one-percentile-point difference.

Q: What are the nearest performance rivals for each card?

A: For the WX 3200, the closest rival is the AMD FirePro W4300 (11,225, 0% delta), followed by the GeForce GTX 780M (11,261, -0.3%). For the MX350, the closest rival is the AMD Radeon Pro 450 (10,804, 0.7% delta), then the Quadro K2200 (10,761, 1.1%).

Q: Which card has a higher peak single-test score?

A: The MX350's Vulkan score of 13,077 is the highest single-test result between the two cards. The WX 3200's peak is its OpenCL score of 11,228.

The Verdict

Pick the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 if OpenCL compute is your primary workload. The data shows a 29.2% lead in that specific test, and the card's single-score average of 11,228 places it at the 50th percentile — a full percentile ahead of the MX350. The WX 3200 also matches or beats several stronger-sounding rivals, sitting within 0.3% of the GeForce GTX 780M and 1.3% of the RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q. For professional or workstation-oriented tasks that rely on OpenCL, this is the clear winner.

Pick the NVIDIA GeForce MX350 if you need Vulkan performance or want a more balanced API profile. Its Vulkan score of 13,077 exceeds anything the WX 3200 can show, and its average of 10,883 keeps it within striking distance of AMD despite the OpenCL loss. The MX350's nearest rivals include the Radeon RX 550 (11,075, -1.7%) and GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER (11,047, -1.5%), showing it trades blows with capable entry-level desktop parts. For mixed workloads or Vulkan-based applications, the MX350 is the better choice.

There is no universal winner here. The WX 3200 wins the only direct comparison, but the MX350 counters with a superior Vulkan result and nearly identical percentile ranking. Your choice depends entirely on which API you use — OpenCL points to AMD, Vulkan points to NVIDIA.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every memory and interface specification. The WX 3200 has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 96.00 GB/s of bandwidth, while the MX350 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus, delivering 56.06 GB/s. That is roughly 71% more bandwidth for AMD, a major advantage for memory-intensive tasks.

Clock speeds favor NVIDIA. The MX350 has a base clock of 1354 MHz and a boost clock of 1468 MHz, while the WX 3200 lists no base or boost clock in the data. The MX350's memory clock is 1752 MHz (7 Gbps effective), compared to the WX 3200's 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective).

Theoretical throughput also favors NVIDIA. The MX350 achieves 1.879 TFLOPS FP32, 23.49 GPixel/s pixel rate, and 46.98 GTexel/s texture rate, versus the WX 3200's 1.658 TFLOPS, 20.72 GPixel/s, and 41.44 GTexel/s. That is a 13.3% FP32 advantage and roughly 13.4% higher pixel and texture rates for NVIDIA.

Power and physical specs differ sharply. The WX 3200 has a 65 W TDP with a suggested 250 W PSU and is single-slot, measuring 167 mm (6.6 inches) long and 69 mm (2.7 inches) tall. The MX350 has a 20 W TDP with no suggested PSU and no listed dimensions, reflecting its mobile nature. Both use no power connectors and are end-of-life products.

Bus interface and display outputs also diverge. The WX 3200 uses PCIe 3.0 x8 and offers 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, while the MX350 uses PCIe 3.0 x4 and has "Portable Device Dependent" outputs — meaning it is designed for laptops with integrated displays.

Architecture Differences

The chips are built on the same 14 nm process but from different foundries and architectures. AMD uses the Polaris 23 chip with GCN 4.0 architecture, fabricated by GlobalFoundries, while NVIDIA uses the GP107S chip with Pascal architecture, fabricated by Samsung. Both have 640 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, but their internal designs differ significantly.

Transistor counts and die sizes favor NVIDIA. The MX350 packs 3,300 million transistors on a 132 mm² die, while the WX 3200 has 2,200 million on a 103 mm² die. This gives NVIDIA a transistor density of 25.0M per mm² versus AMD's 21.4M per mm². The larger die and higher transistor count suggest a more complex design, even though both have identical core counts.

FP16 performance shows the biggest architectural gap. The WX 3200 delivers 1.658 TFLOPS FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, meaning full-rate half-precision compute. The MX350 delivers only 29.36 GFLOPS FP16 at a 1:64 ratio — a tiny fraction of its FP32 rate. This makes AMD vastly superior for workloads that use FP16, while NVIDIA's Pascal architecture clearly prioritizes FP32.

API support also differs. The MX350 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the WX 3200 supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The higher DirectX feature level (12_1 vs 12_0) and newer Vulkan version give NVIDIA an edge in API modernity.

Release timing and lineage differ. The WX 3200 launched on 2019-07-01, with a predecessor of Radeon Pro GCN and a successor of Radeon Pro Vega. The MX350 launched on 2020-02-09, with no predecessor or successor listed. The WX 3200 also has a launch MSRP of 199 USD, while the MX350 has no MSRP listed.

Where Each One Wins

OpenCL compute workloads: The WX 3200 wins outright. Its 29.2% lead in Geekbench OpenCL is the single largest performance gap in the data. This makes it the superior choice for applications that rely on OpenCL for GPU acceleration, such as certain professional rendering, simulation, or scientific computing tasks.

Memory bandwidth and capacity: The WX 3200 wins with 4 GB of VRAM and 96.00 GB/s bandwidth versus 2 GB and 56.06 GB/s. Doubling the memory capacity and providing 71% more bandwidth means AMD handles larger datasets and more texture-heavy workloads without stalling.

FP16 compute: The WX 3200 wins decisively with 1.658 TFLOPS FP16 at a 1:1 ratio, versus the MX350's 29.36 GFLOPS at 1:64. Any workload that leverages half-precision math will see a massive advantage on the AMD card.

Vulkan performance: The MX350 wins based on its 13,077 Vulkan score, which is its strongest benchmark result. The WX 3200 has no Vulkan score listed, so NVIDIA is the only one of the two with proven Vulkan capability.

Raw FP32 throughput: The MX350 wins with 1.879 TFLOPS versus 1.658 TFLOPS, a 13.3% advantage. This translates to higher pixel rate (23.49 vs 20.72 GPixel/s) and texture rate (46.98 vs 41.44 GTexel/s), making NVIDIA faster for pure rasterization throughput.

Power efficiency: The MX350 wins with a 20 W TDP versus the WX 3200's 65 W. While the data does not include efficiency ratios, the MX350 delivers higher FP32 performance at less than one-third the power draw, making it the clear choice for battery-powered or thermally constrained systems.

API modernity: The MX350 wins with DirectX 12_1 and Vulkan 1.4 support, versus the WX 3200's DirectX 12_0 and Vulkan 1.3. Applications using the latest API features will favor NVIDIA.

Display connectivity: The WX 3200 wins with 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, enabling multi-monitor professional setups. The MX350's "Portable Device Dependent" outputs tie it to a single built-in laptop display, limiting its use as a multi-output workstation card.