Radeon Pro VII vs Pro WX 3200

Place in the ranking	581	163
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	12.52	16.33
Power efficiency	6.65	9.23
Architecture	GCN 4.0 (2016−2020)	GCN 5.1 (2018−2022)
GPU code name	Polaris 23	Vega 20
Market segment	Workstation	Workstation
Release date	2 July 2019 (5 years ago)	13 May 2020 (4 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$199	$1,899

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

Pro VII has 30% better value for money than Pro WX 3200.

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores	640	3840
Core clock speed	1082 MHz	1400 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1700 MHz
Number of transistors	2,200 million	13,230 million
Manufacturing process technology	14 nm	7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	65 Watt	250 Watt
Texture fill rate	34.62	408.0
Floating-point processing power	1.385 TFLOPS	13.06 TFLOPS
ROPs	16	64
TMUs	32	240

Form factor & compatibility

Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).

Interface	PCIe 3.0 x8	PCIe 4.0 x16
Length	no data	305 mm
Width	MXM Module	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	None	1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin

VRAM capacity and type

Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.

Memory type	GDDR5	HBM2
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	16 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	4096 Bit
Memory clock speed	1000 MHz	1000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	64 GB/s	1024 GB/s
Shared memory	-	-

Connectivity and outputs

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display Connectors

4x mini-DisplayPort

6x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX	12 (12_0)	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	6.4	6.7
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	2.0	2.1
Vulkan	1.2.131	1.3

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.

Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

Pro WX 3200 6.28

Pro VII 33.53
+434%

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

Pro WX 3200 2414

Pro VII 12890
+434%

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Average FPS across all PC games

Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:

Full HD	18 −428%	95−100 +428%
4K	9 −400%	45−50 +400%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	11.06 +80.8%	19.99 −80.8%
4K	22.11 +90.9%	42.20 −90.9%

Pro WX 3200 has 81% lower cost per frame in 1080p
Pro WX 3200 has 91% lower cost per frame in 4K

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	14−16 −400%	70−75 +400%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 −400%	60−65 +400%
Elden Ring	16−18 −431%	85−90 +431%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	20−22 −400%	100−105 +400%
Counter-Strike 2	14−16 −400%	70−75 +400%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 −400%	60−65 +400%
Forza Horizon 4	24−27 −400%	130−140 +400%
Metro Exodus	16−18 −431%	85−90 +431%
Red Dead Redemption 2	18−20 −428%	95−100 +428%
Valorant	18−20 −426%	100−105 +426%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	20−22 −400%	100−105 +400%
Counter-Strike 2	14−16 −400%	70−75 +400%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 −400%	60−65 +400%
Dota 2	16 −431%	85−90 +431%
Elden Ring	16−18 −431%	85−90 +431%
Far Cry 5	15 −433%	80−85 +433%
Fortnite	35−40 −414%	190−200 +414%
Forza Horizon 4	24−27 −400%	130−140 +400%
Grand Theft Auto V	21−24 −424%	110−120 +424%
Metro Exodus	4 −425%	21−24 +425%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	50−55 −419%	270−280 +419%
Red Dead Redemption 2	18−20 −428%	95−100 +428%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	20−22 −400%	100−105 +400%
Valorant	18−20 −426%	100−105 +426%
World of Tanks	95−100 −405%	500−550 +405%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	20−22 −400%	100−105 +400%
Counter-Strike 2	14−16 −400%	70−75 +400%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 −400%	60−65 +400%
Dota 2	35 −414%	180−190 +414%
Far Cry 5	27−30 −417%	150−160 +417%
Forza Horizon 4	24−27 −400%	130−140 +400%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	50−55 −419%	270−280 +419%
Valorant	18−20 −426%	100−105 +426%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	6−7 −400%	30−33 +400%
Elden Ring	8−9 −400%	40−45 +400%
Grand Theft Auto V	6−7 −400%	30−33 +400%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	35−40 −414%	190−200 +414%
Red Dead Redemption 2	5−6 −380%	24−27 +380%
World of Tanks	45−50 −433%	240−250 +433%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	10−12 −400%	55−60 +400%
Counter-Strike 2	9−10 −400%	45−50 +400%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 −380%	24−27 +380%
Far Cry 5	12−14 −400%	65−70 +400%
Forza Horizon 4	10−12 −400%	55−60 +400%
Metro Exodus	8−9 −400%	40−45 +400%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	7−8 −400%	35−40 +400%
Valorant	16−18 −431%	85−90 +431%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2	16−18 −429%	90−95 +429%
Elden Ring	3−4 −433%	16−18 +433%
Grand Theft Auto V	16−18 −429%	90−95 +429%
Metro Exodus	2−3 −400%	10−11 +400%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	18−20 −428%	95−100 +428%
Red Dead Redemption 2	4−5 −425%	21−24 +425%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16−18 −429%	90−95 +429%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	5−6 −380%	24−27 +380%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −400%	10−11 +400%
Dota 2	9 −400%	45−50 +400%
Far Cry 5	7−8 −400%	35−40 +400%
Fortnite	6−7 −400%	30−33 +400%
Forza Horizon 4	6−7 −400%	30−33 +400%
Valorant	6−7 −400%	30−33 +400%

This is how Pro WX 3200 and Pro VII compete in popular games:

Pro VII is 428% faster in 1080p
Pro VII is 400% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	6.28	33.53
Recency	2 July 2019	13 May 2020
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	16 GB
Chip lithography	14 nm	7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	65 Watt	250 Watt

Pro WX 3200 has 284.6% lower power consumption.

Pro VII, on the other hand, has a 433.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 months, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon Pro VII is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon Pro WX 3200 in performance tests.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.