Radeon Pro WX 3200 vs R9 M485X
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R9 M485X with Radeon Pro WX 3200, including specs and performance data.
R9 M485X outperforms Pro 3200 by an impressive 71% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 524 | 666 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 3.23 |
| Power efficiency | 2.80 | 6.29 |
| Architecture | GCN 3.0 (2014−2019) | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) |
| GPU code name | Amethyst | Polaris 23 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 15 May 2016 (9 years ago) | 2 July 2019 (6 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $199 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 | 2048 | 640 |
| Core clock speed | 723 MHz | 1082 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 5,000 million | 2,200 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 65 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 92.54 | 34.62 |
| Floating-point processing power | 2.961 TFLOPS | 1.385 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 16 |
| TMUs | 128 | 32 |
| L1 Cache | 512 KB | 160 KB |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB | 512 KB |
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).
| Laptop size | large | no data |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
| Width | no data | MXM Module |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | None |
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 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1250 MHz | 1000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 160.0 GB/s | 64 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | No outputs | 4x mini-DisplayPort |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 (12_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.3 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.2.131 |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
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.
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 | 30−35
+57.9%
| 19
−57.9%
|
| 4K | 12−14
+50%
| 8
−50%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 10.47 |
| 4K | no data | 24.88 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
+96%
|
24−27
−96%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+72.7%
|
10−12
−72.7%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 16−18
+88.9%
|
9−10
−88.9%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+86.4%
|
21−24
−86.4%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
+96%
|
24−27
−96%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+72.7%
|
10−12
−72.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−33
+50%
|
20
−50%
|
| Fortnite | 55−60
+75%
|
30−35
−75%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+60%
|
24−27
−60%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 27−30
+86.7%
|
14−16
−86.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+65%
|
20−22
−65%
|
| Valorant | 90−95
+40.6%
|
60−65
−40.6%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+86.4%
|
21−24
−86.4%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
+96%
|
24−27
−96%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 140−150
+54.9%
|
90−95
−54.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+72.7%
|
10−12
−72.7%
|
| Dota 2 | 65−70
+36.7%
|
49
−36.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−33
+66.7%
|
18
−66.7%
|
| Fortnite | 55−60
+75%
|
30−35
−75%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+60%
|
24−27
−60%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 27−30
+86.7%
|
14−16
−86.7%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−35
+88.9%
|
18−20
−88.9%
|
| Metro Exodus | 18−20
+80%
|
10
−80%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+65%
|
20−22
−65%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
+60%
|
15
−60%
|
| Valorant | 90−95
+40.6%
|
60−65
−40.6%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+86.4%
|
21−24
−86.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+72.7%
|
10−12
−72.7%
|
| Dota 2 | 65−70
+91.4%
|
35
−91.4%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−33
+76.5%
|
17
−76.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+60%
|
24−27
−60%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+65%
|
20−22
−65%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
+140%
|
10
−140%
|
| Valorant | 90−95
+40.6%
|
60−65
−40.6%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 55−60
+75%
|
30−35
−75%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+70%
|
10−11
−70%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 70−75
+70.7%
|
40−45
−70.7%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 12−14
+200%
|
4−5
−200%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−11
+150%
|
4−5
−150%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
+29.7%
|
35−40
−29.7%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
+72.9%
|
55−60
−72.9%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
+214%
|
7−8
−214%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18−20
+90%
|
10−11
−90%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+69.2%
|
12−14
−69.2%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+62.5%
|
8−9
−62.5%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 18−20
+72.7%
|
10−12
−72.7%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 20−22
+25%
|
16−18
−25%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
+100%
|
5
−100%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+77.8%
|
27−30
−77.8%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 10−12
+267%
|
3−4
−267%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−35
+278%
|
9
−278%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
+125%
|
4−5
−125%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+87.5%
|
8−9
−87.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+80%
|
5−6
−80%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 9−10
+80%
|
5−6
−80%
|
This is how R9 M485X and Pro WX 3200 compete in popular games:
- R9 M485X is 58% faster in 1080p
- R9 M485X is 50% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Dota 2, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the R9 M485X is 278% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, R9 M485X surpassed Pro WX 3200 in all 57 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 9.09 | 5.31 |
| Recency | 15 May 2016 | 2 July 2019 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 65 Watt |
R9 M485X has a 71% higher aggregate performance score, and a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.
Pro WX 3200, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 3 years, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 285% lower power consumption.
The Radeon R9 M485X is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon Pro WX 3200 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R9 M485X is a notebook graphics card while Radeon Pro WX 3200 is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
