Radeon Pro WX 3200 vs FirePro V7900
Radeon Pro WX 3200
Popular choices:
FirePro V7900
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - GPU
About G3D Mark
G3D Mark is a standard benchmark that measures graphics performance in real-world gaming scenarios. It simplifies comparing cards from different brands, where higher scores directly correlate with better fps and smoother gaming experiences.
Value Upgrade Path
This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (G3D Mark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money. The Radeon Pro WX 3200 is positioned at rank 131 and the FirePro V7900 is on rank 279, so the Radeon Pro WX 3200 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Radeon Pro WX 3200
Performance Per Dollar FirePro V7900
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The Radeon Pro WX 3200 is significantly newer (2019 vs 2011). The Radeon Pro WX 3200 likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The FirePro V7900 lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.
🚀 Performance Leadership
The FirePro V7900 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 2.4% higher G3D Mark score. However, the Radeon Pro WX 3200 offers more VRAM, which may be beneficial for texture-heavy scenarios at higher resolutions.
| Insight | Radeon Pro WX 3200 | FirePro V7900 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-2.4%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+2.4%) |
| Longevity | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) (14nm) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2011 / TeraScale 3 (2010−2013)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ✅ More VRAM (+100%) | ❌ Less VRAM capacity |
| Efficiency | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption |
| Case Fit | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly | Standard Size (279mm) |
💎 Value Proposition
The FirePro V7900 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $120 versus $199 for the Radeon Pro WX 3200, it costs 40% less. While it maintains basic entry-level capabilities, this results in a 69.7% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | Radeon Pro WX 3200 | FirePro V7900 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+69.7%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($199) | ✅More affordable ($120) |
Performance Check
Real-world benchmarks and performance projections based on comprehensive hardware analysis and comparative metrics. Values represent expected performance on High/Ultra settings at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. Modeled using a Ryzen 7 7800X3D reference profile to minimize specific CPU bottlenecks.
Note: Performance behavior can vary per game. Specific architectures may perform better or worse depending on game engine optimizations and API implementation.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Radeon Pro WX 3200 and FirePro V7900
Radeon Pro WX 3200
The Radeon Pro WX 3200 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in July 2 2019. It features the GCN 4.0 architecture. The core clock speed is 1082 MHz. It has 640 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 65W. Manufactured using 14 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 2,209 points. Launch price was $199.
FirePro V7900
The FirePro V7900 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in May 24 2011. It features the TeraScale 3 architecture. The core clock speed is 725 MHz. It has 1280 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 150W. Manufactured using 40 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 2,261 points.
Graphics Performance
The Radeon Pro WX 3200 scores 2,209 and the FirePro V7900 reaches 2,261 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 2.4% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Radeon Pro WX 3200 is built on GCN 4.0 while the FirePro V7900 uses TeraScale 3, both on 14 nm vs 40 nm. Shader units: 640 (Radeon Pro WX 3200) vs 1,280 (FirePro V7900). Raw compute: 1.385 TFLOPS (Radeon Pro WX 3200) vs 1.856 TFLOPS (FirePro V7900).
| Feature | Radeon Pro WX 3200 | FirePro V7900 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 2,209 | 2,261+2% |
| Architecture | GCN 4.0 | TeraScale 3 |
| Process Node | 14 nm | 40 nm |
| Shading Units | 640 | 1280+100% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 1.385 TFLOPS | 1.856 TFLOPS+34% |
| ROPs | 16 | 32+100% |
| TMUs | 32 | 80+150% |
| L1 Cache | 160 KB | 320 KB+100% |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB | 512 KB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Radeon Pro WX 3200 | FirePro V7900 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | FSR 1.0 (Software) |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | AMD Anti-Lag | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The Radeon Pro WX 3200 comes with 4 GB of VRAM, while the FirePro V7900 has 2 GB. The Radeon Pro WX 3200 offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 64-bit vs 64-bit.
| Feature | Radeon Pro WX 3200 | FirePro V7900 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB+100% | 2 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB | 512 KB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (12_0) (Radeon Pro WX 3200) vs 11.2 (FirePro V7900). Vulkan: 1.1 vs None. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.4. Maximum simultaneous displays: 4 vs 4.
| Feature | Radeon Pro WX 3200 | FirePro V7900 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 (12_0)+7% | 11.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.1 | None |
| OpenGL | 4.6+5% | 4.4 |
| Max Displays | 4 | 4 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: VCE 3.4 (Polaris) (Radeon Pro WX 3200) vs None (FirePro V7900). Decoder: UVD 6.3 vs UVD 3.1. Supported codecs: H.264,HEVC,VP9 (Decode Only) (Radeon Pro WX 3200) vs H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2,MPEG-4 Part 2,MVC (FirePro V7900).
| Feature | Radeon Pro WX 3200 | FirePro V7900 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | VCE 3.4 (Polaris) | None |
| Decoder | UVD 6.3 | UVD 3.1 |
| Codecs | H.264,HEVC,VP9 (Decode Only) | H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2,MPEG-4 Part 2,MVC |
Power & Dimensions
The Radeon Pro WX 3200 draws 65W versus the FirePro V7900's 150W — a 79.1% difference. The Radeon Pro WX 3200 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Radeon Pro WX 3200) vs 350W (FirePro V7900). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 168mm vs 279mm, occupying 1 vs 1 slots. Typical load temperature: 82°C vs 100°C.
| Feature | Radeon Pro WX 3200 | FirePro V7900 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 65W-57% | 150W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 168mm | 279mm |
| Height | 69mm | 111mm |
| Slots | 1 | 1 |
| Temp (Load) | 82°C-18% | 100°C |
| Perf/Watt | 34.0+125% | 15.1 |
Value Analysis
The Radeon Pro WX 3200 launched at $199 MSRP and currently averages $199, while the FirePro V7900 launched at $999 and now averages $120. The FirePro V7900 costs 39.7% less ($79 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 11.1 (Radeon Pro WX 3200) vs 18.8 (FirePro V7900) — the FirePro V7900 offers 69.4% better value. The Radeon Pro WX 3200 is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2011).
| Feature | Radeon Pro WX 3200 | FirePro V7900 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $199-80% | $999 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $199 | $120-40% |
| Performance per Dollar | 11.1 | 18.8+69% |
| Codename | Polaris 23 | Cayman |
| Release | July 2 2019 | May 24 2011 |
| Ranking | #659 | #656 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on Radeon Pro WX 3200 and FirePro V7900
