Radeon Pro WX 3200 vs GeForce MX150
Radeon Pro WX 3200
Popular choices:
GeForce MX150
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 GeForce MX150 is on rank 304, 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 GeForce MX150
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The Radeon Pro WX 3200 uses modern memory architecture. 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 GeForce MX150 lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GeForce MX150 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 1.9% 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 | GeForce MX150 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-1.9%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+1.9%) |
| Longevity | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) (14nm) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2017 / Pascal (2016−2021)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ✅ More VRAM (+100%) | ❌ Less VRAM capacity |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly | — |
💎 Value Proposition
The GeForce MX150 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $60 versus $199 for the Radeon Pro WX 3200, it costs 70% less. While it maintains basic entry-level capabilities, this results in a 238.1% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | Radeon Pro WX 3200 | GeForce MX150 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+238.1%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($199) | ✅More affordable ($60) |
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 GeForce MX150
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.
GeForce MX150
The GeForce MX150 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in May 17 2017. It features the Pascal architecture. The core clock ranges from 937 MHz to 1038 MHz. It has 384 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 10W. Manufactured using 14 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 2,252 points.
Graphics Performance
The Radeon Pro WX 3200 scores 2,209 and the GeForce MX150 reaches 2,252 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 1.9% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Radeon Pro WX 3200 is built on GCN 4.0 while the GeForce MX150 uses Pascal, both on a 14 nm process. Shader units: 640 (Radeon Pro WX 3200) vs 384 (GeForce MX150). Raw compute: 1.385 TFLOPS (Radeon Pro WX 3200) vs 0.7972 TFLOPS (GeForce MX150).
| Feature | Radeon Pro WX 3200 | GeForce MX150 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 2,209 | 2,252+2% |
| Architecture | GCN 4.0 | Pascal |
| Process Node | 14 nm | 14 nm |
| Shading Units | 640+67% | 384 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 1.385 TFLOPS+74% | 0.7972 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 16 |
| TMUs | 32+33% | 24 |
| L1 Cache | 160 KB+11% | 144 KB |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB | 512 KB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Radeon Pro WX 3200 | GeForce MX150 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 GeForce MX150 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 | GeForce MX150 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 12 (12_1) (GeForce MX150). Vulkan: 1.1 vs 1.4. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 4 vs 3.
| Feature | Radeon Pro WX 3200 | GeForce MX150 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 (12_1) |
| Vulkan | 1.1 | 1.4+27% |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Max Displays | 4+33% | 3 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: VCE 3.4 (Polaris) (Radeon Pro WX 3200) vs No (GeForce MX150). Decoder: UVD 6.3 vs NVDEC (Pascal). Supported codecs: H.264,HEVC,VP9 (Decode Only) (Radeon Pro WX 3200) vs H.264,HEVC,VP9,VC-1 (GeForce MX150).
| Feature | Radeon Pro WX 3200 | GeForce MX150 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | VCE 3.4 (Polaris) | No |
| Decoder | UVD 6.3 | NVDEC (Pascal) |
| Codecs | H.264,HEVC,VP9 (Decode Only) | H.264,HEVC,VP9,VC-1 |
Power & Dimensions
The Radeon Pro WX 3200 draws 65W versus the GeForce MX150's 10W — a 146.7% difference. The GeForce MX150 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Radeon Pro WX 3200) vs 350W (GeForce MX150). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs Mobile. Typical load temperature: 82°C vs 75°C.
| Feature | Radeon Pro WX 3200 | GeForce MX150 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 65W | 10W-85% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | Mobile |
| Length | 168mm | — |
| Height | 69mm | — |
| Slots | 1 | 0-100% |
| Temp (Load) | 82°C | 75°C-9% |
| Perf/Watt | 34.0 | 225.2+562% |
Value Analysis
The Radeon Pro WX 3200 launched at $199 MSRP and currently averages $199, while the GeForce MX150 launched at $150 and now averages $60. The GeForce MX150 costs 69.8% less ($139 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 11.1 (Radeon Pro WX 3200) vs 37.5 (GeForce MX150) — the GeForce MX150 offers 237.8% better value. The Radeon Pro WX 3200 is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2017).
| Feature | Radeon Pro WX 3200 | GeForce MX150 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $199 | $150-25% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $199 | $60-70% |
| Performance per Dollar | 11.1 | 37.5+238% |
| Codename | Polaris 23 | GP108 |
| Release | July 2 2019 | May 17 2017 |
| Ranking | #659 | #657 |
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 GeForce MX150
