CPU
GPU
Radeon R7 250X
Popular choices:
Radeon Pro WX 3200
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.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar
Performance Per Dollar Radeon Pro WX 3200
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 Radeon R7 250X lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.
🚀 Performance Leadership
The Radeon R7 250X is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 2.7% 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 R7 250X | Radeon Pro WX 3200 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+2.7%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-2.7%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2014 / GCN 1.0 (2012−2020)) | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) (14nm) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+100%) |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly |
💎 Value Proposition
The Radeon R7 250X offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $30 versus $199 for the Radeon Pro WX 3200, it costs 85% less. While it maintains basic entry-level capabilities, this results in a 581.4% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | Radeon R7 250X | Radeon Pro WX 3200 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+581.4%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($30) | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($199) |
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 R7 250X and Radeon Pro WX 3200
Radeon R7 250X
The Radeon R7 250X is manufactured by AMD. It was released in February 13 2014. It features the GCN 1.0 architecture. The boost clock speed is 1000 MHz. It has 640 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 80W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 2,269 points. Launch price was $99.
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.
Graphics Performance
The Radeon R7 250X scores 2,269 and the Radeon Pro WX 3200 reaches 2,209 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 2.7% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Radeon R7 250X is built on GCN 1.0 while the Radeon Pro WX 3200 uses GCN 4.0, both on 28 nm vs 14 nm. Shader units: 640 (Radeon R7 250X) vs 640 (Radeon Pro WX 3200). Raw compute: 1.216 TFLOPS (Radeon R7 250X) vs 1.385 TFLOPS (Radeon Pro WX 3200).
| Feature | Radeon R7 250X | Radeon Pro WX 3200 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 2,269+3% | 2,209 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | GCN 4.0 |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Shading Units | 640 | 640 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 1.216 TFLOPS | 1.385 TFLOPS+14% |
| ROPs | 16 | 16 |
| TMUs | 40+25% | 32 |
| L1 Cache | 160 KB | 160 KB |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 512 KB+100% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Radeon R7 250X | Radeon Pro WX 3200 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 | AMD Anti-Lag |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The Radeon R7 250X comes with 2 GB of VRAM, while the Radeon Pro WX 3200 has 4 GB. The Radeon Pro WX 3200 offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 128-bit vs 64-bit. L2 Cache: 256 KB (Radeon R7 250X) vs 512 KB (Radeon Pro WX 3200) — the Radeon Pro WX 3200 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | Radeon R7 250X | Radeon Pro WX 3200 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 2 GB | 4 GB+100% |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 128-bit+100% | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 512 KB+100% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (FL 11_1) (Radeon R7 250X) vs 12 (12_0) (Radeon Pro WX 3200). Vulkan: 1.2 vs 1.1. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 2 vs 4.
| Feature | Radeon R7 250X | Radeon Pro WX 3200 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 (FL 11_1) | 12 (12_0) |
| Vulkan | 1.2+9% | 1.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Max Displays | 2 | 4+100% |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: VCE 1.0 (Radeon R7 250X) vs VCE 3.4 (Polaris) (Radeon Pro WX 3200). Decoder: UVD 4.2 vs UVD 6.3. Supported codecs: H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2,MPEG-4 Part 2 (Radeon R7 250X) vs H.264,HEVC,VP9 (Decode Only) (Radeon Pro WX 3200).
| Feature | Radeon R7 250X | Radeon Pro WX 3200 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | VCE 1.0 | VCE 3.4 (Polaris) |
| Decoder | UVD 4.2 | UVD 6.3 |
| Codecs | H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2,MPEG-4 Part 2 | H.264,HEVC,VP9 (Decode Only) |
Power & Dimensions
The Radeon R7 250X draws 80W versus the Radeon Pro WX 3200's 65W — a 20.7% difference. The Radeon Pro WX 3200 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 400W (Radeon R7 250X) vs 350W (Radeon Pro WX 3200). Power connectors: 1x 6-pin vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 210mm vs 168mm, occupying 2 vs 1 slots. Typical load temperature: 70°C vs 82°C.
| Feature | Radeon R7 250X | Radeon Pro WX 3200 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 80W | 65W-19% |
| Recommended PSU | 400W | 350W-13% |
| Power Connector | 1x 6-pin | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 210mm | 168mm |
| Height | 111mm | 69mm |
| Slots | 2 | 1-50% |
| Temp (Load) | 70°C-15% | 82°C |
| Perf/Watt | 28.4 | 34.0+20% |
Value Analysis
The Radeon R7 250X launched at $99 MSRP and currently averages $30, while the Radeon Pro WX 3200 launched at $199 and now averages $199. The Radeon R7 250X costs 84.9% less ($169 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 75.6 (Radeon R7 250X) vs 11.1 (Radeon Pro WX 3200) — the Radeon R7 250X offers 581.1% better value. The Radeon Pro WX 3200 is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2014).
| Feature | Radeon R7 250X | Radeon Pro WX 3200 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $99-50% | $199 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $30-85% | $199 |
| Performance per Dollar | 75.6+581% | 11.1 |
| Codename | Cape Verde | Polaris 23 |
| Release | February 13 2014 | July 2 2019 |
| Ranking | #655 | #659 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on Radeon R7 250X and Radeon Pro WX 3200
