
UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs vs Radeon Pro WX 3200

UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs
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
🚀 Performance Leadership
The Radeon Pro WX 3200 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 0.4% higher G3D Mark score and 100+% more VRAM (4 GB vs 0 MB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs.
| Insight | UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs | Radeon Pro WX 3200 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-0.4%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+0.4%) |
| Longevity | Gen. 12 (2021−2023) (14nm) | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) (14nm) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+100+%) |
| Efficiency | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption |
| Case Fit | — | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly |
💎 Value Proposition
The UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $20 versus $199 for the Radeon Pro WX 3200, it costs 90% less. While it maintains basic entry-level capabilities, this results in a 890.9% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs | Radeon Pro WX 3200 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+890.9%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($20) | ⚠️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 UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs and Radeon Pro WX 3200

UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs
The UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs is manufactured by Intel. It was released in March 30 2021. It features the Gen. 12 architecture. The core clock ranges from 350 MHz to 1450 MHz. It has 32 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 15W. Manufactured using 14 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 2,200 points.

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 UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs scores 2,200 and the Radeon Pro WX 3200 reaches 2,209 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 0.4% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs is built on Gen. 12 while the Radeon Pro WX 3200 uses GCN 4.0, both on a 14 nm process. Shader units: 32 (UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs) vs 640 (Radeon Pro WX 3200).
| Feature | UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs | Radeon Pro WX 3200 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 2,200 | 2,209 |
| Architecture | Gen. 12 | GCN 4.0 |
| Process Node | 14 nm | 14 nm |
| Shading Units | 32 | 640+1900% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs | 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 | Standard | AMD Anti-Lag |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs comes with 0 MB 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: System vs 64-bit.
| Feature | UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs | Radeon Pro WX 3200 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | Shared System RAM | 4 GB |
| Memory Type | Shared | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | System | 64-bit |
Power & Dimensions
The UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs draws 15W versus the Radeon Pro WX 3200's 65W — a 125% difference. The UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 1W (UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs) vs 350W (Radeon Pro WX 3200). Power connectors: Integrated vs PCIe-powered.
| Feature | UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs | Radeon Pro WX 3200 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 15W-77% | 65W |
| Recommended PSU | 1W-100% | 350W |
| Power Connector | Integrated | PCIe-powered |
| Length | — | 168mm |
| Height | — | 69mm |
| Slots | — | 1 |
| Temp (Load) | — | 82°C |
| Perf/Watt | 146.7+331% | 34.0 |
Value Analysis
The UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs launched at $0 MSRP and currently averages $20, while the Radeon Pro WX 3200 launched at $199 and now averages $199. The UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs costs 89.9% less ($179 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 110.0 (UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs) vs 11.1 (Radeon Pro WX 3200) — the UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs offers 891% better value. The UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs is the newer GPU (2021 vs 2019).
| Feature | UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs | Radeon Pro WX 3200 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $0-100% | $199 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $20-90% | $199 |
| Performance per Dollar | 110.0+891% | 11.1 |
| Codename | Tiger Lake Xe | Polaris 23 |
| Release | March 30 2021 | July 2 2019 |
| Ranking | #744 | #659 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.

















