Quadro P3200 vs GeForce GTX 580
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 580 with Quadro P3200, including specs and performance data.
P3200 outperforms GTX 580 by an impressive 84% 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 | 472 | 312 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.86 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 3.52 | 21.07 |
| Architecture | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) | Pascal (2016−2021) |
| GPU code name | GF110 | GP104 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 9 November 2010 (15 years ago) | 21 February 2018 (8 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $499 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 512 | 1792 |
| Core clock speed | 772 MHz | 1328 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1543 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,000 million | 7,200 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 16 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 244 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 97 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 49.41 | 172.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.581 TFLOPS | 5.53 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 48 | 64 |
| TMUs | 64 | 112 |
| L1 Cache | 1 MB | 672 KB |
| L2 Cache | 768 KB | 1536 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 | no data | large |
| Bus support | PCI-E 2.0 x 16 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | MXM-B (3.0) |
| Length | 267 mm | no data |
| Height | 4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | None |
| SLI options | + | - |
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 | 1536 MB | 6 GB |
| Memory bus width | 384 Bit | 192 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 2004 MHz (4008 data rate) | 1753 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 192.4 GB/s | 168.3 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 | Mini HDMITwo Dual Link DVI | No outputs |
| Multi monitor support | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | - | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.2 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | + | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | + | 6.1 |
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.
3DMark 11 Performance GPU
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
3DMark Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.
GeekBench 5 OpenCL
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.
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:
| 900p | 53
−79.2%
| 95−100
+79.2%
|
| Full HD | 99
+17.9%
| 84
−17.9%
|
| 1200p | 78
−79.5%
| 140−150
+79.5%
|
| 4K | 14−16
−100%
| 28
+100%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 5.04 | no data |
| 4K | 35.64 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 60−65
−91.8%
|
110−120
+91.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
−95.7%
|
45−50
+95.7%
|
| Palworld | 24−27
−92.3%
|
50−55
+92.3%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 21−24
−114%
|
45−50
+114%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
−73.5%
|
85−90
+73.5%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 60−65
−91.8%
|
110−120
+91.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
−95.7%
|
45−50
+95.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
−114%
|
79
+114%
|
| Fortnite | 65−70
−62.1%
|
100−110
+62.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
−97.9%
|
95
+97.9%
|
| Palworld | 24−27
−92.3%
|
50−55
+92.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
−100%
|
80−85
+100%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
−48%
|
150−160
+48%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
−73.5%
|
85−90
+73.5%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 60−65
−91.8%
|
110−120
+91.8%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 160−170
−47.9%
|
240−250
+47.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
−95.7%
|
45−50
+95.7%
|
| Dota 2 | 75−80
−52.6%
|
119
+52.6%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
−100%
|
74
+100%
|
| Fortnite | 65−70
−62.1%
|
100−110
+62.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
−83.3%
|
88
+83.3%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 40−45
−81%
|
75−80
+81%
|
| Metro Exodus | 21−24
−95.7%
|
45−50
+95.7%
|
| Palworld | 24−27
−92.3%
|
50−55
+92.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
−100%
|
80−85
+100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27−30
−190%
|
84
+190%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
−48%
|
150−160
+48%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
−73.5%
|
85−90
+73.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
−95.7%
|
45−50
+95.7%
|
| Dota 2 | 75−80
−43.6%
|
112
+43.6%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
−89.2%
|
70
+89.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
−50%
|
72
+50%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
−100%
|
80−85
+100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27−30
−58.6%
|
46
+58.6%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
−48%
|
150−160
+48%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 65−70
−62.1%
|
100−110
+62.1%
|
| Palworld | 24−27
−92.3%
|
50−55
+92.3%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
−105%
|
40−45
+105%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 85−90
−75.3%
|
140−150
+75.3%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
−131%
|
35−40
+131%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12−14
−108%
|
27−30
+108%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 55−60
−202%
|
170−180
+202%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
−59.5%
|
170−180
+59.5%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 30−33
−96.7%
|
55−60
+96.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
−122%
|
20−22
+122%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
−95.8%
|
45−50
+95.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
−92.6%
|
50−55
+92.6%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
−113%
|
30−35
+113%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 24−27
−104%
|
45−50
+104%
|
| Palworld | 14−16
−93.3%
|
27−30
+93.3%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
−217%
|
18−20
+217%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 21−24
−72.7%
|
35−40
+72.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7−8
−143%
|
16−18
+143%
|
| Palworld | 8−9
−113%
|
16−18
+113%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
−100%
|
28
+100%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
−113%
|
110−120
+113%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
−113%
|
30−35
+113%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
−217%
|
18−20
+217%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−100%
|
8−9
+100%
|
| Dota 2 | 40−45
−73.2%
|
70−75
+73.2%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
−118%
|
24−27
+118%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
−89.5%
|
35−40
+89.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
−90.9%
|
21−24
+90.9%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 10−12
−100%
|
21−24
+100%
|
| Palworld | 8−9
−113%
|
16−18
+113%
|
This is how GTX 580 and Quadro P3200 compete in popular games:
- Quadro P3200 is 79% faster in 900p
- GTX 580 is 18% faster in 1080p
- Quadro P3200 is 79% faster in 1200p
- Quadro P3200 is 100% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike 2, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the Quadro P3200 is 217% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, Quadro P3200 surpassed GTX 580 in all 65 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 11.11 | 20.43 |
| Recency | 9 November 2010 | 21 February 2018 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1536 MB | 6 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 16 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 244 Watt | 75 Watt |
Quadro P3200 has a 84% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 150% more advanced lithography process, and 225% lower power consumption.
The Quadro P3200 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 580 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 580 is a desktop graphics card while Quadro P3200 is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
