Radeon Pro WX 8200 vs Quadro P4000

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro P4000 and Radeon Pro WX 8200, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

Quadro P4000
2017, $815
8 GB GDDR5, 100 Watt
27.17

Pro 8200 outperforms P4000 by a moderate 10% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking243222
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation6.876.75
Power efficiency20.1410.09
ArchitecturePascal (2016−2021)GCN 5.0 (2017−2020)
GPU code nameGP104Vega 10
Market segmentWorkstationWorkstation
Release date6 February 2017 (9 years ago)13 August 2018 (8 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$815 $999

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

Quadro P4000 has 2% better value for money than Pro WX 8200.

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 cores17923584
Core clock speed1202 MHz1200 MHz
Boost clock speed1480 MHz1500 MHz
Number of transistors7,200 million12,500 million
Manufacturing process technology16 nm14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)100 Watt230 Watt
Texture fill rate165.8336.0
Floating-point processing power5.304 TFLOPS10.75 TFLOPS
ROPs6464
TMUs112224
L1 Cache672 KB896 KB
L2 Cache2 MB4 MB

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).

InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Length241 mm267 mm
Width1-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pin1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin

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 typeGDDR5HBM2
Maximum RAM amount8 GB8 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit2048 Bit
Memory clock speed1901 MHz1000 MHz
Memory bandwidth192 GB/s512.0 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 Connectors4x DisplayPort4x mini-DisplayPort
Display Port1.4no data

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

Optimus+-
3D Stereo+no data
Mosaic+no data
nView Display Management+no data
Optimus+no data

API and SDK support

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX1212 (12_1)
Shader Model6.46.4
OpenGL4.54.6
OpenCL1.22.0
Vulkan+1.1.125
CUDA6.1-

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.

Quadro P4000 27.17
Pro WX 8200 29.82
+9.8%

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.

Quadro P4000 11369
Samples: 3701
Pro WX 8200 12474
+9.7%
Samples: 110

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:

Full HD6570−75
+7.7%

Cost per frame, $

1080p12.54
+12.1%
14.27
  • Quadro P4000 has 12% lower cost per frame in 1080p

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 150−160 170−180
+9%
Cyberpunk 2077 60−65 65−70
+6.6%
Resident Evil 4 Remake 65−70 70−75
+2.9%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 100−110 110−120
+3.8%
Counter-Strike 2 150−160 170−180
+9%
Cyberpunk 2077 60−65 65−70
+6.6%
Far Cry 5 90−95 95−100
+5.6%
Fortnite 130−140 140−150
+6.9%
Forza Horizon 4 100−110 110−120
+0.9%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 110−120 120−130
+8.1%
Valorant 180−190 190−200
+4.4%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 100−110 110−120
+3.8%
Counter-Strike 2 150−160 170−180
+9%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 260−270 290−300
+7.8%
Cyberpunk 2077 60−65 65−70
+6.6%
Dota 2 130−140 140−150
+7.7%
Far Cry 5 90−95 95−100
+5.6%
Far Cry 6 75−80 85−90
+7.6%
Fortnite 130−140 140−150
+6.9%
Forza Horizon 4 100−110 110−120
+0.9%
Grand Theft Auto V 95−100 100−105
+1%
Metro Exodus 60−65 65−70
+3.2%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 110−120 120−130
+8.1%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 77 80−85
+3.9%
Valorant 180−190 190−200
+4.4%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 100−110 110−120
+3.8%
Cyberpunk 2077 60−65 65−70
+6.6%
Dota 2 130−140 140−150
+7.7%
Far Cry 5 90−95 95−100
+5.6%
Forza Horizon 4 100−110 110−120
+0.9%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 110−120 120−130
+8.1%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 41
+2.5%
40−45
Valorant 180−190 190−200
+4.4%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 130−140 140−150
+6.9%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 60−65 65−70
+4.8%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 190−200 210−220
+7.7%
Far Cry 6 45−50 50−55
+4.2%
Grand Theft Auto V 50−55 55−60
+3.8%
Metro Exodus 35−40 40−45
+5.3%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180 190−200
+8.6%
Valorant 210−220 230−240
+8.5%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 75−80 80−85
+5.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 27−30 30−33
+3.4%
Far Cry 5 65−70 70−75
+7.7%
Forza Horizon 4 70−75 80−85
+9.6%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 45−50 50−55
+6.4%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 65−70 75−80
+8.7%

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2 27−30 30−33
+3.4%
Far Cry 6 16−18 18−20
+5.9%
Grand Theft Auto V 50−55 55−60
+1.9%
Metro Exodus 24−27 24−27
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 40−45 45−50
+7.1%
Valorant 160−170 170−180
+6.3%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 40−45 45−50
+4.7%
Counter-Strike 2 27−30 30−33
+3.4%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14 14−16
+7.7%
Dota 2 85−90 95−100
+8%
Far Cry 5 30−35 35−40
+2.9%
Forza Horizon 4 45−50 50−55
+2%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
+3.3%
30−33

4K
Epic

Fortnite 30−35 35−40
+9.4%

This is how Quadro P4000 and Pro WX 8200 compete in popular games:

  • Pro WX 8200 is 8% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 27.17 29.82
Recency 6 February 2017 13 August 2018
Chip lithography 16 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 100 Watt 230 Watt

Quadro P4000 has 57% lower power consumption.

Pro WX 8200, on the other hand, has a 10% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, and a 13% more advanced lithography process.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Quadro P4000 and Radeon Pro WX 8200.

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.9 441 votes

Rate Quadro P4000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.2 29 votes

Rate Radeon Pro WX 8200 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Quadro P4000 or Radeon Pro WX 8200, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.