Radeon Pro WX 3200 vs GeForce 840M

Place in the ranking	795	578
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	12.42
Power efficiency	5.88	6.60
Architecture	Maxwell (2014−2017)	GCN 4.0 (2016−2020)
GPU code name	GM108	Polaris 23
Market segment	Laptop	Workstation
Release date	12 March 2014 (10 years ago)	2 July 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$199

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores	384	640
Core clock speed	1029 MHz	1082 MHz
Boost clock speed	1124 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	no data	2,200 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	33 Watt	65 Watt
Texture fill rate	17.98	34.62
Floating-point processing power	0.8632 TFLOPS	1.385 TFLOPS
ROPs	8	16
TMUs	16	32

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	medium sized	no data
Bus support	PCI Express 2.0, PCI Express 3.0	no data
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x8	PCIe 3.0 x8
Width	no data	MXM Module
Supplementary power connectors	no data	None

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	DDR3	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	4 GB
Memory bus width	64 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	1001 MHz	1000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	16.02 GB/s	64 GB/s
Shared memory	-	-

Connectivity and outputs

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display Connectors

No outputs

4x mini-DisplayPort

Supported technologies

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

GPU Boost	2.0	no data
Optimus	+	-
GameWorks	+	-

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (11_0)	12 (12_0)
Shader Model	5.1	6.4
OpenGL	4.5	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	2.0
Vulkan	1.1.126	1.2.131
CUDA	+	-

Synthetic benchmark performance

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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

GeForce 840M 2.83

Pro WX 3200 6.26
+121%

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.

GeForce 840M 1092

Pro WX 3200 2414
+121%

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.

GeForce 840M 2340

Pro WX 3200 4338
+85.4%

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.

GeForce 840M 7191

Pro WX 3200 12538
+74.4%

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.

GeForce 840M 1573

Pro WX 3200 3156
+101%

3DMark Cloud Gate GPU

Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.

GeForce 840M 8724

Pro WX 3200 18866
+116%

3DMark Ice Storm GPU

Ice Storm Graphics is an obsolete benchmark, part of 3DMark suite. Ice Storm was used to measure entry level laptops and Windows-based tablets performance. It utilizes DirectX 11 feature level 9 to display a battle between two space fleets near a frozen planet in 1280x720 resolution. Discontinued in January 2020, it is now superseded by 3DMark Night Raid.

GeForce 840M 119888
+13.3%

Pro WX 3200 105833

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 maya-04

GeForce 840M 7

Pro WX 3200 22
+219%

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 sw-03

GeForce 840M 5

Pro WX 3200 40
+648%

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 snx-02

GeForce 840M 1

Pro WX 3200 32
+2323%

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 catia-04

GeForce 840M 9

Pro WX 3200 28
+210%

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 creo-01

GeForce 840M 18

Pro WX 3200 34
+85.3%

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 mediacal-01

GeForce 840M 2

Pro WX 3200 8
+350%

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 showcase-01

GeForce 840M 10

Pro WX 3200 18
+73.5%

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 energy-01

GeForce 840M 13
+731%

Pro WX 3200 2

SPECviewperf 12 - Showcase

GeForce 840M 10

Pro WX 3200 18
+73.5%

SPECviewperf 12 - Maya

This part of SPECviewperf 12 workstation benchmark uses Autodesk Maya 13 engine to render a superhero energy plant static scene consisting of more than 700 thousand polygons, in six different modes.

GeForce 840M 7

Pro WX 3200 22
+219%

SPECviewperf 12 - Catia

GeForce 840M 9

Pro WX 3200 28
+210%

SPECviewperf 12 - Solidworks

GeForce 840M 5

Pro WX 3200 40
+648%

SPECviewperf 12 - Siemens NX

GeForce 840M 1

Pro WX 3200 32
+2323%

SPECviewperf 12 - Creo

GeForce 840M 18

Pro WX 3200 34
+85.3%

SPECviewperf 12 - Medical

GeForce 840M 2

Pro WX 3200 8
+350%

SPECviewperf 12 - Energy

GeForce 840M 13.3
+731%

Pro WX 3200 1.6

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	45 −111%	95−100 +111%
Full HD	17 −17.6%	20 +17.6%
4K	3−4 −167%	8 +167%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	no data	9.95
4K	no data	24.88

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

5−6

−100%

10−11
+100%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	9−10 −77.8%	16−18 +77.8%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2 −700%	8−9 +700%
Battlefield 5	4−5 −350%	18−20 +350%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	7−8 −85.7%	12−14 +85.7%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 −100%	10−11 +100%
Far Cry 5	5−6 −180%	14−16 +180%
Far Cry New Dawn	8−9 −125%	18−20 +125%
Forza Horizon 4	14−16 −173%	40−45 +173%
Hitman 3	8−9 −62.5%	12−14 +62.5%
Horizon Zero Dawn	21−24 −72.7%	35−40 +72.7%
Metro Exodus	3−4 −700%	24 +700%
Red Dead Redemption 2	7−8 −143%	16−18 +143%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	12−14 −83.3%	21−24 +83.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 −34.2%	50−55 +34.2%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	9−10 −77.8%	16−18 +77.8%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2 −700%	8−9 +700%
Battlefield 5	4−5 −350%	18−20 +350%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	7−8 −85.7%	12−14 +85.7%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 −100%	10−11 +100%
Far Cry 5	5−6 −180%	14−16 +180%
Far Cry New Dawn	8−9 −125%	18−20 +125%
Forza Horizon 4	14−16 −173%	40−45 +173%
Hitman 3	8−9 −62.5%	12−14 +62.5%
Horizon Zero Dawn	21−24 −72.7%	35−40 +72.7%
Metro Exodus	3−4 −367%	14 +367%
Red Dead Redemption 2	7−8 −143%	16−18 +143%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	12−14 −83.3%	21−24 +83.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	23 +15%	20−22 −15%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 −34.2%	50−55 +34.2%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	9−10 −77.8%	16−18 +77.8%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2 −700%	8−9 +700%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	7−8 −85.7%	12−14 +85.7%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 −100%	10−11 +100%
Far Cry 5	5−6 −180%	14−16 +180%
Forza Horizon 4	14−16 −173%	40−45 +173%
Hitman 3	8−9 −62.5%	12−14 +62.5%
Horizon Zero Dawn	21−24 −72.7%	35−40 +72.7%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	12−14 −83.3%	21−24 +83.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	6 −66.7%	10 +66.7%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 −34.2%	50−55 +34.2%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

7−8

−143%

16−18
+143%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	5−6 −140%	12−14 +140%
Far Cry New Dawn	4−5 −150%	10−11 +150%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	2−3 −200%	6−7 +200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 −200%	6−7 +200%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 −200%	3−4 +200%
Far Cry 5	3−4 −133%	7−8 +133%
Hitman 3	8−9 −25%	10−11 +25%
Horizon Zero Dawn	7−8 −100%	14−16 +100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	2−3 −150%	5−6 +150%
Watch Dogs: Legion	16−18 −135%	40−45 +135%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

6−7

−83.3%

10−12
+83.3%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	1−2 −400%	5−6 +400%
Far Cry New Dawn	2−3 −100%	4−5 +100%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	2−3 −100%	4−5 +100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2 −200%	3−4 +200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	1−2 −200%	3−4 +200%
Far Cry 5	1−2 −200%	3−4 +200%
Forza Horizon 4	0−1	6−7
Watch Dogs: Legion	1−2 −100%	2−3 +100%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

4−5

−75%

7−8
+75%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	20−22 +0%	20−22 +0%
Metro Exodus	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%

4K
High Preset

Hitman 3	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Metro Exodus	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	5 +0%	5 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077	0−1	0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%

This is how GeForce 840M and Pro WX 3200 compete in popular games:

Pro WX 3200 is 111% faster in 900p
Pro WX 3200 is 18% faster in 1080p
Pro WX 3200 is 167% faster in 4K

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the GeForce 840M is 15% faster.
in Assassin's Creed Valhalla, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the Pro WX 3200 is 700% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

GeForce 840M is ahead in 1 test (1%)
Pro WX 3200 is ahead in 60 tests (86%)
there's a draw in 9 tests (13%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	2.83	6.26
Recency	12 March 2014	2 July 2019
Chip lithography	28 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	33 Watt	65 Watt

GeForce 840M has 97% lower power consumption.

Pro WX 3200, on the other hand, has a 121.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon Pro WX 3200 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 840M in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce 840M is a notebook card while Radeon Pro WX 3200 is a workstation one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.