Quadro P3200 vs GeForce GTX 285M SLI
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 285M SLI with Quadro P3200, including specs and performance data.
P3200 outperforms 285M SLI by a whopping 439% 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 | 751 | 305 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 1.94 | 20.94 |
| Architecture | G9x (2007−2010) | Pascal (2016−2021) |
| GPU code name | N10E-GTX | GP104 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 2 March 2009 (16 years ago) | 21 February 2018 (7 years ago) |
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 | 256 | 1792 |
| Core clock speed | 576 MHz | 1328 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1543 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1508 Million | 7,200 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 55 nm | 16 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 172.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 5.53 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 64 |
| TMUs | no data | 112 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 672 KB |
| L2 Cache | no data | 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 | large | large |
| Interface | no data | MXM-B (3.0) |
| 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 | GDDR3 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 6 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 192 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1020 MHz | 1753 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 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 | no data | No outputs |
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 | 10 | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | no data | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 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.
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.
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 HD | 60
−40%
| 84
+40%
|
| 4K | 5−6
−460%
| 28
+460%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
−687%
|
110−120
+687%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
−463%
|
45−50
+463%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 9−10
−356%
|
40−45
+356%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
−467%
|
85−90
+467%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
−687%
|
110−120
+687%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
−463%
|
45−50
+463%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
−618%
|
79
+618%
|
| Fortnite | 21−24
−391%
|
100−110
+391%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
−400%
|
95
+400%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−11
−560%
|
65−70
+560%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 9−10
−356%
|
40−45
+356%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
−400%
|
80−85
+400%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
−187%
|
150−160
+187%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
−467%
|
85−90
+467%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
−687%
|
110−120
+687%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 65−70
−249%
|
240−250
+249%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
−463%
|
45−50
+463%
|
| Dota 2 | 35−40
−240%
|
119
+240%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
−573%
|
74
+573%
|
| Fortnite | 21−24
−391%
|
100−110
+391%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
−363%
|
88
+363%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−11
−560%
|
65−70
+560%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 12−14
−542%
|
75−80
+542%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 9−10
−356%
|
40−45
+356%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7−8
−543%
|
45−50
+543%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
−400%
|
80−85
+400%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
−600%
|
84
+600%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
−187%
|
150−160
+187%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
−467%
|
85−90
+467%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
−463%
|
45−50
+463%
|
| Dota 2 | 35−40
−220%
|
112
+220%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
−536%
|
70
+536%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
−279%
|
72
+279%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 9−10
−356%
|
40−45
+356%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
−400%
|
80−85
+400%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
−283%
|
46
+283%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
−187%
|
150−160
+187%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 21−24
−391%
|
100−110
+391%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−438%
|
40−45
+438%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 27−30
−417%
|
150−160
+417%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 2−3
−1750%
|
35−40
+1750%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
−1250%
|
27−30
+1250%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−33
−477%
|
170−180
+477%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
−370%
|
180−190
+370%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−567%
|
20−22
+567%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
−571%
|
45−50
+571%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
−478%
|
50−55
+478%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 4−5
−475%
|
21−24
+475%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−540%
|
30−35
+540%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 7−8
−600%
|
45−50
+600%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
−144%
|
35−40
+144%
|
| Valorant | 18−20
−532%
|
120−130
+532%
|
4K
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−700%
|
8−9
+700%
|
| Dota 2 | 12−14
−492%
|
70−75
+492%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
−700%
|
24−27
+700%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−620%
|
35−40
+620%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
−425%
|
21−24
+425%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 4−5
−450%
|
21−24
+450%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 28
+0%
|
28
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
This is how GTX 285M SLI and Quadro P3200 compete in popular games:
- Quadro P3200 is 40% faster in 1080p
- Quadro P3200 is 460% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Grand Theft Auto V, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the Quadro P3200 is 1750% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Quadro P3200 performs better in 58 tests (88%)
- there's a draw in 8 tests (12%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.76 | 20.26 |
| Recency | 2 March 2009 | 21 February 2018 |
| Chip lithography | 55 nm | 16 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 75 Watt |
Quadro P3200 has a 438.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 243.8% more advanced lithography process, and 100% lower power consumption.
The Quadro P3200 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 285M SLI in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 285M SLI is a notebook 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.
