Radeon Pro WX 3200 vs Quadro 5000M

Place in the ranking	619	582
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	12.51
Power efficiency	3.69	6.65
Architecture	Fermi (2010−2014)	GCN 4.0 (2016−2020)
GPU code name	GF100	Polaris 23
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Workstation
Release date	27 July 2010 (14 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	320	640
Core clock speed	405 MHz	1082 MHz
Number of transistors	3,100 million	2,200 million
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	100 Watt	65 Watt
Texture fill rate	16.20	34.62
Floating-point processing power	0.5184 TFLOPS	1.385 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	16
TMUs	40	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	large	no data
Interface	MXM-B (3.0)	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	GDDR5	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	1792 MB	4 GB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	600 MHz	1000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	76.8 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

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	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	1.1	2.0
Vulkan	N/A	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.

Quadro 5000M 5.36

Pro WX 3200 6.28
+17.2%

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 5000M 2059

Pro WX 3200 2414
+17.2%

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.

Quadro 5000M 7767

Pro WX 3200 12538
+61.4%

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	14−16 −28.6%	18 +28.6%
4K	7−8 −28.6%	9 +28.6%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	no data	11.06
4K	no data	22.11

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	10−12 −9.1%	12−14 +9.1%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−12 −18.2%	12−14 +18.2%
Elden Ring	14−16 −13.3%	16−18 +13.3%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	16−18 −25%	20−22 +25%
Counter-Strike 2	10−12 −9.1%	12−14 +9.1%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−12 −18.2%	12−14 +18.2%
Forza Horizon 4	21−24 −18.2%	24−27 +18.2%
Metro Exodus	12−14 −23.1%	16−18 +23.1%
Red Dead Redemption 2	16−18 −12.5%	18−20 +12.5%
Valorant	16−18 −31.3%	21−24 +31.3%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	16−18 −25%	20−22 +25%
Counter-Strike 2	10−12 −9.1%	12−14 +9.1%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−12 −18.2%	12−14 +18.2%
Dota 2	18−20 +12.5%	16 −12.5%
Elden Ring	14−16 −13.3%	16−18 +13.3%
Far Cry 5	24−27 +73.3%	15 −73.3%
Fortnite	30−35 −19.4%	35−40 +19.4%
Forza Horizon 4	21−24 −18.2%	24−27 +18.2%
Grand Theft Auto V	18−20 −16.7%	21−24 +16.7%
Metro Exodus	12−14 +225%	4 −225%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	45−50 −15.6%	50−55 +15.6%
Red Dead Redemption 2	16−18 −12.5%	18−20 +12.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16−18 −17.6%	20−22 +17.6%
Valorant	16−18 −31.3%	21−24 +31.3%
World of Tanks	85−90 −13.8%	95−100 +13.8%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	16−18 −25%	20−22 +25%
Counter-Strike 2	10−12 −9.1%	12−14 +9.1%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−12 −18.2%	12−14 +18.2%
Dota 2	18−20 −94.4%	35 +94.4%
Far Cry 5	24−27 −11.5%	27−30 +11.5%
Forza Horizon 4	21−24 −18.2%	24−27 +18.2%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	45−50 −15.6%	50−55 +15.6%
Valorant	16−18 −31.3%	21−24 +31.3%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	5−6 −40%	7−8 +40%
Elden Ring	6−7 −33.3%	8−9 +33.3%
Grand Theft Auto V	6−7 −16.7%	7−8 +16.7%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	30−35 −8.8%	35−40 +8.8%
Red Dead Redemption 2	4−5 −25%	5−6 +25%
World of Tanks	35−40 −15.4%	45−50 +15.4%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	8−9 −37.5%	10−12 +37.5%
Counter-Strike 2	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Far Cry 5	10−12 −18.2%	12−14 +18.2%
Forza Horizon 4	9−10 −33.3%	12−14 +33.3%
Metro Exodus	5−6 −60%	8−9 +60%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	8−9 −12.5%	9−10 +12.5%
Valorant	14−16 −14.3%	16−18 +14.3%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Elden Ring	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	16−18 −6.3%	16−18 +6.3%
Metro Exodus	1−2 −100%	2−3 +100%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	14−16 −20%	18−20 +20%
Red Dead Redemption 2	3−4 −33.3%	4−5 +33.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	4−5 −25%	5−6 +25%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Dota 2	16−18 +88.9%	9 −88.9%
Far Cry 5	6−7 −16.7%	7−8 +16.7%
Fortnite	5−6 −20%	6−7 +20%
Forza Horizon 4	5−6 −20%	6−7 +20%
Valorant	5−6 −20%	6−7 +20%

This is how Quadro 5000M and Pro WX 3200 compete in popular games:

Pro WX 3200 is 29% faster in 1080p
Pro WX 3200 is 29% faster in 4K

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

in Metro Exodus, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the Quadro 5000M is 225% faster.
in Metro Exodus, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the Pro WX 3200 is 100% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

Quadro 5000M is ahead in 4 tests (7%)
Pro WX 3200 is ahead in 51 test (84%)
there's a draw in 6 tests (10%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	5.36	6.28
Recency	27 July 2010	2 July 2019
Maximum RAM amount	1792 MB	4 GB
Chip lithography	40 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	100 Watt	65 Watt

Pro WX 3200 has a 17.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 128.6% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 185.7% more advanced lithography process, and 53.8% lower power consumption.

The Radeon Pro WX 3200 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 5000M in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro 5000M is a mobile workstation 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.