Radeon Pro WX 3200 vs Quadro FX 3700M

Place in the ranking	1064	581
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.02	12.52
Power efficiency	1.09	6.65
Architecture	Tesla (2006−2010)	GCN 4.0 (2016−2020)
GPU code name	G92	Polaris 23
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Workstation
Release date	14 August 2008 (16 years ago)	2 July 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$925	$199

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

Pro WX 3200 has 62500% better value for money than FX 3700M.

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	128	640
Core clock speed	550 MHz	1082 MHz
Number of transistors	754 million	2,200 million
Manufacturing process technology	65 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	65 Watt
Texture fill rate	35.20	34.62
Floating-point processing power	0.352 TFLOPS	1.385 TFLOPS
ROPs	16	16
TMUs	64	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-HE	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	GDDR3	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	4 GB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	800 MHz	1000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	51.2 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	11.1 (10_0)	12 (12_0)
Shader Model	4.0	6.4
OpenGL	3.3	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.

FX 3700M 1.19

Pro WX 3200 6.28
+428%

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.

FX 3700M 456

Pro WX 3200 2414
+429%

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.

FX 3700M 5053

Pro WX 3200 12538
+148%

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	3−4 −500%	18 +500%
4K	1−2 −800%	9 +800%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	308.33 −2689%	11.06 +2689%
4K	925.00 −4083%	22.11 +4083%

Pro WX 3200 has 2689% lower cost per frame in 1080p
Pro WX 3200 has 4083% lower cost per frame in 4K

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	9−10 −55.6%	14−16 +55.6%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −300%	12−14 +300%
Elden Ring	0−1	16−18

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	1−2 −1900%	20−22 +1900%
Counter-Strike 2	9−10 −55.6%	14−16 +55.6%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −300%	12−14 +300%
Forza Horizon 4	8−9 −225%	24−27 +225%
Red Dead Redemption 2	6−7 −200%	18−20 +200%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	1−2 −1900%	20−22 +1900%
Counter-Strike 2	9−10 −55.6%	14−16 +55.6%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −300%	12−14 +300%
Dota 2	1−2 −1500%	16 +1500%
Elden Ring	0−1	16−18
Far Cry 5	10−11 −50%	15 +50%
Fortnite	5−6 −640%	35−40 +640%
Forza Horizon 4	8−9 −225%	24−27 +225%
Grand Theft Auto V	1−2 −2000%	21−24 +2000%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	12−14 −300%	50−55 +300%
Red Dead Redemption 2	6−7 −200%	18−20 +200%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	7−8 −186%	20−22 +186%
World of Tanks	24−27 −281%	95−100 +281%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	1−2 −1900%	20−22 +1900%
Counter-Strike 2	9−10 −55.6%	14−16 +55.6%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −300%	12−14 +300%
Dota 2	1−2 −3400%	35 +3400%
Far Cry 5	10−11 −190%	27−30 +190%
Forza Horizon 4	8−9 −225%	24−27 +225%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	12−14 −300%	50−55 +300%

1440p
High Preset

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	7−8 −429%	35−40 +429%
Red Dead Redemption 2	0−1	5−6
World of Tanks	6−7 −650%	45−50 +650%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −150%	5−6 +150%
Far Cry 5	5−6 −160%	12−14 +160%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	2−3 −250%	7−8 +250%
Valorant	6−7 −167%	16−18 +167%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2	14−16 −13.3%	16−18 +13.3%
Grand Theft Auto V	14−16 −13.3%	16−18 +13.3%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	3−4 −500%	18−20 +500%
Red Dead Redemption 2	0−1	4−5
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 −13.3%	16−18 +13.3%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	1−2 −400%	5−6 +400%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 −100%	2−3 +100%
Dota 2	14−16 +66.7%	9 −66.7%
Far Cry 5	0−1	7−8
Valorant	1−2 −500%	6−7 +500%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Metro Exodus	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Valorant	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Metro Exodus	4 +0%	4 +0%
Valorant	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Valorant

18−20

+0%

18−20

+0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Elden Ring	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Metro Exodus	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%

4K
High Preset

Elden Ring	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Metro Exodus	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Fortnite	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%

This is how FX 3700M and Pro WX 3200 compete in popular games:

Pro WX 3200 is 500% faster in 1080p
Pro WX 3200 is 800% faster in 4K

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

in Dota 2, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the FX 3700M is 67% faster.
in Dota 2, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Pro WX 3200 is 3400% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

FX 3700M is ahead in 1 test (2%)
Pro WX 3200 is ahead in 39 tests (70%)
there's a draw in 16 tests (29%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	1.19	6.28
Recency	14 August 2008	2 July 2019
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	4 GB
Chip lithography	65 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	65 Watt

Pro WX 3200 has a 427.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 364.3% more advanced lithography process, and 15.4% lower power consumption.

The Radeon Pro WX 3200 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 3700M in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro FX 3700M 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.