Radeon Pro WX 3200 vs Quadro K510M

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro K510M with Radeon Pro WX 3200, including specs and performance data.

Quadro K510M
2013
1 GB GDDR5, 30 Watt
1.66

Pro WX 3200 outperforms K510M by a whopping 277% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking945578
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data12.42
Power efficiency3.796.60
ArchitectureKepler 2.0 (2013−2015)GCN 4.0 (2016−2020)
GPU code nameGK208Polaris 23
Market segmentMobile workstationWorkstation
Release date23 July 2013 (11 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 cores192640
Core clock speed846 MHz1082 MHz
Number of transistors915 million2,200 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)30 Watt65 Watt
Texture fill rate13.5434.62
Floating-point processing power0.3249 TFLOPS1.385 TFLOPS
ROPs816
TMUs1632

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 sizemedium sizedno data
InterfaceMXM-A (3.0)PCIe 3.0 x8
Widthno dataMXM Module
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount1 GB4 GB
Memory bus width64 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed600 MHz1000 MHz
Memory bandwidth19.2 GB/s64 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 ConnectorsNo outputs4x mini-DisplayPort
Display Port1.2no data

Supported technologies

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

Optimus+-
3D Vision Pro+no data
Mosaic+no data
nView Display Management+no data
Optimus+no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX1212 (12_0)
Shader Model5.16.4
OpenGL4.54.6
OpenCL1.22.0
Vulkan+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 K510M 1.66
Pro WX 3200 6.26
+277%

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 K510M 641
Pro WX 3200 2414
+277%

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 HD5−6
−300%
20
+300%
4K2−3
−300%
8
+300%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data9.95
4Kno data24.88

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
−150%
10−11
+150%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
−167%
16−18
+167%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
−160%
12−14
+160%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
−150%
10−11
+150%
Far Cry 5 2−3
−600%
14−16
+600%
Far Cry New Dawn 4−5
−350%
18−20
+350%
Forza Horizon 4 5−6
−720%
40−45
+720%
Hitman 3 6−7
−117%
12−14
+117%
Horizon Zero Dawn 16−18
−138%
35−40
+138%
Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
−467%
16−18
+467%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 9−10
−144%
21−24
+144%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−50%
50−55
+50%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
−167%
16−18
+167%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
−160%
12−14
+160%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
−150%
10−11
+150%
Far Cry 5 2−3
−600%
14−16
+600%
Far Cry New Dawn 4−5
−350%
18−20
+350%
Forza Horizon 4 5−6
−720%
40−45
+720%
Hitman 3 6−7
−117%
12−14
+117%
Horizon Zero Dawn 16−18
−138%
35−40
+138%
Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
−467%
16−18
+467%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 9−10
−144%
21−24
+144%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
−66.7%
20−22
+66.7%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−50%
50−55
+50%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
−167%
16−18
+167%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
−160%
12−14
+160%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
−150%
10−11
+150%
Far Cry 5 2−3
−600%
14−16
+600%
Forza Horizon 4 5−6
−720%
40−45
+720%
Hitman 3 6−7
−117%
12−14
+117%
Horizon Zero Dawn 16−18
−138%
35−40
+138%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 9−10
−144%
21−24
+144%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
+20%
10
−20%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−50%
50−55
+50%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
−467%
16−18
+467%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 2−3
−500%
12−14
+500%
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3
−400%
10−11
+400%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
−500%
6−7
+500%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 1−2
−500%
6−7
+500%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−200%
3−4
+200%
Far Cry 5 2−3
−250%
7−8
+250%
Hitman 3 7−8
−42.9%
10−11
+42.9%
Horizon Zero Dawn 5−6
−180%
14−16
+180%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2
−400%
5−6
+400%
Watch Dogs: Legion 9−10
−344%
40−45
+344%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
−175%
10−12
+175%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
−300%
4−5
+300%

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 0−1 3−4
Far Cry 5 1−2
−200%
3−4
+200%
Watch Dogs: Legion 0−1 2−3

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
−133%
7−8
+133%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Battlefield 5 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Metro Exodus 24
+0%
24
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Battlefield 5 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Metro Exodus 14
+0%
14
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%

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

Battlefield 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
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
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

This is how Quadro K510M and Pro WX 3200 compete in popular games:

  • Pro WX 3200 is 300% faster in 1080p
  • Pro WX 3200 is 300% 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 Ultra Preset, the Quadro K510M is 20% faster.
  • in Forza Horizon 4, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the Pro WX 3200 is 720% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Quadro K510M is ahead in 1 test (1%)
  • Pro WX 3200 is ahead in 50 tests (72%)
  • there's a draw in 18 tests (26%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.66 6.26
Recency 23 July 2013 2 July 2019
Maximum RAM amount 1 GB 4 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 30 Watt 65 Watt

Quadro K510M has 116.7% lower power consumption.

Pro WX 3200, on the other hand, has a 277.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon Pro WX 3200 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K510M in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro K510M 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.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA Quadro K510M
Quadro K510M
AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200
Radeon Pro WX 3200

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


2.5 2 votes

Rate Quadro K510M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.3 83 votes

Rate Radeon Pro WX 3200 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.