Radeon Pro WX 3200 vs Quadro M3000M

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro M3000M with Radeon Pro WX 3200, including specs and performance data.

M3000M
2015
4 GB GDDR5, 75 Watt
14.66
+133%

M3000M outperforms Pro WX 3200 by a whopping 133% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking358581
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data12.62
Power efficiency13.496.67
ArchitectureMaxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)GCN 4.0 (2016−2020)
GPU code nameGM204Polaris 23
Market segmentMobile workstationWorkstation
Release date18 August 2015 (9 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 cores1,024640
Core clock speed1050 MHz1082 MHz
Number of transistors5,200 million2,200 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)75 Watt65 Watt
Texture fill rate67.2034.62
Floating-point processing power2.15 TFLOPS1.385 TFLOPS
ROPs3216
TMUs6432

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 sizelargeno data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x8
Widthno dataMXM Module
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone

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 amount4 GB4 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1253 MHz1000 MHz
Memory bandwidth160 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 Model6.46.4
OpenGL4.54.6
OpenCL1.22.0
Vulkan+1.2.131
CUDA5.2-

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.

M3000M 14.66
+133%
Pro WX 3200 6.28

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.

M3000M 5638
+134%
Pro WX 3200 2414

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.

M3000M 8289
+91.1%
Pro WX 3200 4338

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.

M3000M 27405
+119%
Pro WX 3200 12538

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.

M3000M 6537
+107%
Pro WX 3200 3156

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.

M3000M 44603
+136%
Pro WX 3200 18866

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 maya-04

M3000M 50
+129%
Pro WX 3200 22

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 sw-03

M3000M 85
+110%
Pro WX 3200 40

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 snx-02

M3000M 52
+65.1%
Pro WX 3200 32

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 catia-04

M3000M 77
+179%
Pro WX 3200 28

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 creo-01

M3000M 65
+90%
Pro WX 3200 34

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 mediacal-01

M3000M 22
+172%
Pro WX 3200 8

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 showcase-01

M3000M 40
+125%
Pro WX 3200 18

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 energy-01

M3000M 5
+200%
Pro WX 3200 2

SPECviewperf 12 - Showcase

M3000M 40
+125%
Pro WX 3200 18

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.

M3000M 50
+129%
Pro WX 3200 22

SPECviewperf 12 - Catia

M3000M 77
+179%
Pro WX 3200 28

SPECviewperf 12 - Solidworks

M3000M 85
+110%
Pro WX 3200 40

SPECviewperf 12 - Siemens NX

M3000M 52
+65.1%
Pro WX 3200 32

SPECviewperf 12 - Creo

M3000M 65
+90%
Pro WX 3200 34

SPECviewperf 12 - Medical

M3000M 22
+172%
Pro WX 3200 8

SPECviewperf 12 - Energy

M3000M 4.8
+200%
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:

Full HD60
+233%
18
−233%
4K32
+256%
9
−256%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data11.06
4Kno data22.11

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 24−27
+85.7%
14−16
−85.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 27−30
+142%
12−14
−142%
Elden Ring 45−50
+181%
16−18
−181%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 45−50
+140%
20−22
−140%
Counter-Strike 2 24−27
+85.7%
14−16
−85.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 27−30
+142%
12−14
−142%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
+127%
24−27
−127%
Metro Exodus 40−45
+150%
16−18
−150%
Red Dead Redemption 2 35−40
+100%
18−20
−100%
Valorant 55−60
+205%
18−20
−205%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 45−50
+140%
20−22
−140%
Counter-Strike 2 24−27
+85.7%
14−16
−85.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 27−30
+142%
12−14
−142%
Dota 2 33
+106%
16
−106%
Elden Ring 45−50
+181%
16−18
−181%
Far Cry 5 50−55
+260%
15
−260%
Fortnite 80−85
+122%
35−40
−122%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
+127%
24−27
−127%
Grand Theft Auto V 49
+133%
21−24
−133%
Metro Exodus 40−45
+900%
4
−900%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 100−110
+104%
50−55
−104%
Red Dead Redemption 2 35−40
+100%
18−20
−100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 45−50
+125%
20−22
−125%
Valorant 55−60
+205%
18−20
−205%
World of Tanks 190−200
+92.9%
95−100
−92.9%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 45−50
+140%
20−22
−140%
Counter-Strike 2 24−27
+85.7%
14−16
−85.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 27−30
+142%
12−14
−142%
Dota 2 50−55
+51.4%
35
−51.4%
Far Cry 5 50−55
+86.2%
27−30
−86.2%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
+127%
24−27
−127%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 100−110
+104%
50−55
−104%
Valorant 55−60
+205%
18−20
−205%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 21−24
+250%
6−7
−250%
Elden Ring 21−24
+188%
8−9
−188%
Grand Theft Auto V 21−24
+267%
6−7
−267%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 120−130
+246%
35−40
−246%
Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14
+160%
5−6
−160%
World of Tanks 100−110
+129%
45−50
−129%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 30−33
+173%
10−12
−173%
Counter-Strike 2 12−14
+44.4%
9−10
−44.4%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−12
+120%
5−6
−120%
Far Cry 5 35−40
+169%
12−14
−169%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+227%
10−12
−227%
Metro Exodus 30−35
+300%
8−9
−300%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 18−20
+171%
7−8
−171%
Valorant 35−40
+131%
16−18
−131%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+150%
4−5
−150%
Dota 2 35
+106%
16−18
−106%
Elden Ring 10−11
+233%
3−4
−233%
Grand Theft Auto V 35
+106%
16−18
−106%
Metro Exodus 10−11
+400%
2−3
−400%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 40−45
+139%
18−20
−139%
Red Dead Redemption 2 9−10
+125%
4−5
−125%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 35
+106%
16−18
−106%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 14−16
+180%
5−6
−180%
Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+150%
4−5
−150%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Dota 2 24−27
+189%
9
−189%
Far Cry 5 18−20
+157%
7−8
−157%
Fortnite 16−18
+183%
6−7
−183%
Forza Horizon 4 20−22
+233%
6−7
−233%
Valorant 16−18
+167%
6−7
−167%

This is how M3000M and Pro WX 3200 compete in popular games:

  • M3000M is 233% faster in 1080p
  • M3000M is 256% 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 M3000M is 900% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Without exception, M3000M surpassed Pro WX 3200 in all 61 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 14.66 6.28
Recency 18 August 2015 2 July 2019
Chip lithography 28 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 75 Watt 65 Watt

M3000M has a 133.4% higher aggregate performance score.

Pro WX 3200, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 3 years, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 15.4% lower power consumption.

The Quadro M3000M is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon Pro WX 3200 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro M3000M 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 M3000M
Quadro M3000M
AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200
Radeon Pro WX 3200

Other comparisons

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.


3.8 358 votes

Rate Quadro M3000M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.2 85 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.