Radeon Pro V340 vs Quadro P3200
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro P3200 with Radeon Pro V340, including specs and performance data.
P3200 outperforms Pro V340 by a whopping 198% 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 | 307 | 599 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 20.85 | 2.28 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | GCN 5.0 (2017−2020) |
| GPU code name | GP104 | Vega 10 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Workstation |
| Release date | 21 February 2018 (8 years ago) | 26 August 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 | 1792 | 3584 |
| Core clock speed | 1328 MHz | 852 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1543 MHz | 1500 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 7,200 million | 12,500 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 16 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 230 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 172.8 | 336.0 |
| Floating-point processing power | 5.53 TFLOPS | 10.75 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 64 |
| TMUs | 112 | 224 |
| L1 Cache | 672 KB | 896 KB |
| L2 Cache | 1536 KB | 4 MB |
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 x16 |
| Length | no data | 267 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 2x 8-pin |
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 | HBM2 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | 16 GB |
| Memory bus width | 192 Bit | 2048 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1753 MHz | 945 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 168.3 GB/s | 483.8 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 outputs | 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 | 12 (12_1) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.1.125 |
| 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.
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.
GeekBench 5 OpenCL
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.
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 | 84
+211%
| 27−30
−211%
|
| 4K | 28
+211%
| 9−10
−211%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 110−120
+234%
|
35−40
−234%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+214%
|
14−16
−214%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 45−50
+236%
|
14−16
−236%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 85−90
+215%
|
27−30
−215%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 110−120
+234%
|
35−40
−234%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+214%
|
14−16
−214%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 79
+229%
|
24−27
−229%
|
| Fortnite | 100−110
+206%
|
35−40
−206%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 95
+217%
|
30−33
−217%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 65−70
+210%
|
21−24
−210%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 80−85
+233%
|
24−27
−233%
|
| Valorant | 150−160
+202%
|
50−55
−202%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 85−90
+215%
|
27−30
−215%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 110−120
+234%
|
35−40
−234%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 240−250
+201%
|
80−85
−201%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+214%
|
14−16
−214%
|
| Dota 2 | 119
+240%
|
35−40
−240%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 74
+208%
|
24−27
−208%
|
| Fortnite | 100−110
+206%
|
35−40
−206%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 88
+226%
|
27−30
−226%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 65−70
+210%
|
21−24
−210%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 75−80
+217%
|
24−27
−217%
|
| Metro Exodus | 45−50
+221%
|
14−16
−221%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 80−85
+233%
|
24−27
−233%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 84
+211%
|
27−30
−211%
|
| Valorant | 150−160
+202%
|
50−55
−202%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 85−90
+215%
|
27−30
−215%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+214%
|
14−16
−214%
|
| Dota 2 | 112
+220%
|
35−40
−220%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 70
+233%
|
21−24
−233%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 72
+200%
|
24−27
−200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 80−85
+233%
|
24−27
−233%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 46
+229%
|
14−16
−229%
|
| Valorant | 150−160
+202%
|
50−55
−202%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 100−110
+206%
|
35−40
−206%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
+207%
|
14−16
−207%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 140−150
+198%
|
50−55
−198%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 35−40
+208%
|
12−14
−208%
|
| Metro Exodus | 27−30
+200%
|
9−10
−200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+215%
|
55−60
−215%
|
| Valorant | 180−190
+213%
|
60−65
−213%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
+228%
|
18−20
−228%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 20−22
+233%
|
6−7
−233%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45−50
+236%
|
14−16
−236%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
+225%
|
16−18
−225%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30−35
+220%
|
10−11
−220%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 45−50
+200%
|
16−18
−200%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+217%
|
6−7
−217%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 35−40
+217%
|
12−14
−217%
|
| Metro Exodus | 16−18
+240%
|
5−6
−240%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 28
+211%
|
9−10
−211%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+240%
|
35−40
−240%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
+220%
|
10−11
−220%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+217%
|
6−7
−217%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
| Dota 2 | 70−75
+233%
|
21−24
−233%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
+200%
|
8−9
−200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+200%
|
12−14
−200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
+200%
|
7−8
−200%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 21−24
+214%
|
7−8
−214%
|
This is how Quadro P3200 and Pro V340 compete in popular games:
- Quadro P3200 is 211% faster in 1080p
- Quadro P3200 is 211% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 20.31 | 6.82 |
| Recency | 21 February 2018 | 26 August 2018 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | 16 GB |
| Chip lithography | 16 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 230 Watt |
Quadro P3200 has a 198% higher aggregate performance score, and 207% lower power consumption.
Pro V340, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 6 months, a 167% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 14% more advanced lithography process.
The Quadro P3200 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon Pro V340 in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro P3200 is a mobile workstation graphics card while Radeon Pro V340 is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
