Radeon Pro Vega 64X vs Quadro P3200

Place in the ranking	251	147
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	21.00	9.58
Architecture	Pascal (2016−2021)	GCN 5.0 (2017−2020)
GPU code name	GP104	Vega 10
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Mobile workstation
Release date	21 February 2018 (6 years ago)	19 March 2019 (5 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	4096
Core clock speed	1328 MHz	1250 MHz
Boost clock speed	1543 MHz	1468 MHz
Number of transistors	7,200 million	12,500 million
Manufacturing process technology	16 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	250 Watt
Texture fill rate	172.8	375.8
Floating-point processing power	5.53 TFLOPS	12.03 TFLOPS
ROPs	64	64
TMUs	112	256

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
Supplementary power connectors	None	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	HBM2
Maximum RAM amount	6 GB	16 GB
Memory bus width	192 Bit	2048 Bit
Memory clock speed	1753 MHz	1000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	168.3 GB/s	512.0 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

Supported technologies

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

Optimus

API compatibility

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 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 P3200 22.01

Pro Vega 64X 33.45
+52%

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 P3200 8795

Pro Vega 64X 13369
+52%

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.

Quadro P3200 34289

Pro Vega 64X 78565
+129%

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	85 −41.2%	120−130 +41.2%
4K	28 −42.9%	40−45 +42.9%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	40−45 −42.9%	60−65 +42.9%
Cyberpunk 2077	45−50 −41.3%	65−70 +41.3%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	70−75 −40.8%	100−105 +40.8%
Counter-Strike 2	40−45 −42.9%	60−65 +42.9%
Cyberpunk 2077	45−50 −41.3%	65−70 +41.3%
Forza Horizon 4	95−100 −51.5%	150−160 +51.5%
Forza Horizon 5	60−65 −47.5%	90−95 +47.5%
Metro Exodus	60−65 −47.5%	90−95 +47.5%
Red Dead Redemption 2	50−55 −47.1%	75−80 +47.1%
Valorant	90−95 −41.3%	130−140 +41.3%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	70−75 −40.8%	100−105 +40.8%
Counter-Strike 2	40−45 −42.9%	60−65 +42.9%
Cyberpunk 2077	45−50 −41.3%	65−70 +41.3%
Dota 2	40 −50%	60−65 +50%
Far Cry 5	73 −50.7%	110−120 +50.7%
Fortnite	110−120 −45.3%	170−180 +45.3%
Forza Horizon 4	95−100 −51.5%	150−160 +51.5%
Forza Horizon 5	60−65 −47.5%	90−95 +47.5%
Grand Theft Auto V	75−80 −51.9%	120−130 +51.9%
Metro Exodus	60−65 −47.5%	90−95 +47.5%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	140−150 −48.6%	220−230 +48.6%
Red Dead Redemption 2	50−55 −47.1%	75−80 +47.1%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	70−75 −50.7%	110−120 +50.7%
Valorant	90−95 −41.3%	130−140 +41.3%
World of Tanks	240−250 −41.1%	350−400 +41.1%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	70−75 −40.8%	100−105 +40.8%
Counter-Strike 2	40−45 −42.9%	60−65 +42.9%
Cyberpunk 2077	45−50 −41.3%	65−70 +41.3%
Dota 2	112 −51.8%	170−180 +51.8%
Far Cry 5	70−75 −50.7%	110−120 +50.7%
Forza Horizon 4	95−100 −51.5%	150−160 +51.5%
Forza Horizon 5	60−65 −47.5%	90−95 +47.5%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	140−150 −48.6%	220−230 +48.6%
Valorant	90−95 −41.3%	130−140 +41.3%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	35−40 −44.7%	55−60 +44.7%
Grand Theft Auto V	35−40 −44.7%	55−60 +44.7%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	170−180 −49.4%	260−270 +49.4%
Red Dead Redemption 2	21−24 −42.9%	30−33 +42.9%
World of Tanks	150−160 −50.3%	230−240 +50.3%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	45−50 −41.3%	65−70 +41.3%
Counter-Strike 2	20−22 −50%	30−33 +50%
Cyberpunk 2077	18−20 −42.1%	27−30 +42.1%
Far Cry 5	65−70 −46.2%	95−100 +46.2%
Forza Horizon 4	60−65 −50%	90−95 +50%
Forza Horizon 5	35−40 −48.6%	55−60 +48.6%
Metro Exodus	50−55 −44.2%	75−80 +44.2%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	30−35 −51.5%	50−55 +51.5%
Valorant	60−65 −47.5%	90−95 +47.5%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	18−20 −42.1%	27−30 +42.1%
Dota 2	35−40 −41%	55−60 +41%
Grand Theft Auto V	35−40 −41%	55−60 +41%
Metro Exodus	16−18 −41.2%	24−27 +41.2%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	65−70 −44.9%	100−105 +44.9%
Red Dead Redemption 2	14−16 −50%	21−24 +50%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	35−40 −41%	55−60 +41%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	21−24 −30.4%	30−33 +30.4%
Counter-Strike 2	18−20 −42.1%	27−30 +42.1%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 −42.9%	10−11 +42.9%
Dota 2	35−40 −41%	55−60 +41%
Far Cry 5	30−33 −50%	45−50 +50%
Fortnite	27−30 −42.9%	40−45 +42.9%
Forza Horizon 4	35−40 −42.9%	50−55 +42.9%
Forza Horizon 5	18−20 −42.1%	27−30 +42.1%
Valorant	27−30 −37.9%	40−45 +37.9%

This is how Quadro P3200 and Pro Vega 64X compete in popular games:

Pro Vega 64X is 41% faster in 1080p
Pro Vega 64X is 43% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	22.01	33.45
Recency	21 February 2018	19 March 2019
Maximum RAM amount	6 GB	16 GB
Chip lithography	16 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	250 Watt

Quadro P3200 has 233.3% lower power consumption.

Pro Vega 64X, on the other hand, has a 52% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, a 166.7% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 14.3% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon Pro Vega 64X is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro P3200 in performance tests.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.