Radeon Pro WX 8200 vs Quadro P3200
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro P3200 with Radeon Pro WX 8200, including specs and performance data.
Pro WX 8200 outperforms P3200 by a considerable 49% 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 | 295 | 203 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 8.73 |
| Power efficiency | 20.73 | 10.10 |
| 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 (7 years ago) | 13 August 2018 (7 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $999 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 | 1200 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 |
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 | 1x 6-pin + 1x 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 | 8 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
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 | 4x mini-DisplayPort |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | + | - |
API and SDK 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.
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.
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
−42.9%
| 120−130
+42.9%
|
| 4K | 28
−42.9%
| 40−45
+42.9%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 8.33 |
| 4K | no data | 24.98 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 110−120
−44.1%
|
170−180
+44.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 45−50
−44.4%
|
65−70
+44.4%
|
| God of War | 40−45
−39.5%
|
60−65
+39.5%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 85−90
−41.2%
|
120−130
+41.2%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 110−120
−44.1%
|
170−180
+44.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 45−50
−44.4%
|
65−70
+44.4%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 79
−39.2%
|
110−120
+39.2%
|
| Fortnite | 100−110
−40.2%
|
150−160
+40.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 95
−47.4%
|
140−150
+47.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 65−70
−43.9%
|
95−100
+43.9%
|
| God of War | 40−45
−39.5%
|
60−65
+39.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 80−85
−37.5%
|
110−120
+37.5%
|
| Valorant | 150−160
−44.7%
|
220−230
+44.7%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 85−90
−41.2%
|
120−130
+41.2%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 110−120
−44.1%
|
170−180
+44.1%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 240−250
−45.2%
|
350−400
+45.2%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 45−50
−44.4%
|
65−70
+44.4%
|
| Dota 2 | 119
−42.9%
|
170−180
+42.9%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 74
−48.6%
|
110−120
+48.6%
|
| Fortnite | 100−110
−40.2%
|
150−160
+40.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 88
−47.7%
|
130−140
+47.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 65−70
−43.9%
|
95−100
+43.9%
|
| God of War | 40−45
−39.5%
|
60−65
+39.5%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 75−80
−42.9%
|
110−120
+42.9%
|
| Metro Exodus | 45−50
−44.4%
|
65−70
+44.4%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 80−85
−37.5%
|
110−120
+37.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 84
−42.9%
|
120−130
+42.9%
|
| Valorant | 150−160
−44.7%
|
220−230
+44.7%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 85−90
−41.2%
|
120−130
+41.2%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 45−50
−44.4%
|
65−70
+44.4%
|
| Dota 2 | 112
−42.9%
|
160−170
+42.9%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 70
−42.9%
|
100−105
+42.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 72
−38.9%
|
100−105
+38.9%
|
| God of War | 40−45
−39.5%
|
60−65
+39.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 80−85
−37.5%
|
110−120
+37.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 46
−41.3%
|
65−70
+41.3%
|
| Valorant | 150−160
−44.7%
|
220−230
+44.7%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 100−110
−40.2%
|
150−160
+40.2%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
−39.5%
|
60−65
+39.5%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 150−160
−46.7%
|
220−230
+46.7%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 35−40
−38.9%
|
50−55
+38.9%
|
| Metro Exodus | 27−30
−48.1%
|
40−45
+48.1%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
−44.5%
|
250−260
+44.5%
|
| Valorant | 180−190
−48.9%
|
280−290
+48.9%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
−44.1%
|
85−90
+44.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 20−22
−35%
|
27−30
+35%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45−50
−48.9%
|
70−75
+48.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
−44.2%
|
75−80
+44.2%
|
| God of War | 24−27
−45.8%
|
35−40
+45.8%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30−35
−36.4%
|
45−50
+36.4%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 45−50
−42.9%
|
70−75
+42.9%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
−42.1%
|
27−30
+42.1%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 35−40
−44.7%
|
55−60
+44.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 16−18
−41.2%
|
24−27
+41.2%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 28
−42.9%
|
40−45
+42.9%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
−41.7%
|
170−180
+41.7%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
−40.6%
|
45−50
+40.6%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
−42.1%
|
27−30
+42.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
−25%
|
10−11
+25%
|
| Dota 2 | 70−75
−42.9%
|
100−105
+42.9%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
−45.8%
|
35−40
+45.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
−38.9%
|
50−55
+38.9%
|
| God of War | 16−18
−31.3%
|
21−24
+31.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
−42.9%
|
30−33
+42.9%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 21−24
−36.4%
|
30−33
+36.4%
|
This is how Quadro P3200 and Pro WX 8200 compete in popular games:
- Pro WX 8200 is 43% faster in 1080p
- Pro WX 8200 is 43% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 20.42 | 30.50 |
| Recency | 21 February 2018 | 13 August 2018 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | 8 GB |
| Chip lithography | 16 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 230 Watt |
Quadro P3200 has 206.7% lower power consumption.
Pro WX 8200, on the other hand, has a 49.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 months, a 33.3% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 14.3% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon Pro WX 8200 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro P3200 in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro P3200 is a mobile workstation graphics card while Radeon Pro WX 8200 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.
