Quadro P3200 vs Radeon PRO WX 2100

Place in the ranking	644	250
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	3.82	no data
Power efficiency	9.44	21.03
Architecture	GCN 4.0 (2016−2020)	Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code name	Lexa	GP104
Market segment	Workstation	Mobile workstation
Release date	4 June 2017 (7 years ago)	21 February 2018 (6 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$149	no data

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 cores	512	1792
Core clock speed	925 MHz	1328 MHz
Boost clock speed	1219 MHz	1543 MHz
Number of transistors	2,200 million	7,200 million
Manufacturing process technology	14 nm	16 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	35 Watt	75 Watt
Texture fill rate	39.01	172.8
Floating-point processing power	1.248 TFLOPS	5.53 TFLOPS
ROPs	16	64
TMUs	32	112

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	no data	large
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x8	MXM-B (3.0)
Length	168 mm	no data
Width	1-slot	no data
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	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	6 GB
Memory bus width	64 Bit	192 Bit
Memory clock speed	1500 MHz	1753 MHz
Memory bandwidth	48 GB/s	168.3 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

1x DisplayPort, 2x mini-DisplayPort

No outputs

Supported technologies

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

FreeSync	+	-
Optimus	-	+

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_0)	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	6.4	6.4
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	2.0	1.2
Vulkan	1.2.131	1.2.131
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.

PRO WX 2100 4.79

Quadro P3200 22.86
+377%

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.

PRO WX 2100 1841

Quadro P3200 8790
+377%

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	16−18 −431%	85 +431%
4K	5−6 −460%	28 +460%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	9.31	no data
4K	29.80	no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	12−14 −250%	40−45 +250%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−11 −360%	45−50 +360%
Elden Ring	12−14 −517%	70−75 +517%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	14−16 −407%	70−75 +407%
Counter-Strike 2	12−14 −250%	40−45 +250%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−11 −360%	45−50 +360%
Forza Horizon 4	20−22 −390%	95−100 +390%
Metro Exodus	10−12 −455%	60−65 +455%
Red Dead Redemption 2	14−16 −240%	50−55 +240%
Valorant	10−12 −736%	90−95 +736%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	14−16 −407%	70−75 +407%
Counter-Strike 2	12−14 −250%	40−45 +250%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−11 −360%	45−50 +360%
Dota 2	14−16 −167%	40 +167%
Elden Ring	12−14 −517%	70−75 +517%
Far Cry 5	24−27 −204%	73 +204%
Fortnite	27−30 −318%	110−120 +318%
Forza Horizon 4	20−22 −390%	95−100 +390%
Grand Theft Auto V	14−16 −427%	75−80 +427%
Metro Exodus	10−12 −455%	60−65 +455%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	40−45 −261%	140−150 +261%
Red Dead Redemption 2	14−16 −240%	50−55 +240%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16−18 −356%	70−75 +356%
Valorant	10−12 −736%	90−95 +736%
World of Tanks	75−80 −214%	240−250 +214%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	14−16 −407%	70−75 +407%
Counter-Strike 2	12−14 −250%	40−45 +250%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−11 −360%	45−50 +360%
Dota 2	14−16 −647%	112 +647%
Far Cry 5	24−27 −204%	70−75 +204%
Forza Horizon 4	20−22 −390%	95−100 +390%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	40−45 −261%	140−150 +261%
Valorant	10−12 −736%	90−95 +736%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	3−4 −1133%	35−40 +1133%
Elden Ring	5−6 −680%	35−40 +680%
Grand Theft Auto V	4−5 −850%	35−40 +850%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	30−35 −444%	170−180 +444%
Red Dead Redemption 2	4−5 −425%	21−24 +425%
World of Tanks	30−35 −350%	150−160 +350%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	7−8 −557%	45−50 +557%
Counter-Strike 2	9−10 −111%	18−20 +111%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −375%	18−20 +375%
Far Cry 5	10−11 −550%	65−70 +550%
Forza Horizon 4	6−7 −900%	60−65 +900%
Metro Exodus	3−4 −1633%	50−55 +1633%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	6−7 −433%	30−35 +433%
Valorant	12−14 −362%	60−65 +362%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2	16−18 −129%	35−40 +129%
Elden Ring	2−3 −800%	18−20 +800%
Grand Theft Auto V	16−18 −144%	35−40 +144%
Metro Exodus	0−1	16−18
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	14−16 −393%	65−70 +393%
Red Dead Redemption 2	3−4 −367%	14−16 +367%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16−18 −144%	35−40 +144%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	4−5 −475%	21−24 +475%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −250%	7−8 +250%
Dota 2	16−18 −129%	35−40 +129%
Far Cry 5	5−6 −500%	30−33 +500%
Fortnite	4−5 −600%	27−30 +600%
Forza Horizon 4	3−4 −1067%	35−40 +1067%
Valorant	4−5 −625%	27−30 +625%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2

20−22

+0%

20−22

+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2

20−22

+0%

20−22

+0%

This is how PRO WX 2100 and Quadro P3200 compete in popular games:

Quadro P3200 is 431% faster in 1080p
Quadro P3200 is 460% faster in 4K

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

in Metro Exodus, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Quadro P3200 is 1633% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

Quadro P3200 is ahead in 60 tests (97%)
there's a draw in 2 tests (3%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	4.79	22.86
Recency	4 June 2017	21 February 2018
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	6 GB
Chip lithography	14 nm	16 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	35 Watt	75 Watt

PRO WX 2100 has a 14.3% more advanced lithography process, and 114.3% lower power consumption.

Quadro P3200, on the other hand, has a 377.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 months, and a 200% higher maximum VRAM amount.

The Quadro P3200 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon PRO WX 2100 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon PRO WX 2100 is a workstation card while Quadro P3200 is a mobile workstation one.

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