Quadro P3200 vs Radeon R7 265

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
240 240 OEM 250 250 OEM 250E 250X 250XE 260 260X 265 265X OEM
VS
#ad 
Buy on Amazon
P3000 Mobile P3200 P3200 Max-Q P4000 Mobile P4000 Max-Q P4200 P4200 Max-Q P5000 Mobile P5000 X2 Mobile P5200 P5200 Max-Q Tesla P6 Mobile

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R7 265 with Quadro P3200, including specs and performance data.

R7 265
2014, $149
4 GB GDDR5, 150 Watt
9.62

P3200 outperforms R7 265 by a whopping 112% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Contents

Share:
R7 265 R7 265
Quadro P3200 Quadro P3200

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking489304
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation4.68no data
Power efficiency4.9520.99
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2012−2020)Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code namePitcairnGP104
Market segmentDesktopMobile workstation
Designreferenceno data
Release date13 February 2014 (11 years ago)21 February 2018 (7 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$149 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

no data

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 cores10241792
Core clock speedno data1328 MHz
Boost clock speed925 MHz1543 MHz
Number of transistors2,800 million7,200 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm16 nm
Power consumption (TDP)150 Watt75 Watt
Texture fill rate59.20172.8
Floating-point processing power1.894 TFLOPS5.53 TFLOPS
ROPs3264
TMUs64112
L1 Cache256 KB672 KB
L2 Cache512 KB1536 KB

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 sizeno datalarge
Bus supportPCIe 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16MXM-B (3.0)
Length210 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1 x 6-pinNone

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 GB6 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit192 Bit
Memory clock speed1400 MHz1753 MHz
Memory bandwidth179.2 GB/s168.3 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 Connectors2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPortNo outputs
Eyefinity+-
HDMI+-

Supported technologies

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

CrossFire+-
FreeSync+-
DDMA audio+no data
Optimus-+

API and SDK support

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

DirectXDirectX® 1212 (12_1)
Shader Model5.16.4
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan-1.2.131
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.

R7 265 9.62
Quadro P3200 20.41
+112%

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.

R7 265 5220
Quadro P3200 12555
+141%

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 HD35−40
−140%
84
+140%
4K12−14
−133%
28
+133%

Cost per frame, $

1080p4.26no data
4K12.42no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Far Cry 5 79
+0%
79
+0%
Fortnite 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 95
+0%
95
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Valorant 150−160
+0%
150−160
+0%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 240−250
+0%
240−250
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Dota 2 119
+0%
119
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Far Cry 5 74
+0%
74
+0%
Fortnite 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 88
+0%
88
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Metro Exodus 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 84
+0%
84
+0%
Valorant 150−160
+0%
150−160
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Dota 2 112
+0%
112
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Far Cry 5 70
+0%
70
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 72
+0%
72
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 46
+0%
46
+0%
Valorant 150−160
+0%
150−160
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 150−160
+0%
150−160
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Metro Exodus 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Valorant 180−190
+0%
180−190
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Far Cry 5 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Metro Exodus 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 28
+0%
28
+0%
Valorant 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Dota 2 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Far Cry 5 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%

This is how R7 265 and Quadro P3200 compete in popular games:

  • Quadro P3200 is 140% faster in 1080p
  • Quadro P3200 is 133% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 64 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score 9.62 20.41
Recency 13 February 2014 21 February 2018
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 6 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 16 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 150 Watt 75 Watt

Quadro P3200 has a 112.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 50% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 75% more advanced lithography process, and 100% lower power consumption.

The Quadro P3200 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 265 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R7 265 is a desktop graphics card while Quadro P3200 is a mobile workstation one.

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.

AMD Radeon R7 265
Radeon R7 265
NVIDIA Quadro P3200
Quadro P3200
Like
Like

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

R7 265 Radeon R7 265
vs
GTX 660 GeForce GTX 660
Quadro P3200 Quadro P3200
vs
RTX A4500 Embedded RTX A4500 Embedded
R7 265 Radeon R7 265
vs
GTX 480 GeForce GTX 480
R7 265 AMD Radeon R7 265
vs
ATI HD 3410 HD 3410
R7 265 AMD Radeon R7 265
vs
ATI HD 2400 PRO PCI HD 2400 PRO PCI
R7 265 AMD Radeon R7 265
vs
ATI X1300 PCI Radeon X1300 PCI
R7 265 AMD Radeon R7 265
vs
GTS 250 GTS 250
R7 265 AMD Radeon R7 265
vs
GeForce4 MX 440-8x MX 440-8x
R7 265 AMD Radeon R7 265
vs
GTX 1050 3 GB Max-Q GTX 1050 3 GB Max-Q
R7 265 AMD Radeon R7 265
vs
RX 5700 XT 50th Anniversary RX 5700 XT 50th Anniversary
R7 265 AMD Radeon R7 265
vs
RX 6300 XT RX 6300 XT
R7 265 AMD Radeon R7 265
vs
A100 PCIe 80 GB PCIe 80 GB
R7 265 AMD Radeon R7 265
vs
A800 SXM4 80 GB SXM4 80 GB

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.

3.2 383 votes

Rate Radeon R7 265 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 341 votes

Rate Quadro P3200 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon R7 265 or Quadro P3200, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.