Quadro P3200 vs Radeon R9 M390
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R9 M390 with Quadro P3200, including specs and performance data.
P3200 outperforms R9 M390 by a whopping 128% 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 | 522 | 304 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 20.99 |
| Architecture | GCN (2012−2015) | Pascal (2016−2021) |
| GPU code name | Pitcairn | GP104 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 9 June 2015 (10 years ago) | 21 February 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 | 1024 | 1792 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 1328 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1543 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 5000 Million | 7,200 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 16 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 75 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 172.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 5.53 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 64 |
| TMUs | no data | 112 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 672 KB |
| L2 Cache | no data | 1536 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 size | large | large |
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | no data | MXM-B (3.0) |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 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 | 256 Bit | 192 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 1753 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 168.3 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 Connectors | no data | No outputs |
| Eyefinity | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| FreeSync | + | - |
| HD3D | + | - |
| PowerTune | + | - |
| DualGraphics | + | - |
| ZeroCore | + | - |
| Switchable graphics | + | - |
| Optimus | - | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | no data | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | Not Listed | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.2.131 |
| Mantle | + | - |
| 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.
3DMark 11 Performance GPU
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
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 | 43
−95.3%
| 84
+95.3%
|
| 4K | 20
−40%
| 28
+40%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
−143%
|
110−120
+143%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
−137%
|
45−50
+137%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
−115%
|
85−90
+115%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
−143%
|
110−120
+143%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
−137%
|
45−50
+137%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 35−40
−124%
|
80−85
+124%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27−30
−172%
|
79
+172%
|
| Fortnite | 55−60
−96.4%
|
100−110
+96.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
−138%
|
95
+138%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 27−30
−136%
|
65−70
+136%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
−142%
|
80−85
+142%
|
| Valorant | 85−90
−70.8%
|
150−160
+70.8%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
−115%
|
85−90
+115%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
−143%
|
110−120
+143%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 140−150
−72.9%
|
240−250
+72.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
−137%
|
45−50
+137%
|
| Dota 2 | 65−70
−77.6%
|
119
+77.6%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 35−40
−124%
|
80−85
+124%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27−30
−155%
|
74
+155%
|
| Fortnite | 55−60
−96.4%
|
100−110
+96.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
−120%
|
88
+120%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 27−30
−136%
|
65−70
+136%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 34
−126%
|
75−80
+126%
|
| Metro Exodus | 18−20
−150%
|
45−50
+150%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
−142%
|
80−85
+142%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 31
−171%
|
84
+171%
|
| Valorant | 85−90
−70.8%
|
150−160
+70.8%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
−115%
|
85−90
+115%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
−137%
|
45−50
+137%
|
| Dota 2 | 65−70
−67.2%
|
112
+67.2%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 35−40
−124%
|
80−85
+124%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27−30
−141%
|
70
+141%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
−80%
|
72
+80%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
−142%
|
80−85
+142%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18
−156%
|
46
+156%
|
| Valorant | 85−90
−70.8%
|
150−160
+70.8%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 55−60
−96.4%
|
100−110
+96.4%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
−153%
|
40−45
+153%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 70−75
−114%
|
150−160
+114%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 12−14
−208%
|
35−40
+208%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−11
−170%
|
27−30
+170%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
−268%
|
170−180
+268%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
−87.1%
|
180−190
+87.1%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
−168%
|
55−60
+168%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
−186%
|
20−22
+186%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 16−18
−171%
|
45−50
+171%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18−20
−147%
|
45−50
+147%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
−141%
|
50−55
+141%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
−146%
|
30−35
+146%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 18−20
−158%
|
45−50
+158%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
−533%
|
18−20
+533%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 20−22
−95%
|
35−40
+95%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
−240%
|
16−18
+240%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12
−133%
|
28
+133%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
−150%
|
120−130
+150%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 10−12
−191%
|
30−35
+191%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
−533%
|
18−20
+533%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−167%
|
8−9
+167%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−35
−115%
|
70−75
+115%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 8−9
−163%
|
21−24
+163%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
−167%
|
24−27
+167%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
−140%
|
35−40
+140%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−133%
|
21−24
+133%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 9−10
−144%
|
21−24
+144%
|
This is how R9 M390 and Quadro P3200 compete in popular games:
- Quadro P3200 is 95% faster in 1080p
- Quadro P3200 is 40% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike 2, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the Quadro P3200 is 533% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, Quadro P3200 surpassed R9 M390 in all 64 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 8.96 | 20.41 |
| Recency | 9 June 2015 | 21 February 2018 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 6 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 16 nm |
Quadro P3200 has a 127.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 200% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 75% more advanced lithography process.
The Quadro P3200 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R9 M390 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R9 M390 is a notebook graphics card while Quadro P3200 is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
