Quadro P3200 vs Radeon RX 560

Place in the ranking	471	249
Place by popularity	86	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	1.48	no data
Power efficiency	8.74	21.08
Architecture	GCN 4.0 (2016−2020)	Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code name	Polaris 21	GP104
Market segment	Desktop	Mobile workstation
Release date	18 April 2017 (7 years ago)	21 February 2018 (6 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$99	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	1024	1792
Core clock speed	1175 MHz	1328 MHz
Boost clock speed	1275 MHz	1543 MHz
Number of transistors	3,000 million	7,200 million
Manufacturing process technology	14 nm	16 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	75 Watt
Texture fill rate	81.60	172.8
Floating-point processing power	2.611 TFLOPS	5.53 TFLOPS
ROPs	16	64
TMUs	64	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	170 mm	no data
Width	2-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	4 GB	6 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	192 Bit
Memory clock speed	1750 MHz	1753 MHz
Memory bandwidth	112.0 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 DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort	No outputs
HDMI	+	-

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_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.

RX 560 9.50

Quadro P3200 22.92
+141%

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.

RX 560 3651

Quadro P3200 8810
+141%

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.

RX 560 17125

Quadro P3200 34289
+100%

GeekBench 5 Vulkan

RX 560 18272

Quadro P3200 35798
+95.9%

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	35 −143%	85 +143%
4K	10−12 −180%	28 +180%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	2.83	no data
4K	9.90	no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	70−75 +0%	70−75 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	95−100 +0%	95−100 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%
Metro Exodus	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Valorant	90−95 +0%	90−95 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	70−75 +0%	70−75 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Dota 2	40 +0%	40 +0%
Far Cry 5	73 +0%	73 +0%
Fortnite	110−120 +0%	110−120 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	95−100 +0%	95−100 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	75−80 +0%	75−80 +0%
Metro Exodus	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	140−150 +0%	140−150 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	70−75 +0%	70−75 +0%
Valorant	90−95 +0%	90−95 +0%
World of Tanks	240−250 +0%	240−250 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	70−75 +0%	70−75 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Dota 2	112 +0%	112 +0%
Far Cry 5	70−75 +0%	70−75 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	95−100 +0%	95−100 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	140−150 +0%	140−150 +0%
Valorant	90−95 +0%	90−95 +0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	170−180 +0%	170−180 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
World of Tanks	150−160 +0%	150−160 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Far Cry 5	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Metro Exodus	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Valorant	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	20−22 +0%	20−22 +0%
Dota 2	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Metro Exodus	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	20−22 +0%	20−22 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Dota 2	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Far Cry 5	30−33 +0%	30−33 +0%
Fortnite	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Valorant	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%

This is how RX 560 and Quadro P3200 compete in popular games:

Quadro P3200 is 143% faster in 1080p
Quadro P3200 is 180% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 64 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	9.50	22.92
Recency	18 April 2017	21 February 2018
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	6 GB
Chip lithography	14 nm	16 nm

RX 560 has a 14.3% more advanced lithography process.

Quadro P3200, on the other hand, has a 141.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 months, and a 50% higher maximum VRAM amount.

The Quadro P3200 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon RX 560 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon RX 560 is a desktop 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.