Quadro P3200 Max-Q vs Radeon RX Vega 56
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX Vega 56 with Quadro P3200 Max-Q, including specs and performance data.
RX Vega 56 outperforms P3200 Max-Q by a considerable 44% 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 | 198 | 292 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 18.14 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 11.38 | 22.20 |
| Architecture | GCN 5.0 (2017−2020) | Pascal (2016−2021) |
| GPU code name | Vega 10 | GP104 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 14 August 2017 (8 years ago) | 21 February 2018 (7 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $399 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
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 | 3584 | 1792 |
| Core clock speed | 1156 MHz | 1139 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1471 MHz | 1404 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 12,500 million | 7,200 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 16 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 210 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 329.5 | 157.2 |
| Floating-point processing power | 10.54 TFLOPS | 5.032 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 64 |
| TMUs | 224 | 112 |
| L1 Cache | 896 KB | 672 KB |
| L2 Cache | 4 MB | 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).
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | MXM-B (3.0) |
| Length | 267 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 8-pin | 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 | HBM2 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 6 GB |
| Memory bus width | 2048 Bit | 192 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 800 MHz | 1753 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 409.6 GB/s | 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 | 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort | No outputs |
| HDMI | + | - |
API and SDK support
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 | 2.0 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.125 | 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.
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 | 115
+43.8%
| 80−85
−43.8%
|
| 1440p | 77
+54%
| 50−55
−54%
|
| 4K | 50
+66.7%
| 30−35
−66.7%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 3.47 | no data |
| 1440p | 5.18 | no data |
| 4K | 7.98 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 170−180
+48.3%
|
120−130
−48.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 70−75
+57.8%
|
45−50
−57.8%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 151
+51%
|
100−105
−51%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 170−180
+48.3%
|
120−130
−48.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 70−75
+57.8%
|
45−50
−57.8%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 110−120
+49.3%
|
75−80
−49.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 98
+50.8%
|
65−70
−50.8%
|
| Fortnite | 150
+50%
|
100−105
−50%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 141
+48.4%
|
95−100
−48.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 100−105
+53.8%
|
65−70
−53.8%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 153
+53%
|
100−105
−53%
|
| Valorant | 190−200
+51.5%
|
130−140
−51.5%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 140
+47.4%
|
95−100
−47.4%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 170−180
+48.3%
|
120−130
−48.3%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+45.3%
|
190−200
−45.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 70−75
+57.8%
|
45−50
−57.8%
|
| Dota 2 | 130−140
+51.1%
|
90−95
−51.1%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 110−120
+49.3%
|
75−80
−49.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 93
+55%
|
60−65
−55%
|
| Fortnite | 139
+46.3%
|
95−100
−46.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 134
+48.9%
|
90−95
−48.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 100−105
+53.8%
|
65−70
−53.8%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 94
+44.6%
|
65−70
−44.6%
|
| Metro Exodus | 70
+55.6%
|
45−50
−55.6%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 137
+44.2%
|
95−100
−44.2%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 124
+45.9%
|
85−90
−45.9%
|
| Valorant | 190−200
+51.5%
|
130−140
−51.5%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 131
+45.6%
|
90−95
−45.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 70−75
+57.8%
|
45−50
−57.8%
|
| Dota 2 | 130−140
+51.1%
|
90−95
−51.1%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 110−120
+49.3%
|
75−80
−49.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 89
+48.3%
|
60−65
−48.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 109
+45.3%
|
75−80
−45.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 120
+50%
|
80−85
−50%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 74
+48%
|
50−55
−48%
|
| Valorant | 190−200
+51.5%
|
130−140
−51.5%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 108
+44%
|
75−80
−44%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 70−75
+48%
|
50−55
−48%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 220−230
+47.3%
|
150−160
−47.3%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 60−65
+57.5%
|
40−45
−57.5%
|
| Metro Exodus | 42
+55.6%
|
27−30
−55.6%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+45.8%
|
120−130
−45.8%
|
| Valorant | 230−240
+45.6%
|
160−170
−45.6%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 99
+52.3%
|
65−70
−52.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
+61.9%
|
21−24
−61.9%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 75−80
+50%
|
50−55
−50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 74
+48%
|
50−55
−48%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 88
+46.7%
|
60−65
−46.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 55−60
+57.1%
|
35−40
−57.1%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 74
+48%
|
50−55
−48%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+61.9%
|
21−24
−61.9%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 50
+66.7%
|
30−33
−66.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 27
+50%
|
18−20
−50%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 44
+46.7%
|
30−33
−46.7%
|
| Valorant | 190−200
+46.9%
|
130−140
−46.9%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 55
+57.1%
|
35−40
−57.1%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+61.9%
|
21−24
−61.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+50%
|
10−11
−50%
|
| Dota 2 | 95−100
+47.7%
|
65−70
−47.7%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 35−40
+50%
|
24−27
−50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 39
+44.4%
|
27−30
−44.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 59
+47.5%
|
40−45
−47.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 44
+46.7%
|
30−33
−46.7%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 37
+54.2%
|
24−27
−54.2%
|
This is how RX Vega 56 and P3200 Max-Q compete in popular games:
- RX Vega 56 is 44% faster in 1080p
- RX Vega 56 is 54% faster in 1440p
- RX Vega 56 is 67% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 31.00 | 21.60 |
| Recency | 14 August 2017 | 21 February 2018 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 6 GB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 16 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 210 Watt | 75 Watt |
RX Vega 56 has a 43.5% higher aggregate performance score, a 33.3% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 14.3% more advanced lithography process.
P3200 Max-Q, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 6 months, and 180% lower power consumption.
The Radeon RX Vega 56 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro P3200 Max-Q in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon RX Vega 56 is a desktop graphics card while Quadro P3200 Max-Q 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.
