Quadro P3200 vs ATI Radeon X1650

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon X1650 with Quadro P3200, including specs and performance data.

ATI X1650
2007
256 MB DDR2
0.16

P3200 outperforms X1650 by a whopping 12025% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1466305
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiencyno data20.94
ArchitectureR500 (2005−2007)Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code nameRV516GP104
Market segmentDesktopMobile workstation
Release date20 November 2007 (17 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 coresno data1792
Core clock speed635 MHz1328 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1543 MHz
Number of transistors107 million7,200 million
Manufacturing process technology80 nm16 nm
Power consumption (TDP)no data75 Watt
Texture fill rate2.540172.8
Floating-point processing powerno data5.53 TFLOPS
ROPs464
TMUs4112
L1 Cacheno data672 KB
L2 Cacheno data1536 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
InterfacePCIe 1.0 x16MXM-B (3.0)
Width1-slotno data
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone

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 typeDDR2GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount256 MB6 GB
Memory bus width64 Bit192 Bit
Memory clock speed392 MHz1753 MHz
Memory bandwidth6.272 GB/s168.3 GB/s
Shared memoryno data-

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 Connectors1x DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-VideoNo outputs

Supported technologies

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

Optimus-+

API and SDK support

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

DirectX9.0c (9_3)12 (12_1)
Shader Model3.06.4
OpenGL2.04.6
OpenCLN/A1.2
VulkanN/A1.2.131
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.

ATI X1650 0.16
Quadro P3200 19.40
+12025%

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.

ATI X1650 71
Samples: 2
Quadro P3200 8575
+11977%
Samples: 515

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 HD0−184
4K-0−128

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%
Hogwarts Legacy 40−45
+0%
40−45
+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%
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%
Hogwarts Legacy 40−45
+0%
40−45
+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%
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%
Hogwarts Legacy 40−45
+0%
40−45
+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%
Far Cry 5 70
+0%
70
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 72
+0%
72
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 40−45
+0%
40−45
+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%
Far Cry 5 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 21−24
+0%
21−24
+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%
Hogwarts Legacy 12−14
+0%
12−14
+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%
Far Cry 5 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 66 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.16 19.40
Recency 20 November 2007 21 February 2018
Maximum RAM amount 256 MB 6 GB
Chip lithography 80 nm 16 nm

Quadro P3200 has a 12025% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 2300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 400% more advanced lithography process.

The Quadro P3200 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon X1650 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon X1650 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.


ATI Radeon X1650
Radeon X1650
NVIDIA Quadro P3200
Quadro P3200

Other comparisons

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

Community ratings

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


3.4 71 votes

Rate Radeon X1650 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 338 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 X1650 or Quadro P3200, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.