AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 vs NVIDIA GeForce 825M
Comparative analysis of AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 and NVIDIA GeForce 825M videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory, Technologies. Benchmark videocards performance analysis: PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark, Geekbench - OpenCL, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps).
Differences
Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200
- Videocard is newer: launch date 5 year(s) 4 month(s) later
- Around 9% higher core clock speed: 925 MHz vs 850 MHz
- Around 15% higher boost clock speed: 1082 MHz vs 941 MHz
- 1149.8x more texture fill rate: 34.62 GTexel/s vs 30.11 GTexel / s
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 14 nm vs 28 nm
- 4x more maximum memory size: 4 GB vs 1 GB
- 2.2x more memory clock speed: 4000 MHz vs 1800 MHz
- 3.1x better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 2398 vs 771
- Around 74% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 411 vs 236
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Launch date | 27 May 2019 vs 27 January 2014 |
| Core clock speed | 925 MHz vs 850 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1082 MHz vs 941 MHz |
| Texture fill rate | 34.62 GTexel/s vs 30.11 GTexel / s |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm vs 28 nm |
| Maximum memory size | 4 GB vs 1 GB |
| Memory clock speed | 4000 MHz vs 1800 MHz |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 2398 vs 771 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 411 vs 236 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce 825M
- Around 97% lower typical power consumption: 33 Watt vs 65 Watt
- Around 11% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 15796 vs 14219
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 33 Watt vs 65 Watt |
| Benchmarks | |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 15796 vs 14219 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce 825M
| PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
| PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
| Geekbench - OpenCL |
|
|
| Name | AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 | NVIDIA GeForce 825M |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 2398 | 771 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 411 | 236 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 14219 | 15796 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 25.896 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 486.804 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 2.503 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 53.111 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 100.658 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 2524 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3274 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3352 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2524 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3274 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3352 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 | NVIDIA GeForce 825M | |
|---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
| Architecture | Polaris | Kepler 2.0 |
| Code name | Lexa | GK208 |
| Launch date | 27 May 2019 | 27 January 2014 |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $199 | |
| Place in performance rating | 841 | 843 |
| Type | Workstation | Laptop |
Technical info |
||
| Boost clock speed | 1082 MHz | 941 MHz |
| Compute units | 10 | |
| Core clock speed | 925 MHz | 850 MHz |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Peak Double Precision (FP64) Performance | 86.56 GFLOPS | |
| Peak Half Precision (FP16) Performance | 1,385 GFLOPS | |
| Peak Single Precision (FP32) Performance | 1,385 GFLOPS | |
| Pixel fill rate | 17.31 GPixel/s | |
| Stream Processors | 640 | |
| Texture fill rate | 34.62 GTexel/s | 30.11 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 65 Watt | 33 Watt |
| Transistor count | 2200 million | 1300 Million |
| Floating-point performance | 722.7 gflops | |
| Pipelines | 384 | |
Video outputs and ports |
||
| Display Connectors | 4x mini-DisplayPort | No outputs |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
| Height | Half Height | |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
| Length | 6.6" (168 mm) | |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | None |
| Laptop size | medium sized | |
API support |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 | 12.0 (11_0) |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | |
| Vulkan | ||
Memory |
||
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bandwidth | 96 GB/s | 14.4 GB / s |
| Memory bus width | 128 bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 4000 MHz | 1800 MHz |
| Memory type | GDDR5 | DDR3 |
| Shared memory | 0 | |
Technologies |
||
| AMD Eyefinity | ||
| Unified Video Decoder (UVD) | ||
| Video Code Engine (VCE) | ||
