AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 285M
Comparative analysis of AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 285M 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 9 year(s) 3 month(s) later
- 911.1x more texture fill rate: 34.62 GTexel/s vs 38 billion / sec
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 14 nm vs 65 nm
- Around 15% lower typical power consumption: 65 Watt vs 75 Watt
- 4x more maximum memory size: 4 GB vs 1 GB
- 3.8x better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 2428 vs 636
- 3.5x better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 444 vs 128
- Around 54% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3352 vs 2172
- Around 54% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3352 vs 2172
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Launch date | 27 May 2019 vs 1 February 2010 |
| Texture fill rate | 34.62 GTexel/s vs 38 billion / sec |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm vs 65 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 65 Watt vs 75 Watt |
| Maximum memory size | 4 GB vs 1 GB |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 2428 vs 636 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 444 vs 128 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3352 vs 2172 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3352 vs 2172 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 285M
- Around 62% higher core clock speed: 1500 MHz vs 925 MHz
| Core clock speed | 1500 MHz vs 925 MHz |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 285M
| PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
| PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
| Name | AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 285M |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 2428 | 636 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 444 | 128 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 14535 | |
| 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 | 2172 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2524 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3274 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3352 | 2172 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 285M | |
|---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
| Architecture | Polaris | Tesla |
| Code name | Lexa | G92 |
| Launch date | 27 May 2019 | 1 February 2010 |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $199 | |
| Place in performance rating | 812 | 1295 |
| Type | Workstation | Laptop |
Technical info |
||
| Boost clock speed | 1082 MHz | |
| Compute units | 10 | |
| Core clock speed | 925 MHz | 1500 MHz |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 65 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 | 38 billion / sec |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 65 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Transistor count | 2200 million | 754 million |
| CUDA cores | 128 | |
| Floating-point performance | 384.0 gflops | |
| Gigaflops | 576 | |
| Pipelines | 128 | |
Video outputs and ports |
||
| Display Connectors | 4x mini-DisplayPort | Single Link DVIVGALVDSHDMIDual Link DVIDisplayPort |
| Audio input for HDMI | S / PDIF | |
| HDMI | ||
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
| Height | Half Height | |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | MXM-B (3.0) |
| Length | 6.6" (168 mm) | |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | |
| Bus support | PCI-E 2.0 | |
| Laptop size | large | |
| MXM Type | MXM 3.0 Type-B | |
| SLI options | 2-way | |
API support |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 | 10.0 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 2.1 |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | |
| Vulkan | ||
Memory |
||
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bandwidth | 96 GB/s | 61 GB / s |
| Memory bus width | 128 bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 4000 MHz | |
| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR3 |
| Shared memory | 0 | |
Technologies |
||
| AMD Eyefinity | ||
| Unified Video Decoder (UVD) | ||
| Video Code Engine (VCE) | ||
| CUDA | ||
| HybridPower | ||
| Power management | 8.0 | |
Navigation
Choose a GPU
Compare videocards
Compare AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 with others
AMDRadeon Pro WX 3200 vs
NVIDIAGeForce 6800 GT
AMDRadeon Pro WX 3200 vs
AMDRadeon PRO WX 2100
AMDRadeon Pro WX 3200 vs
AMDRadeon RX Vega 11
AMDRadeon Pro WX 3200 vs
IntelIris Plus Graphics 645
AMDRadeon Pro WX 3200 vs
AMDRadeon Vega 9
AMDRadeon Pro WX 3200 vs
AMDRadeon RX 640
