AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 vs NVIDIA Quadro K4000M

Comparative analysis of AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 and NVIDIA Quadro K4000M 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 6 year(s) 11 month(s) later
• Around 54% higher core clock speed: 925 MHz vs 601 MHz
• 720x more texture fill rate: 34.62 GTexel/s vs 48.08 GTexel / s
• A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 14 nm vs 28 nm
• Around 54% lower typical power consumption: 65 Watt vs 100 Watt
• Around 43% higher memory clock speed: 4000 MHz vs 2800 MHz
• Around 24% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 2415 vs 1947
• Around 38% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 415 vs 300
• 2.4x better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 14112 vs 5827
• 2.6x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 25.896 vs 10.054
• Around 71% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 2.503 vs 1.46
• 2.4x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 53.111 vs 22.103
• 2.8x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 100.658 vs 36.553

Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M

• Around 12% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 544.601 vs 486.804
• Around 53% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 3855 vs 2524
• Around 51% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 4957 vs 3274
• Around 33% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 4470 vs 3352
• Around 53% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 3855 vs 2524
• Around 51% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 4957 vs 3274
• Around 33% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 4470 vs 3352

Compare benchmarks

GPU 1: AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro K4000M

PassMark - G3D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	2415 1947
PassMark - G2D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	415 300
Geekbench - OpenCL	GPU 1 GPU 2	14112 5827
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	25.896 10.054
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	486.804 544.601
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	2.503 1.46
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	53.111 22.103
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	100.658 36.553
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	2524 3855
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3274 4957
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3352 4470
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	2524 3855
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3274 4957
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3352 4470

Compare specifications (specs)