AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 vs NVIDIA Quadro M2000
Comparative analysis of AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 and NVIDIA Quadro M2000 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 3 year(s) 1 month(s) later
- Around 16% higher core clock speed: 925 MHz vs 796 MHz
- 611.2x more texture fill rate: 34.62 GTexel/s vs 56.64 GTexel / s
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 14 nm vs 28 nm
- Around 15% lower typical power consumption: 65 Watt vs 75 Watt
- Around 4% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 14535 vs 13999
- Around 48% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 53.111 vs 35.796
- Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3352 vs 3325
- Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3352 vs 3325
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Launch date | 27 May 2019 vs 8 April 2016 |
| Core clock speed | 925 MHz vs 796 MHz |
| Texture fill rate | 34.62 GTexel/s vs 56.64 GTexel / s |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm vs 28 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 65 Watt vs 75 Watt |
| Benchmarks | |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 14535 vs 13999 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 53.111 vs 35.796 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3352 vs 3325 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3352 vs 3325 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro M2000
- Around 7% higher boost clock speed: 1163 MHz vs 1082 MHz
- Around 65% higher memory clock speed: 6612 MHz vs 4000 MHz
- Around 65% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 3997 vs 2428
- Around 28% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 569 vs 444
- 2.1x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 55.048 vs 25.896
- Around 31% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 639.056 vs 486.804
- Around 48% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 3.697 vs 2.503
- 2.2x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 225.868 vs 100.658
- 2.2x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 5523 vs 2524
- Around 13% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3684 vs 3274
- 2.2x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 5523 vs 2524
- Around 13% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3684 vs 3274
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Boost clock speed | 1163 MHz vs 1082 MHz |
| Memory clock speed | 6612 MHz vs 4000 MHz |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 3997 vs 2428 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 569 vs 444 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 55.048 vs 25.896 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 639.056 vs 486.804 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 3.697 vs 2.503 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 225.868 vs 100.658 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 5523 vs 2524 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3684 vs 3274 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 5523 vs 2524 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3684 vs 3274 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro M2000
| 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) |
|
|
| Name | AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 | NVIDIA Quadro M2000 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 2428 | 3997 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 444 | 569 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 14535 | 13999 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 25.896 | 55.048 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 486.804 | 639.056 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 2.503 | 3.697 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 53.111 | 35.796 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 100.658 | 225.868 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 2524 | 5523 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3274 | 3684 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3352 | 3325 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2524 | 5523 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3274 | 3684 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3352 | 3325 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 | NVIDIA Quadro M2000 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
| Architecture | Polaris | Maxwell 2.0 |
| Code name | Lexa | GM206 |
| Launch date | 27 May 2019 | 8 April 2016 |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $199 | $437.75 |
| Place in performance rating | 812 | 580 |
| Type | Workstation | Workstation |
| Price now | $409.99 | |
| Value for money (0-100) | 13.23 | |
Technical info |
||
| Boost clock speed | 1082 MHz | 1163 MHz |
| Compute units | 10 | |
| Core clock speed | 925 MHz | 796 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 | 56.64 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 65 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Transistor count | 2200 million | 2,940 million |
| Floating-point performance | 1,812 gflops | |
| Pipelines | 768 | |
Video outputs and ports |
||
| Display Connectors | 4x mini-DisplayPort | 4x DisplayPort, DP DP DP DP |
| Number of simultaneous displays | 4 | |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
| Height | Half Height | |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 6.6" (168 mm) | 201 mm |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | None |
| Width | 1" (2.5 cm) | |
API support |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 | 12 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.5 |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 5 |
| Vulkan | ||
Memory |
||
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bandwidth | 96 GB/s | |
| Memory bus width | 128 bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 4000 MHz | 6612 MHz |
| Memory type | GDDR5 | 128 Bit |
Technologies |
||
| AMD Eyefinity | ||
| Unified Video Decoder (UVD) | ||
| Video Code Engine (VCE) | ||
| 3D Vision Pro | ||
| Mosaic | ||
| nView Desktop Management | ||
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
