Radeon Pro WX 3200 vs GeForce 8800 GT

Place in the ranking	1045	575
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.02	12.32
Power efficiency	0.68	6.71
Architecture	Tesla (2006−2010)	GCN 4.0 (2016−2020)
GPU code name	G92	Polaris 23
Market segment	Desktop	Workstation
Release date	29 October 2007 (17 years ago)	2 July 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$349	$199

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

Pro WX 3200 has 61500% better value for money than 8800 GT.

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 cores	112	640
Core clock speed	600 MHz	1082 MHz
Number of transistors	754 million	2,200 million
Manufacturing process technology	65 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	105 Watt	65 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature	105 °C	no data
Texture fill rate	33.60	34.62
Floating-point processing power	0.336 TFLOPS	1.385 TFLOPS
ROPs	16	16
TMUs	56	32

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).

Bus support	PCI-E 2.0	no data
Interface	PCIe 2.0 x16	PCIe 3.0 x8
Length	229 mm	no data
Height	Single Slot	no data
Width	1-slot	MXM Module
Supplementary power connectors	1x 6-pin	None
SLI options	2-way	-

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 type	GDDR3	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	512 MB	4 GB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	900 MHz	1000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	57.6 GB/s	64 GB/s
Shared memory	-	-

Connectivity and outputs

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display Connectors	Dual Link DVIHDTV	4x mini-DisplayPort
Multi monitor support	+	no data
Maximum VGA resolution	2048x1536	no data
Audio input for HDMI	S/PDIF	no data

Supported technologies

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

High Dynamic-Range Lighting (HDRR)

128bit

no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX	11.1 (10_0)	12 (12_0)
Shader Model	4.0	6.4
OpenGL	2.1	4.6
OpenCL	1.1	2.0
Vulkan	N/A	1.2.131
CUDA	+	-

Synthetic benchmark performance

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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

8800 GT 1.22

Pro WX 3200 6.26
+413%

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.

8800 GT 471

Pro WX 3200 2414
+413%

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 HD	3−4 −500%	18 +500%
4K	1−2 −700%	8 +700%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	116.33	11.06
4K	349.00	24.88

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

10−11

+0%

10−11

+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Battlefield 5	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Far Cry 5	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Hitman 3	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Metro Exodus	24 +0%	24 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Battlefield 5	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Far Cry 5	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Hitman 3	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Metro Exodus	14 +0%	14 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	20−22 +0%	20−22 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Far Cry 5	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Hitman 3	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10 +0%	10 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

16−18

+0%

16−18

+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Far Cry 5	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	20−22 +0%	20−22 +0%
Hitman 3	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Metro Exodus	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

10−12

+0%

10−12

+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Hitman 3	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Metro Exodus	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	5 +0%	5 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	0−1	0−1
Far Cry 5	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

7−8

+0%

7−8

+0%

This is how 8800 GT and Pro WX 3200 compete in popular games:

Pro WX 3200 is 500% faster in 1080p
Pro WX 3200 is 700% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 71 test (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	1.22	6.26
Recency	29 October 2007	2 July 2019
Maximum RAM amount	512 MB	4 GB
Chip lithography	65 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	105 Watt	65 Watt

Pro WX 3200 has a 413.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 364.3% more advanced lithography process, and 61.5% lower power consumption.

The Radeon Pro WX 3200 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 8800 GT in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce 8800 GT is a desktop card while Radeon Pro WX 3200 is a workstation one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.