Quadro P3200 vs GeForce GTX 675M SLI

Place in the ranking	502	252
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	2.99	21.01
Architecture	Fermi (2010−2014)	Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code name	N12E-GTX2	GP104
Market segment	Laptop	Mobile workstation
Release date	6 January 2011 (14 years ago)	21 February 2018 (6 years ago)

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	768	1792
Core clock speed	620 MHz	1328 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1543 MHz
Number of transistors	no data	7,200 million
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	16 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	2x 100 Watt	75 Watt
Texture fill rate	no data	172.8
Floating-point processing power	no data	5.53 TFLOPS
ROPs	no data	64
TMUs	no data	112

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).

Laptop size	large	large
Interface	no data	MXM-B (3.0)
Supplementary power connectors	no data	None
SLI options	+	-

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	GDDR5	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	no data	6 GB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	192 Bit
Memory clock speed	3000 MHz	1753 MHz
Memory bandwidth	no data	168.3 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

no data

No outputs

Supported technologies

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

Optimus

API compatibility

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

DirectX	11	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	no data	6.4
OpenGL	no data	4.6
OpenCL	no data	1.2
Vulkan	-	1.2.131
CUDA	+	6.1

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.

GTX 675M SLI 8.28

Quadro P3200 21.85
+164%

3DMark 11 Performance GPU

3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.

GTX 675M SLI 6407

Quadro P3200 16619
+159%

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

GTX 675M SLI 18405

Quadro P3200 45999
+150%

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	30−35 −183%	85 +183%
4K	10−12 −180%	28 +180%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	14−16 −173%	40−45 +173%
Cyberpunk 2077	16−18 −171%	45−50 +171%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	27−30 −154%	70−75 +154%
Counter-Strike 2	14−16 −173%	40−45 +173%
Cyberpunk 2077	16−18 −171%	45−50 +171%
Forza Horizon 4	35−40 −183%	95−100 +183%
Forza Horizon 5	21−24 −190%	60−65 +190%
Metro Exodus	21−24 −165%	60−65 +165%
Red Dead Redemption 2	24−27 −113%	50−55 +113%
Valorant	30−35 −188%	90−95 +188%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	27−30 −154%	70−75 +154%
Counter-Strike 2	14−16 −173%	40−45 +173%
Cyberpunk 2077	16−18 −171%	45−50 +171%
Dota 2	30−35 −29%	40 +29%
Far Cry 5	35−40 −97.3%	73 +97.3%
Fortnite	50−55 −129%	110−120 +129%
Forza Horizon 4	35−40 −183%	95−100 +183%
Forza Horizon 5	21−24 −190%	60−65 +190%
Grand Theft Auto V	30−35 −155%	75−80 +155%
Metro Exodus	21−24 −165%	60−65 +165%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	65−70 −118%	140−150 +118%
Red Dead Redemption 2	24−27 −113%	50−55 +113%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	24−27 −181%	70−75 +181%
Valorant	30−35 −188%	90−95 +188%
World of Tanks	120−130 −92.2%	240−250 +92.2%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	27−30 −154%	70−75 +154%
Counter-Strike 2	14−16 −173%	40−45 +173%
Cyberpunk 2077	16−18 −171%	45−50 +171%
Dota 2	30−35 −261%	112 +261%
Far Cry 5	35−40 −94.6%	70−75 +94.6%
Forza Horizon 4	35−40 −183%	95−100 +183%
Forza Horizon 5	21−24 −190%	60−65 +190%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	65−70 −118%	140−150 +118%
Valorant	30−35 −188%	90−95 +188%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	10−12 −245%	35−40 +245%
Grand Theft Auto V	10−12 −245%	35−40 +245%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	45−50 −167%	120−130 +167%
Red Dead Redemption 2	7−8 −200%	21−24 +200%
World of Tanks	60−65 −143%	150−160 +143%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	16−18 −188%	45−50 +188%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 −171%	18−20 +171%
Far Cry 5	18−20 −261%	65−70 +261%
Forza Horizon 4	18−20 −216%	60−65 +216%
Forza Horizon 5	12−14 −185%	35−40 +185%
Metro Exodus	14−16 −247%	50−55 +247%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	12−14 −175%	30−35 +175%
Valorant	21−24 −177%	60−65 +177%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Dota 2	18−20 −105%	35−40 +105%
Grand Theft Auto V	18−20 −105%	35−40 +105%
Metro Exodus	5−6 −240%	16−18 +240%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	24−27 −176%	65−70 +176%
Red Dead Redemption 2	6−7 −133%	14−16 +133%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	18−20 −105%	35−40 +105%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	7−8 −229%	21−24 +229%
Counter-Strike 2	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −133%	7−8 +133%
Dota 2	18−20 −105%	35−40 +105%
Far Cry 5	10−11 −200%	30−33 +200%
Fortnite	9−10 −211%	27−30 +211%
Forza Horizon 4	10−12 −218%	35−40 +218%
Forza Horizon 5	6−7 −217%	18−20 +217%
Valorant	8−9 −263%	27−30 +263%

This is how GTX 675M SLI and Quadro P3200 compete in popular games:

Quadro P3200 is 183% faster in 1080p
Quadro P3200 is 180% faster in 4K

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

in Valorant, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Quadro P3200 is 263% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

Quadro P3200 is ahead in 61 test (97%)
there's a draw in 2 tests (3%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	8.28	21.85
Recency	6 January 2011	21 February 2018
Chip lithography	40 nm	16 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	2 Watt	75 Watt

GTX 675M SLI has 3650% lower power consumption.

Quadro P3200, on the other hand, has a 163.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, and a 150% more advanced lithography process.

The Quadro P3200 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 675M SLI in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 675M SLI is a notebook graphics card while Quadro P3200 is a mobile workstation one.

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