Radeon Pro WX 3200 vs Quadro 2000M

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro 2000M with Radeon Pro WX 3200, including specs and performance data.

Quadro 2000M
2011
2 GB DDR3, 55 Watt
2.02

Pro WX 3200 outperforms 2000M by a whopping 210% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking888578
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.2812.41
Power efficiency2.526.61
ArchitectureFermi (2010−2014)GCN 4.0 (2016−2020)
GPU code nameGF106Polaris 23
Market segmentMobile workstationWorkstation
Release date13 January 2011 (13 years ago)2 July 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$46.56 $199

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

Pro WX 3200 has 4332% better value for money than Quadro 2000M.

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 cores192640
Core clock speed550 MHz1082 MHz
Number of transistors1,170 million2,200 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)55 Watt65 Watt
Texture fill rate17.6034.62
Floating-point processing power0.4224 TFLOPS1.385 TFLOPS
ROPs1616
TMUs3232

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 sizemedium sizedno data
InterfaceMXM-A (3.0)PCIe 3.0 x8
Widthno dataMXM Module
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 typeDDR3GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount2 GB4 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed900 MHz1000 MHz
Memory bandwidth28.8 GB/s64 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 ConnectorsNo outputs4x mini-DisplayPort

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_0)12 (12_0)
Shader Model5.16.4
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.12.0
VulkanN/A1.2.131
CUDA2.1-

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.

Quadro 2000M 2.02
Pro WX 3200 6.27
+210%

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.

Quadro 2000M 778
Pro WX 3200 2414
+210%

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.

Quadro 2000M 1261
Pro WX 3200 4338
+244%

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.

Quadro 2000M 6634
Pro WX 3200 12538
+89%

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 HD37
+85%
20
−85%
4K2−3
−300%
8
+300%

Cost per frame, $

1080p1.269.95
4K23.2824.88

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
−150%
10−11
+150%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 7−8
−129%
16−18
+129%
Battlefield 5 1−2
−1700%
18−20
+1700%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
−160%
12−14
+160%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
−150%
10−11
+150%
Far Cry 5 3−4
−367%
14−16
+367%
Far Cry New Dawn 5−6
−260%
18−20
+260%
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
−413%
40−45
+413%
Hitman 3 7−8
−85.7%
12−14
+85.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn 18−20
−111%
35−40
+111%
Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
−325%
16−18
+325%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−11
−120%
21−24
+120%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
−45.7%
50−55
+45.7%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 7−8
−129%
16−18
+129%
Battlefield 5 1−2
−1700%
18−20
+1700%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
−160%
12−14
+160%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
−150%
10−11
+150%
Far Cry 5 3−4
−367%
14−16
+367%
Far Cry New Dawn 5−6
−260%
18−20
+260%
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
−413%
40−45
+413%
Hitman 3 7−8
−85.7%
12−14
+85.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn 18−20
−111%
35−40
+111%
Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
−325%
16−18
+325%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−11
−120%
21−24
+120%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
−66.7%
20−22
+66.7%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
−45.7%
50−55
+45.7%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 7−8
−129%
16−18
+129%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
−160%
12−14
+160%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
−150%
10−11
+150%
Far Cry 5 3−4
−367%
14−16
+367%
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
−413%
40−45
+413%
Hitman 3 7−8
−85.7%
12−14
+85.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn 18−20
−111%
35−40
+111%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−11
−120%
21−24
+120%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
+20%
10
−20%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
−45.7%
50−55
+45.7%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
−325%
16−18
+325%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 3−4
−300%
12−14
+300%
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
−233%
10−11
+233%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3
−200%
6−7
+200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 1−2
−500%
6−7
+500%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−200%
3−4
+200%
Far Cry 5 2−3
−250%
7−8
+250%
Hitman 3 7−8
−42.9%
10−11
+42.9%
Horizon Zero Dawn 6−7
−133%
14−16
+133%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2
−400%
5−6
+400%
Watch Dogs: Legion 10−12
−264%
40−45
+264%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 5−6
−120%
10−12
+120%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
−300%
4−5
+300%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3
−100%
4−5
+100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
−200%
3−4
+200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 3−4
Far Cry 5 1−2
−200%
3−4
+200%
Watch Dogs: Legion 0−1 2−3

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
−133%
7−8
+133%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Metro Exodus 24
+0%
24
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Metro Exodus 14
+0%
14
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Metro Exodus 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+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

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

This is how Quadro 2000M and Pro WX 3200 compete in popular games:

  • Quadro 2000M is 85% faster in 1080p
  • Pro WX 3200 is 300% faster in 4K

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

  • in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Quadro 2000M is 20% faster.
  • in Battlefield 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the Pro WX 3200 is 1700% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Quadro 2000M is ahead in 1 test (1%)
  • Pro WX 3200 is ahead in 52 tests (75%)
  • there's a draw in 16 tests (23%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 2.02 6.27
Recency 13 January 2011 2 July 2019
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 4 GB
Chip lithography 40 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 55 Watt 65 Watt

Quadro 2000M has 18.2% lower power consumption.

Pro WX 3200, on the other hand, has a 210.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 185.7% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon Pro WX 3200 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 2000M in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro 2000M is a mobile workstation 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.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA Quadro 2000M
Quadro 2000M
AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200
Radeon Pro WX 3200

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.7 94 votes

Rate Quadro 2000M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.2 84 votes

Rate Radeon Pro WX 3200 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.