RTX 2000 Ada Generation vs Quadro P3200

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro P3200 with RTX 2000 Ada Generation, including specs and performance data.

Quadro P3200
2018
6 GB GDDR5, 75 Watt
22.74

RTX 2000 Ada Generation outperforms P3200 by a whopping 103% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking24472
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data81.58
Power efficiency21.8847.49
ArchitecturePascal (2016−2021)Ada Lovelace (2022−2024)
GPU code nameGP104AD107
Market segmentMobile workstationWorkstation
Release date21 February 2018 (6 years ago)12 February 2024 (less than a year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$649

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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 cores17922816
Core clock speed1328 MHz1620 MHz
Boost clock speed1543 MHz2130 MHz
Number of transistors7,200 million18,900 million
Manufacturing process technology16 nm5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)75 Watt70 Watt
Texture fill rate172.8187.4
Floating-point processing power5.53 TFLOPS12 TFLOPS
ROPs6448
TMUs11288
Tensor Coresno data88
Ray Tracing Coresno data22

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 sizelargeno data
InterfaceMXM-B (3.0)PCIe 4.0 x8
Lengthno data168 mm
Widthno data2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone

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 typeGDDR5GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount6 GB16 GB
Memory bus width192 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1753 MHz2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth168.3 GB/s256.0 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 1.4a

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.

DirectX12 (12_1)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model6.46.8
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.23.0
Vulkan1.2.1311.3
CUDA6.18.9

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 P3200 22.74
RTX 2000 Ada Generation 46.07
+103%

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 P3200 8775
RTX 2000 Ada Generation 17778
+103%

GeekBench 5 OpenCL

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.

Quadro P3200 34242
RTX 2000 Ada Generation 87048
+154%

GeekBench 5 Vulkan

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses Vulkan API by AMD & Khronos Group.

Quadro P3200 35903
RTX 2000 Ada Generation 84559
+136%

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 HD84
−102%
170−180
+102%
4K28
−96.4%
55−60
+96.4%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
−89.2%
70−75
+89.2%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 65
−100%
130−140
+100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 35−40
−92.3%
75−80
+92.3%
Battlefield 5 75−80
−100%
150−160
+100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 45−50
−102%
95−100
+102%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
−89.2%
70−75
+89.2%
Far Cry 5 50−55
−88.7%
100−105
+88.7%
Far Cry New Dawn 60−65
−100%
120−130
+100%
Forza Horizon 4 130−140
−97.1%
270−280
+97.1%
Hitman 3 45−50
−95.7%
90−95
+95.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn 100−110
−96.3%
210−220
+96.3%
Metro Exodus 75−80
−103%
160−170
+103%
Red Dead Redemption 2 60−65
−100%
120−130
+100%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 129
−102%
260−270
+102%
Watch Dogs: Legion 95−100
−102%
200−210
+102%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 88
−93.2%
170−180
+93.2%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 35−40
−92.3%
75−80
+92.3%
Battlefield 5 75−80
−100%
150−160
+100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 45−50
−102%
95−100
+102%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
−89.2%
70−75
+89.2%
Far Cry 5 50−55
−88.7%
100−105
+88.7%
Far Cry New Dawn 60−65
−100%
120−130
+100%
Forza Horizon 4 130−140
−97.1%
270−280
+97.1%
Hitman 3 45−50
−95.7%
90−95
+95.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn 100−110
−96.3%
210−220
+96.3%
Metro Exodus 75−80
−103%
160−170
+103%
Red Dead Redemption 2 60−65
−100%
120−130
+100%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 75−80
−94.8%
150−160
+94.8%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 50−55
−100%
100−105
+100%
Watch Dogs: Legion 95−100
−102%
200−210
+102%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 40
−100%
80−85
+100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 35−40
−92.3%
75−80
+92.3%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 45−50
−102%
95−100
+102%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
−89.2%
70−75
+89.2%
Far Cry 5 50−55
−88.7%
100−105
+88.7%
Forza Horizon 4 72
−94.4%
140−150
+94.4%
Hitman 3 45−50
−95.7%
90−95
+95.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn 100−110
−96.3%
210−220
+96.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 75−80
−94.8%
150−160
+94.8%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 46
−95.7%
90−95
+95.7%
Watch Dogs: Legion 95−100
−102%
200−210
+102%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 60−65
−100%
120−130
+100%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 40−45
−93.2%
85−90
+93.2%
Far Cry New Dawn 35−40
−100%
70−75
+100%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 24−27
−87.5%
45−50
+87.5%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 21−24
−81.8%
40−45
+81.8%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 24−27
−92.3%
50−55
+92.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
−92.9%
27−30
+92.9%
Far Cry 5 24−27
−92.3%
50−55
+92.3%
Forza Horizon 4 130−140
−100%
260−270
+100%
Hitman 3 27−30
−85.2%
50−55
+85.2%
Horizon Zero Dawn 45−50
−102%
95−100
+102%
Metro Exodus 40−45
−97.7%
85−90
+97.7%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 45−50
−93.9%
95−100
+93.9%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 27−30
−85.2%
50−55
+85.2%
Watch Dogs: Legion 130−140
−97%
260−270
+97%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 35−40
−97.4%
75−80
+97.4%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 21−24
−95.7%
45−50
+95.7%
Far Cry New Dawn 18−20
−94.4%
35−40
+94.4%
Hitman 3 18−20
−94.4%
35−40
+94.4%
Horizon Zero Dawn 110−120
−94.9%
230−240
+94.9%
Metro Exodus 24−27
−100%
50−55
+100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 28
−96.4%
55−60
+96.4%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 14−16
−92.9%
27−30
+92.9%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 12−14
−100%
24−27
+100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 12−14
−84.6%
24−27
+84.6%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
−100%
10−11
+100%
Far Cry 5 12−14
−84.6%
24−27
+84.6%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
−93.5%
60−65
+93.5%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 27−30
−85.2%
50−55
+85.2%
Watch Dogs: Legion 10−11
−80%
18−20
+80%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 20−22
−100%
40−45
+100%

This is how Quadro P3200 and RTX 2000 Ada Generation compete in popular games:

  • RTX 2000 Ada Generation is 102% faster in 1080p
  • RTX 2000 Ada Generation is 96% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 22.74 46.07
Recency 21 February 2018 12 February 2024
Maximum RAM amount 6 GB 16 GB
Chip lithography 16 nm 5 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 75 Watt 70 Watt

RTX 2000 Ada Generation has a 102.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 166.7% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 220% more advanced lithography process, and 7.1% lower power consumption.

The RTX 2000 Ada Generation is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro P3200 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro P3200 is a mobile workstation card while RTX 2000 Ada Generation 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 P3200
Quadro P3200
NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation
RTX 2000 Ada Generation

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.


3.7 289 votes

Rate Quadro P3200 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3 24 votes

Rate RTX 2000 Ada Generation 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.