Radeon PRO W7800 vs Quadro P3200

Place in the ranking	249	14
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	30.89
Power efficiency	20.98	19.58
Architecture	Pascal (2016−2021)	RDNA 3.0 (2022−2024)
GPU code name	GP104	Navi 31
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Workstation
Release date	21 February 2018 (6 years ago)	13 April 2023 (1 year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$2,499

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 cores	1792	4480
Core clock speed	1328 MHz	1895 MHz
Boost clock speed	1543 MHz	2525 MHz
Number of transistors	7,200 million	57,700 million
Manufacturing process technology	16 nm	5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	260 Watt
Texture fill rate	172.8	707.0
Floating-point processing power	5.53 TFLOPS	45.25 TFLOPS
ROPs	64	128
TMUs	112	280
Ray Tracing Cores	no data	70

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	no data
Interface	MXM-B (3.0)	PCIe 4.0 x16
Length	no data	280 mm
Width	no data	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	None	2x 8-pin

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	GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount	6 GB	32 GB
Memory bus width	192 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	1753 MHz	2250 MHz
Memory bandwidth	168.3 GB/s	576.0 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 Connectors

No outputs

3x DisplayPort 2.1, 1x mini-DisplayPort 2.1

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	12 (12_1)	12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model	6.4	6.8
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	2.2
Vulkan	1.2.131	1.3
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.

Quadro P3200 22.88

PRO W7800 73.98
+223%

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 8795

PRO W7800 28439
+223%

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	85 −218%	270−280 +218%
4K	28 −221%	90−95 +221%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	no data	9.26
4K	no data	27.77

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	40−45 −210%	130−140 +210%
Cyberpunk 2077	45−50 −204%	140−150 +204%
Elden Ring	70−75 −211%	230−240 +211%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	70−75 −210%	220−230 +210%
Counter-Strike 2	40−45 −210%	130−140 +210%
Cyberpunk 2077	45−50 −204%	140−150 +204%
Forza Horizon 4	95−100 −206%	300−310 +206%
Metro Exodus	60−65 −211%	190−200 +211%
Red Dead Redemption 2	50−55 −214%	160−170 +214%
Valorant	90−95 −215%	290−300 +215%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	70−75 −210%	220−230 +210%
Counter-Strike 2	40−45 −210%	130−140 +210%
Cyberpunk 2077	45−50 −204%	140−150 +204%
Dota 2	40 −200%	120−130 +200%
Elden Ring	70−75 −211%	230−240 +211%
Far Cry 5	73 −215%	230−240 +215%
Fortnite	110−120 −199%	350−400 +199%
Forza Horizon 4	95−100 −206%	300−310 +206%
Grand Theft Auto V	75−80 −216%	250−260 +216%
Metro Exodus	60−65 −211%	190−200 +211%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	140−150 −204%	450−500 +204%
Red Dead Redemption 2	50−55 −214%	160−170 +214%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	70−75 −215%	230−240 +215%
Valorant	90−95 −215%	290−300 +215%
World of Tanks	240−250 −223%	800−850 +223%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	70−75 −210%	220−230 +210%
Counter-Strike 2	40−45 −210%	130−140 +210%
Cyberpunk 2077	45−50 −204%	140−150 +204%
Dota 2	112 −213%	350−400 +213%
Far Cry 5	70−75 −215%	230−240 +215%
Forza Horizon 4	95−100 −206%	300−310 +206%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	140−150 −204%	450−500 +204%
Valorant	90−95 −215%	290−300 +215%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	35−40 −197%	110−120 +197%
Elden Ring	35−40 −208%	120−130 +208%
Grand Theft Auto V	35−40 −216%	120−130 +216%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	170−180 −216%	550−600 +216%
Red Dead Redemption 2	21−24 −210%	65−70 +210%
World of Tanks	150−160 −194%	450−500 +194%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	45−50 −204%	140−150 +204%
Counter-Strike 2	18−20 −216%	60−65 +216%
Cyberpunk 2077	18−20 −216%	60−65 +216%
Far Cry 5	65−70 −223%	210−220 +223%
Forza Horizon 4	60−65 −217%	190−200 +217%
Metro Exodus	50−55 −208%	160−170 +208%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	30−35 −213%	100−105 +213%
Valorant	60−65 −217%	190−200 +217%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	20−22 −200%	60−65 +200%
Dota 2	35−40 −208%	120−130 +208%
Elden Ring	18−20 −206%	55−60 +206%
Grand Theft Auto V	35−40 −208%	120−130 +208%
Metro Exodus	16−18 −194%	50−55 +194%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	65−70 −219%	220−230 +219%
Red Dead Redemption 2	14−16 −221%	45−50 +221%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	35−40 −208%	120−130 +208%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	21−24 −204%	70−75 +204%
Counter-Strike 2	20−22 −200%	60−65 +200%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 −200%	21−24 +200%
Dota 2	35−40 −208%	120−130 +208%
Far Cry 5	30−33 −217%	95−100 +217%
Fortnite	27−30 −221%	90−95 +221%
Forza Horizon 4	35−40 −214%	110−120 +214%
Valorant	27−30 −210%	90−95 +210%

This is how Quadro P3200 and PRO W7800 compete in popular games:

PRO W7800 is 218% faster in 1080p
PRO W7800 is 221% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	22.88	73.98
Recency	21 February 2018	13 April 2023
Maximum RAM amount	6 GB	32 GB
Chip lithography	16 nm	5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	260 Watt

Quadro P3200 has 246.7% lower power consumption.

PRO W7800, on the other hand, has a 223.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 433.3% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 220% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon PRO W7800 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro P3200 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro P3200 is a mobile workstation card while Radeon PRO W7800 is a workstation one.

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