Quadro P4200 vs Radeon PRO WX 3100

Place in the ranking	566	216
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	5.02	no data
Power efficiency	7.10	17.37
Architecture	GCN 4.0 (2016−2020)	Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code name	Lexa	GP104
Market segment	Workstation	Mobile workstation
Release date	12 June 2017 (7 years ago)	21 February 2018 (6 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$199	no data

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	512	2304
Core clock speed	925 MHz	1227 MHz
Boost clock speed	1219 MHz	1647 MHz
Number of transistors	2,200 million	7,200 million
Manufacturing process technology	14 nm	16 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	65 Watt	100 Watt
Texture fill rate	39.01	237.2
Floating-point processing power	1.248 TFLOPS	7.589 TFLOPS
ROPs	16	64
TMUs	32	144

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	no data	large
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x8	MXM-B (3.0)
Length	145 mm	no data
Width	1-slot	no data
Supplementary power connectors	None	None

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	4 GB	8 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	1500 MHz	1502 MHz
Memory bandwidth	96 GB/s	192.3 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

1x DisplayPort, 2x mini-DisplayPort

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	12 (12_0)	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	6.4	6.4
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	2.0	1.2
Vulkan	1.2.131	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.

PRO WX 3100 6.70

Quadro P4200 25.23
+277%

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.

PRO WX 3100 2577

Quadro P4200 10546
+309%

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.

PRO WX 3100 7624

Quadro P4200 38375
+403%

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

−246%

45−50
+246%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

15.31

no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	14−16 −236%	45−50 +236%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 −292%	50−55 +292%
Elden Ring	18−20 −361%	80−85 +361%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	21−24 −267%	75−80 +267%
Counter-Strike 2	14−16 −236%	45−50 +236%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 −292%	50−55 +292%
Forza Horizon 4	27−30 −311%	110−120 +311%
Metro Exodus	16−18 −288%	65−70 +288%
Red Dead Redemption 2	18−20 −189%	55−60 +189%
Valorant	21−24 −381%	100−110 +381%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	21−24 −267%	75−80 +267%
Counter-Strike 2	14−16 −236%	45−50 +236%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 −292%	50−55 +292%
Dota 2	21−24 −278%	85−90 +278%
Elden Ring	18−20 −361%	80−85 +361%
Far Cry 5	30−33 −157%	75−80 +157%
Fortnite	25 −404%	120−130 +404%
Forza Horizon 4	27−30 −311%	110−120 +311%
Grand Theft Auto V	21−24 −274%	85−90 +274%
Metro Exodus	16−18 −288%	65−70 +288%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	55−60 −187%	150−160 +187%
Red Dead Redemption 2	18−20 −189%	55−60 +189%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	21−24 −290%	80−85 +290%
Valorant	21−24 −381%	100−110 +381%
World of Tanks	100−110 −149%	250−260 +149%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	21−24 −267%	75−80 +267%
Counter-Strike 2	14−16 −236%	45−50 +236%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 −292%	50−55 +292%
Dota 2	21−24 −278%	85−90 +278%
Far Cry 5	30−33 −157%	75−80 +157%
Forza Horizon 4	27−30 −311%	110−120 +311%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	55−60 −187%	150−160 +187%
Valorant	21−24 −381%	100−110 +381%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	7−8 −500%	40−45 +500%
Elden Ring	8−9 −463%	45−50 +463%
Grand Theft Auto V	7−8 −514%	40−45 +514%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	35−40 −361%	170−180 +361%
Red Dead Redemption 2	5−6 −360%	21−24 +360%
World of Tanks	45−50 −248%	160−170 +248%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	10−12 −364%	50−55 +364%
Counter-Strike 2	9−10 −144%	21−24 +144%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 −320%	21−24 +320%
Far Cry 5	14−16 −429%	70−75 +429%
Forza Horizon 4	12−14 −458%	65−70 +458%
Metro Exodus	9−10 −544%	55−60 +544%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	8−9 −363%	35−40 +363%
Valorant	16−18 −300%	65−70 +300%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	0−1	21−24
Dota 2	18−20 −144%	40−45 +144%
Elden Ring	4−5 −400%	20−22 +400%
Grand Theft Auto V	16−18 −159%	40−45 +159%
Metro Exodus	2−3 −850%	18−20 +850%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	18−20 −305%	75−80 +305%
Red Dead Redemption 2	4−5 −300%	16−18 +300%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16−18 −159%	40−45 +159%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	6−7 −333%	24−27 +333%
Counter-Strike 2	0−1	21−24
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −300%	8−9 +300%
Dota 2	18−20 −144%	40−45 +144%
Far Cry 5	8−9 −313%	30−35 +313%
Fortnite	6−7 −417%	30−35 +417%
Forza Horizon 4	7−8 −457%	35−40 +457%
Valorant	6−7 −450%	30−35 +450%

This is how PRO WX 3100 and Quadro P4200 compete in popular games:

Quadro P4200 is 246% faster in 1080p

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

in Metro Exodus, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the Quadro P4200 is 850% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

Without exception, Quadro P4200 surpassed PRO WX 3100 in all 61 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	6.70	25.23
Recency	12 June 2017	21 February 2018
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	8 GB
Chip lithography	14 nm	16 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	65 Watt	100 Watt

PRO WX 3100 has a 14.3% more advanced lithography process, and 53.8% lower power consumption.

Quadro P4200, on the other hand, has a 276.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 months, and a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.

The Quadro P4200 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon PRO WX 3100 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon PRO WX 3100 is a workstation card while Quadro P4200 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.