Quadro T1000 vs Radeon Pro WX 3200

Place in the ranking	575	321
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	12.38	no data
Power efficiency	6.67	23.19
Architecture	GCN 4.0 (2016−2020)	Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code name	Polaris 23	TU117
Market segment	Workstation	Workstation
Release date	2 July 2019 (5 years ago)	27 May 2019 (5 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	640	no data
Core clock speed	1082 MHz	1395 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1455 MHz
Number of transistors	2,200 million	4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology	14 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	65 Watt	50 Watt
Texture fill rate	34.62	no data
Floating-point processing power	1.385 TFLOPS	no data
ROPs	16	no data
TMUs	32	no data

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).

Interface	PCIe 3.0 x8	PCIe 3.0 x16
Width	MXM Module	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	no data
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	no data
Memory bus width	128 Bit	no data
Memory clock speed	1000 MHz	8000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	64 GB/s	no data
Shared memory	-	no data

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

4x mini-DisplayPort

No outputs

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_0)	12.0 (12_1)
Shader Model	6.4	no data
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	2.0	no data
Vulkan	1.2.131	-

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 3200 6.26

Quadro T1000 16.75
+168%

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 3200 2414

Quadro T1000 6462
+168%

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	18 −150%	45−50 +150%
4K	8 −163%	21−24 +163%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	11.06	no data
4K	24.88	no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

10−11

−140%

24−27
+140%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	16−18 −150%	40−45 +150%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	8−9 −163%	21−24 +163%
Battlefield 5	18−20 −150%	45−50 +150%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	12−14 −131%	30−33 +131%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−11 −140%	24−27 +140%
Far Cry 5	14−16 −150%	35−40 +150%
Far Cry New Dawn	18−20 −150%	45−50 +150%
Forza Horizon 4	40−45 −144%	100−105 +144%
Hitman 3	12−14 −131%	30−33 +131%
Horizon Zero Dawn	35−40 −163%	100−105 +163%
Metro Exodus	24 −150%	60−65 +150%
Red Dead Redemption 2	16−18 −165%	45−50 +165%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	21−24 −150%	55−60 +150%
Watch Dogs: Legion	50−55 −155%	130−140 +155%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	16−18 −150%	40−45 +150%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	8−9 −163%	21−24 +163%
Battlefield 5	18−20 −150%	45−50 +150%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	12−14 −131%	30−33 +131%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−11 −140%	24−27 +140%
Far Cry 5	14−16 −150%	35−40 +150%
Far Cry New Dawn	18−20 −150%	45−50 +150%
Forza Horizon 4	40−45 −144%	100−105 +144%
Hitman 3	12−14 −131%	30−33 +131%
Horizon Zero Dawn	35−40 −163%	100−105 +163%
Metro Exodus	14 −150%	35−40 +150%
Red Dead Redemption 2	16−18 −165%	45−50 +165%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	21−24 −150%	55−60 +150%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	20−22 −150%	50−55 +150%
Watch Dogs: Legion	50−55 −155%	130−140 +155%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	16−18 −150%	40−45 +150%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	8−9 −163%	21−24 +163%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	12−14 −131%	30−33 +131%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−11 −140%	24−27 +140%
Far Cry 5	14−16 −150%	35−40 +150%
Forza Horizon 4	40−45 −144%	100−105 +144%
Hitman 3	12−14 −131%	30−33 +131%
Horizon Zero Dawn	35−40 −163%	100−105 +163%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	21−24 −150%	55−60 +150%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10 −140%	24−27 +140%
Watch Dogs: Legion	50−55 −155%	130−140 +155%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

16−18

−165%

45−50
+165%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	12−14 −150%	30−33 +150%
Far Cry New Dawn	10−11 −140%	24−27 +140%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7 −167%	16−18 +167%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2 −100%	2−3 +100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	6−7 −167%	16−18 +167%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −167%	8−9 +167%
Far Cry 5	7−8 −157%	18−20 +157%
Forza Horizon 4	20−22 −150%	50−55 +150%
Hitman 3	10−11 −140%	24−27 +140%
Horizon Zero Dawn	14−16 −150%	35−40 +150%
Metro Exodus	6−7 −167%	16−18 +167%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	2−3 −150%	5−6 +150%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	5−6 −140%	12−14 +140%
Watch Dogs: Legion	40−45 −150%	100−105 +150%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

10−12

−145%

27−30
+145%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	5−6 −140%	12−14 +140%
Far Cry New Dawn	4−5 −150%	10−11 +150%
Hitman 3	2−3 −150%	5−6 +150%
Horizon Zero Dawn	16−18 −165%	45−50 +165%
Metro Exodus	3−4 −167%	8−9 +167%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	5 −140%	12−14 +140%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	4−5 −150%	10−11 +150%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	3−4 −167%	8−9 +167%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4 −167%	8−9 +167%
Cyberpunk 2077	0−1	0−1
Far Cry 5	3−4 −167%	8−9 +167%
Forza Horizon 4	6−7 −167%	16−18 +167%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	1−2 −100%	2−3 +100%
Watch Dogs: Legion	2−3 −150%	5−6 +150%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

7−8
−157%

18−20

+157%

This is how Pro WX 3200 and Quadro T1000 compete in popular games:

Quadro T1000 is 150% faster in 1080p
Quadro T1000 is 163% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	6.26	16.75
Recency	2 July 2019	27 May 2019
Chip lithography	14 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	65 Watt	50 Watt

Pro WX 3200 has an age advantage of 1 month.

Quadro T1000, on the other hand, has a 167.6% higher aggregate performance score, a 16.7% more advanced lithography process, and 30% lower power consumption.

The Quadro T1000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon Pro WX 3200 in performance tests.

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