GeForce GTX 970XM FORCE vs Quadro P3200 Max-Q

G3D Mark is a standard benchmark that measures graphics performance in real-world gaming scenarios. It simplifies comparing cards from different brands, where higher scores directly correlate with better fps and smoother gaming experiences.

GeForce GTX 970XM FORCE vs Quadro P3200 Max-Q FPS Benchmarks

Predicted gaming performance across popular games. Tested paired with Ryzen 7 9800X3D to isolate GPU performance.

Search any supported game below to compare 1080p FPS for both components.

GeForce GTX 970XM FORCE vs Quadro P3200 Max-Q: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

See where each GPU makes more sense in practice: raw FPS, VRAM, features, power draw, pricing, and long-term headroom.

GeForce GTX 970XM FORCE

2014

Why buy it

✅Competitive enough if your priority is price, power, or specific feature preference.

Trade-offs

❌Lower average FPS than Quadro P3200 Max-Q across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
❌2014 hardware with 4 GB of VRAM already sits in legacy territory for modern games.

Quadro P3200 Max-Q

2018

Why buy it

✅14.7% more average FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
✅GeForce GTX 970XM FORCE is already legacy-tier future-proofing, so Quadro P3200 Max-Q is the less risky modern option long term.
✅More future proof: Pascal (2016−2021) on 16nm with a newer platform for upcoming games.

Trade-offs

❌Older hardware, 4 GB of VRAM, and weaker feature support mean it will age faster in newer AAA releases.

Quick Answers

Which GPU is faster for gaming right now?

Quadro P3200 Max-Q is the faster gaming card right now. In our data, it leads by 14.7% in average FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data. PassMark G3D leans toward GeForce GTX 970XM FORCE instead at 6,707 vs 6,500, so for this question the real-game FPS result matters more than the synthetic split.

Which GPU is the safer long-term pick for 2026 and beyond?

Quadro P3200 Max-Q is the safer long-term pick for 2026 and beyond. The case is simple: a 16nm process instead of 28nm and a newer 2018 generation instead of 2014. That makes it the less risky pick as game demands keep moving.

Which GPU is the better buy today?

Quadro P3200 Max-Q makes the most sense today based on the pricing and value data we have for this matchup.

GeForce GTX 970XM FORCE vs Quadro P3200 Max-Q Technical Specifications

Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.

GeForce GTX 970XM FORCE

The GeForce GTX 970XM FORCE is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in October 7 2014. It features the Maxwell 2.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 924 MHz to 1038 MHz. It has 1280 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 81W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 6,707 points. Launch price was $2,560.89.

Quadro P3200 Max-Q

The Quadro P3200 Max-Q is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in February 21 2018. It features the Pascal architecture. The core clock ranges from 1139 MHz to 1404 MHz. It has 1792 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 75W. Manufactured using 16 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 6,500 points.

⚡

Graphics Performance

The GeForce GTX 970XM FORCE scores 6,707 and the Quadro P3200 Max-Q reaches 6,500 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 3.2% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The GeForce GTX 970XM FORCE is built on Maxwell 2.0 while the Quadro P3200 Max-Q uses Pascal, both on 28 nm vs 16 nm. Shader units: 1,280 (GeForce GTX 970XM FORCE) vs 1,792 (Quadro P3200 Max-Q). Raw compute: 2.657 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 970XM FORCE) vs 5.032 TFLOPS (Quadro P3200 Max-Q). Boost clocks: 1038 MHz vs 1404 MHz.

Feature	GeForce GTX 970XM FORCE	Quadro P3200 Max-Q
G3D Mark Score	6,707+3%	6,500
Architecture	Maxwell 2.0	Pascal
Process Node	28 nm	16 nm
Shading Units	1280	1792+40%
Compute (TFLOPS)	2.657 TFLOPS	5.032 TFLOPS+89%
Boost Clock	1038 MHz	1404 MHz+35%
ROPs	48	64+33%
TMUs	80	112+40%
L1 Cache	480 KB	672 KB+40%
L2 Cache	1.5 MB	1.5 MB

✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

The GeForce GTX 970XM FORCE gets NVIDIA DLSS, which still tends to look cleaner in motion. The Quadro P3200 Max-Q leans on FSR, which is flexible and widely supported, but usually a bit rougher at the same settings.

Feature	GeForce GTX 970XM FORCE	Quadro P3200 Max-Q
Upscaling Tech	Upscaling support	Upscaling support
Frame Generation	Not Supported	Not Supported
Ray Reconstruction	No	No
Low Latency	NVIDIA Reflex	Standard

💾

Video Memory (VRAM)

Both cards ship with 4 GB of video memory. Memory bus width is 192-bit on the GeForce GTX 970XM FORCE and 256-bit on the Quadro P3200 Max-Q.

Feature	GeForce GTX 970XM FORCE	Quadro P3200 Max-Q
VRAM Capacity	4 GB	4 GB
Memory Type	GDDR5	GDDR6
Bus Width	192-bit	256-bit+33%
L2 Cache	1.5 MB	1.5 MB

🖥️

Display & API Support

DirectX support: 12 (12_1) (GeForce GTX 970XM FORCE) vs 12 (12_1) (Quadro P3200 Max-Q). Vulkan: 1.4 vs 1.4. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 4 vs 4.

Feature	GeForce GTX 970XM FORCE	Quadro P3200 Max-Q
DirectX	12 (12_1)	12 (12_1)
Vulkan	1.4	1.4
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
Max Displays	4	4

🎬

Media & Encoding

Hardware encoder: 5th Gen NVENC (Maxwell) (GeForce GTX 970XM FORCE) vs 6th Gen NVENC (Pascal) (Quadro P3200 Max-Q). Decoder: 1st Gen NVDEC vs 3rd Gen NVDEC. Supported codecs: H.264,HEVC,VC-1,MPEG-2 (GeForce GTX 970XM FORCE) vs H.264,HEVC,VP9,MPEG-2 (Quadro P3200 Max-Q).

Feature	GeForce GTX 970XM FORCE	Quadro P3200 Max-Q
Encoder	5th Gen NVENC (Maxwell)	6th Gen NVENC (Pascal)
Decoder	1st Gen NVDEC	3rd Gen NVDEC
Codecs	H.264,HEVC,VC-1,MPEG-2	H.264,HEVC,VP9,MPEG-2

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The GeForce GTX 970XM FORCE draws 81W versus the Quadro P3200 Max-Q's 75W — a 7.7% difference. The Quadro P3200 Max-Q is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GeForce GTX 970XM FORCE) vs 350W (Quadro P3200 Max-Q). Power connectors: 1x 6-pin vs PCIe-powered. Typical load temperature: 75°C vs 75°C.

Feature	GeForce GTX 970XM FORCE	Quadro P3200 Max-Q
TDP	81W	75W-7%
Recommended PSU	350W	350W
Power Connector	1x 6-pin	PCIe-powered
Length	267mm	—
Height	111mm	—
Slots	2	0-100%
Temp (Load)	75°C	75°C
Perf/Watt	82.8	86.7+5%