Quadro P3200 vs Radeon PRO W6400
Quadro P3200
Popular choices:
Radeon PRO W6400
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - GPU
About G3D Mark
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.
Value Upgrade Path
This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (G3D Mark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money. The Quadro P3200 is positioned at rank 86 and the Radeon PRO W6400 is on rank 33, so the Radeon PRO W6400 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Quadro P3200
Performance Per Dollar Radeon PRO W6400
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The Quadro P3200 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 1.8% higher G3D Mark score. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Radeon PRO W6400.
| Insight | Quadro P3200 | Radeon PRO W6400 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+1.8%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-1.8%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2018 / Pascal (2016−2021)) | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025) (6nm) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | 🎮 High Capacity (4 GB) |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | — | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly |
💎 Value Proposition
The Quadro P3200 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $63 versus $200 for the Radeon PRO W6400, it costs 69% less. While it maintains competitive performance, this results in a 223.1% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | Quadro P3200 | Radeon PRO W6400 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+223.1%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($63) | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($200) |
Performance Check
Real-world benchmarks and performance projections based on comprehensive hardware analysis and comparative metrics. Values represent expected performance on High/Ultra settings at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. Modeled using a Ryzen 7 7800X3D reference profile to minimize specific CPU bottlenecks.
Note: Performance behavior can vary per game. Specific architectures may perform better or worse depending on game engine optimizations and API implementation.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Quadro P3200 and Radeon PRO W6400
Quadro P3200
The Quadro P3200 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in February 21 2018. It features the Pascal architecture. The core clock ranges from 1328 MHz to 1543 MHz. It has 1792 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 75W. Manufactured using 16 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 8,578 points.
Radeon PRO W6400
The Radeon PRO W6400 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in January 19 2022. It features the RDNA 2.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 2331 MHz to 2331 MHz. It has 768 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 50W. Manufactured using 6 nm process technology. It features 12 dedicated ray tracing cores for enhanced lighting effects. G3D Mark benchmark score: 8,428 points.
Graphics Performance
The Quadro P3200 scores 8,578 and the Radeon PRO W6400 reaches 8,428 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 1.8% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Quadro P3200 is built on Pascal while the Radeon PRO W6400 uses RDNA 2.0, both on 16 nm vs 6 nm. Shader units: 1,792 (Quadro P3200) vs 768 (Radeon PRO W6400). Raw compute: 5.53 TFLOPS (Quadro P3200) vs 3.58 TFLOPS (Radeon PRO W6400). Boost clocks: 1543 MHz vs 2331 MHz.
| Feature | Quadro P3200 | Radeon PRO W6400 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 8,578+2% | 8,428 |
| Architecture | Pascal | RDNA 2.0 |
| Process Node | 16 nm | 6 nm |
| Shading Units | 1792+133% | 768 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 5.53 TFLOPS+54% | 3.58 TFLOPS |
| Boost Clock | 1543 MHz | 2331 MHz+51% |
| ROPs | 64+100% | 32 |
| TMUs | 112+133% | 48 |
| L1 Cache | 672 KB+163% | 256 KB |
| L2 Cache | 1.5 MB+50% | 1 MB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Quadro P3200 | Radeon PRO W6400 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | FSR 1.0 (Software) |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | AMD Anti-Lag |
Video Memory (VRAM)
Both cards feature 4 GB of GDDR6. Bus width: 256-bit vs 256-bit. L2 Cache: 1.5 MB (Quadro P3200) vs 1 MB (Radeon PRO W6400) — the Quadro P3200 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | Quadro P3200 | Radeon PRO W6400 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR6 |
| Bus Width | 256-bit | 256-bit |
| L2 Cache | 1.5 MB+50% | 1 MB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (Quadro P3200) vs 12.2 (Radeon PRO W6400). Vulkan: 1.3 vs 1.2. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 4 vs 2.
| Feature | Quadro P3200 | Radeon PRO W6400 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 | 12.2+2% |
| Vulkan | 1.3+8% | 1.2 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Max Displays | 4+100% | 2 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: NVENC 6th Gen (Quadro P3200) vs VCN 3.0 (Radeon PRO W6400). Decoder: NVDEC 3rd Gen vs VCN 3.0. Supported codecs: H.265,H.264 (Quadro P3200) vs MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9,AV1 (Decode) (Radeon PRO W6400).
| Feature | Quadro P3200 | Radeon PRO W6400 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | NVENC 6th Gen | VCN 3.0 |
| Decoder | NVDEC 3rd Gen | VCN 3.0 |
| Codecs | H.265,H.264 | MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9,AV1 (Decode) |
Power & Dimensions
The Quadro P3200 draws 75W versus the Radeon PRO W6400's 50W — a 40% difference. The Radeon PRO W6400 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 500W (Quadro P3200) vs 500W (Radeon PRO W6400). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 0mm vs 168mm, occupying 0 vs 1 slots. Typical load temperature: 80 vs 70°C.
| Feature | Quadro P3200 | Radeon PRO W6400 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 75W | 50W-33% |
| Recommended PSU | 500W | 500W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 0mm | 168mm |
| Height | 0mm | 69mm |
| Slots | 0-100% | 1 |
| Temp (Load) | 80 | 70°C-13% |
| Perf/Watt | 114.4 | 168.6+47% |
Value Analysis
The Quadro P3200 launched at $500 MSRP and currently averages $63, while the Radeon PRO W6400 launched at $229 and now averages $200. The Quadro P3200 costs 68.5% less ($137 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 136.2 (Quadro P3200) vs 42.1 (Radeon PRO W6400) — the Quadro P3200 offers 223.5% better value. The Radeon PRO W6400 is the newer GPU (2022 vs 2018).
| Feature | Quadro P3200 | Radeon PRO W6400 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $500 | $229-54% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $63-69% | $200 |
| Performance per Dollar | 136.2+224% | 42.1 |
| Codename | GP104 | Navi 24 |
| Release | February 21 2018 | January 19 2022 |
| Ranking | #304 | #308 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on Quadro P3200 and Radeon PRO W6400
