Radeon R9 295X2 vs Quadro P3200
Radeon R9 295X2
Popular choices:
Quadro P3200
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.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar
Performance Per Dollar Quadro P3200
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The Quadro P3200 uses modern memory architecture. The Quadro P3200 likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The Radeon R9 295X2 lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.
🚀 Performance Leadership
The Radeon R9 295X2 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 1.8% higher G3D Mark score and 100% more VRAM (8 GB vs 4 GB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Quadro P3200.
| Insight | Radeon R9 295X2 | Quadro P3200 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+1.8%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-1.8%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2014 / GCN 2.0 (2013−2017)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2018 / Pascal (2016−2021)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ✅ More VRAM (+100%) | ❌ Less VRAM capacity |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | Standard Size (307mm) | — |
💎 Value Proposition
The Quadro P3200 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $63 versus $200 for the Radeon R9 295X2, it costs 69% less. While it maintains competitive performance, this results in a 211.8% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | Radeon R9 295X2 | Quadro P3200 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+211.8%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($200) | ✅More affordable ($63) |
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 Radeon R9 295X2 and Quadro P3200
Radeon R9 295X2
The Radeon R9 295X2 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in April 29 2014. It features the GCN 2.0 architecture. The boost clock speed is 1018 MHz. It has 2816 ×2 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 500W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 8,734 points. Launch price was $1,499.
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.
Graphics Performance
The Radeon R9 295X2 scores 8,734 and the Quadro P3200 reaches 8,578 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 1.8% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Radeon R9 295X2 is built on GCN 2.0 while the Quadro P3200 uses Pascal, both on 28 nm vs 16 nm. Shader units: 2,816 (Radeon R9 295X2) vs 1,792 (Quadro P3200). Raw compute: 5.733 TFLOPS ×2 (Radeon R9 295X2) vs 5.53 TFLOPS (Quadro P3200). Boost clocks: 1018 MHz vs 1543 MHz.
| Feature | Radeon R9 295X2 | Quadro P3200 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 8,734+2% | 8,578 |
| Architecture | GCN 2.0 | Pascal |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 16 nm |
| Shading Units | 2816 ×2+57% | 1792 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 5.733 TFLOPS ×2+4% | 5.53 TFLOPS |
| Boost Clock | 1018 MHz | 1543 MHz+52% |
| ROPs | 64 ×2 | 64 |
| TMUs | 176 ×2+57% | 112 |
| L1 Cache | 704 KB+5% | 672 KB |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 1.5 MB+50% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Radeon R9 295X2 | Quadro P3200 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | FSR 1.0 (Software) |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | AMD Anti-Lag | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The Radeon R9 295X2 comes with 8 GB of VRAM, while the Quadro P3200 has 4 GB. The Radeon R9 295X2 offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 512-bit x2 vs 256-bit. L2 Cache: 1 MB (Radeon R9 295X2) vs 1.5 MB (Quadro P3200) — the Quadro P3200 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | Radeon R9 295X2 | Quadro P3200 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 8 GB+100% | 4 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |
| Bus Width | 512-bit x2+100% | 256-bit |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 1.5 MB+50% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12.0 (Radeon R9 295X2) vs 12 (Quadro P3200). Vulkan: 1.1 vs 1.3. OpenGL: 4.3 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 6 vs 4.
| Feature | Radeon R9 295X2 | Quadro P3200 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12.0 | 12 |
| Vulkan | 1.1 | 1.3+18% |
| OpenGL | 4.3 | 4.6+7% |
| Max Displays | 6+50% | 4 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: VCE 2.0 (Radeon R9 295X2) vs NVENC 6th Gen (Quadro P3200). Decoder: UVD 4.2 vs NVDEC 3rd Gen. Supported codecs: MPEG-2,H.264,VC-1 (Radeon R9 295X2) vs H.265,H.264 (Quadro P3200).
| Feature | Radeon R9 295X2 | Quadro P3200 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | VCE 2.0 | NVENC 6th Gen |
| Decoder | UVD 4.2 | NVDEC 3rd Gen |
| Codecs | MPEG-2,H.264,VC-1 | H.265,H.264 |
Power & Dimensions
The Radeon R9 295X2 draws 500W versus the Quadro P3200's 75W — a 147.8% difference. The Quadro P3200 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 1000W (Radeon R9 295X2) vs 500W (Quadro P3200). Power connectors: 2x 8-pin vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 307mm vs 0mm, occupying 2 vs 0 slots. Typical load temperature: 65°C vs 80.
| Feature | Radeon R9 295X2 | Quadro P3200 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 500W | 75W-85% |
| Recommended PSU | 1000W | 500W-50% |
| Power Connector | 2x 8-pin | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 307mm | 0mm |
| Height | 114mm | 0mm |
| Slots | 2 | 0-100% |
| Temp (Load) | 65°C-19% | 80 |
| Perf/Watt | 17.5 | 114.4+554% |
Value Analysis
The Radeon R9 295X2 launched at $1499 MSRP and currently averages $200, while the Quadro P3200 launched at $500 and now averages $63. The Quadro P3200 costs 68.5% less ($137 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 43.7 (Radeon R9 295X2) vs 136.2 (Quadro P3200) — the Quadro P3200 offers 211.7% better value. The Quadro P3200 is the newer GPU (2018 vs 2014).
| Feature | Radeon R9 295X2 | Quadro P3200 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $1499 | $500-67% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $200 | $63-69% |
| Performance per Dollar | 43.7 | 136.2+212% |
| Codename | Vesuvius | GP104 |
| Release | April 29 2014 | February 21 2018 |
| Ranking | #303 | #304 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on Radeon R9 295X2 and Quadro P3200
