AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 vs NVIDIA Quadro P2200 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive performance gap between these two workstation GPUs. In the two shared benchmark tests, the NVIDIA Quadro P2200 wins both outright, and the margins are substantial. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro P2200 scores 32,344 against the Radeon Pro WX 3100's 7,333, a delta of 341.1% in favor of NVIDIA. That is not a marginal lead; it represents a multi-generational leap in raw compute throughput for OpenCL workloads.

The Vulkan results tell a similar story, albeit with a slightly narrower gap. The Quadro P2200 records 31,351, while the Radeon Pro WX 3100 manages 7,827, producing a 300.5% advantage for NVIDIA. Both scores place the Quadro P2200 far outside the WX 3100's reach. The data implies that any application relying on Vulkan or OpenCL will see dramatically higher throughput on the NVIDIA card, whether for rendering, simulation, or compute acceleration.

The average benchmark score reinforces this hierarchy. The Quadro P2200 sits at 8,686, while the Radeon Pro WX 3100 averages 7,580. The delta between their average scores is roughly 14.6%, which is meaningful but far smaller than the head-to-head deltas. This discrepancy suggests that the WX 3100's other benchmark results, such as its Passmark scores, may be relatively stronger than its OpenCL and Vulkan numbers, though the database only lists two shared tests. The head-to-head wins tally is 2 for NVIDIA, 0 for AMD, leaving no ambiguity about which card dominates in direct comparison.

Architecture Differences

The underlying architectures diverge sharply. The Quadro P2200 uses the GP106 chip on NVIDIA's Pascal architecture, built on a 16 nm TSMC process. It packs 4,400 million transistors into a 200 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 22.0 million per square millimeter. The Radeon Pro WX 3100 uses the Lexa chip on AMD's GCN 4.0 architecture, fabricated by GlobalFoundries on a 14 nm node. It contains 2,200 million transistors on a 103 mm² die, with a density of 21.4 million per square millimeter. The process nodes differ by process generation, but the density numbers are surprisingly close, suggesting that NVIDIA's larger die is not merely a scaling of the same design.

Memory configurations also differ. The Quadro P2200 offers 5 GB of GDDR5X on a 160-bit bus, delivering 200.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The Radeon Pro WX 3100 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, with 96.00 GB/s. That is less than half the bandwidth, which directly impacts any bandwidth-sensitive task such as texture-heavy rendering or large data transfers. The Quadro P2200's memory clock runs at 1251 MHz with 10 Gbps effective, while the WX 3100 runs at 1500 MHz with 6 Gbps effective. The higher effective rate on NVIDIA's card compensates for its lower raw clock.

Compute resources tell a similar story. The Quadro P2200 has 1,280 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 40 ROPs. The Radeon Pro WX 3100 has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The Quadro P2200's pixel rate is 59.72 GPixel/s and its texture rate is 119.4 GTexel/s. The WX 3100's pixel rate is 19.50 GPixel/s and its texture rate is 39.01 GTexel/s. In FP32, the Quadro P2200 delivers 3.822 TFLOPS, while the WX 3100 delivers 1,248.3 GFLOPS. Notably, the WX 3100's FP16 performance is identical to its FP32 at 1,248.3 GFLOPS (1:1 ratio), whereas the Quadro P2200's FP16 is drastically reduced at 59.72 GFLOPS (1:64 ratio). This means the AMD card has a significant relative advantage in FP16 workloads, if any application actually uses that precision.

Clock speeds also differ, with the Quadro P2200 boosting to 1493 MHz against the WX 3100's 1219 MHz. The base clocks are 1000 MHz and 925 MHz, respectively. The NVIDIA card draws 75 W, while the AMD card draws 65 W, a modest difference given the large performance gap. Both are single-slot cards with no power connectors, and both suggest a 250 W power supply. The bus interface differs: the Quadro P2200 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the WX 3100 uses PCIe 3.0 x8, which could bottleneck certain data-heavy workloads on the AMD card.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute throughput in FP32?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P2200, with 3.822 TFLOPS, versus the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100's 1,248.3 GFLOPS. The NVIDIA card is roughly 3 times faster in FP32.

Q: Is the Radeon Pro WX 3100 better at FP16 calculations?

A: Yes, in relative terms. The WX 3100 achieves 1,248.3 GFLOPS in FP16 (1:1 ratio with FP32), while the Quadro P2200 only manages 59.72 GFLOPS (1:64 ratio). For workloads that use FP16, the AMD card is far more capable.

Q: How do their memory bandwidths compare?

A: The Quadro P2200 provides 200.2 GB/s over a 160-bit bus with GDDR5X, while the WX 3100 provides 96.00 GB/s over a 128-bit bus with GDDR5. The NVIDIA card has more than double the bandwidth.

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Quadro P2200 averages 8,686, placing it at the 44th percentile of all GPUs. The WX 3100 averages 7,580, sitting at the 41st percentile. The difference is about 14.6%.

Q: What are their respective release dates?

A: The Quadro P2200 was released on 2019-06-09, while the WX 3100 was released on 2017-06-11. The NVIDIA card is roughly two years newer.

Q: Do both cards support similar graphics APIs?

A: Both support DirectX 12 and OpenGL 4.6. The Quadro P2200 supports Vulkan 1.4, while the WX 3100 supports Vulkan 1.3. The NVIDIA card has a more recent Vulkan version.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear choice for most professional workloads. The Quadro P2200 wins every shared benchmark by a wide margin, offers more than double the memory bandwidth, has over twice the shading units, and delivers over three times the FP32 throughput. Its average benchmark score is higher, and it sits at a higher percentile rank. If the task involves OpenCL, Vulkan, or any compute-heavy rendering, the Quadro P2200 is the superior option based on every recorded measurement.

The WX 3100 does have one niche advantage: its FP16 performance is equal to its FP32 performance, which could matter for AI inference or certain scientific simulations that use reduced precision. However, no benchmark in the database tests FP16 specifically, so this is an inference from the architecture, not a measured result. The WX 3100 also draws less power, 65 W versus 75 W, and is physically smaller, but those differences are unlikely to outweigh the performance gap.

For any user who needs maximum performance per watt or has a strict power envelope, the WX 3100 is the more efficient choice in absolute terms. But the Quadro P2200 delivers roughly 3.1 times the FP32 throughput while consuming only 15% more power, making it far more efficient per unit of work. The verdict from the data is unambiguous: the Quadro P2200 is the stronger workstation card for general-purpose compute and graphics workloads.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every major specification. The process node is 16 nm for NVIDIA versus 14 nm for AMD. Transistor count is 4,400 million versus 2,200 million, and die size is 200 mm² versus 103 mm². Transistor density is 22.0M / mm² versus 21.4M / mm², a negligible difference.

Clock speeds: the Quadro P2200 runs at 1000 MHz base and 1493 MHz boost, while the WX 3100 runs at 925 MHz base and 1219 MHz boost. Memory clocks are 1251 MHz (10 Gbps effective) for NVIDIA and 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective) for AMD. Memory size is 5 GB versus 4 GB, type is GDDR5X versus GDDR5, bus width is 160-bit versus 128-bit, and bandwidth is 200.2 GB/s versus 96.00 GB/s.

Compute units: 1,280 shading units versus 512, 80 TMUs versus 32, and 40 ROPs versus 16. Pixel rate is 59.72 GPixel/s versus 19.50 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 119.4 GTexel/s versus 39.01 GTexel/s. FP32 is 3.822 TFLOPS versus 1,248.3 GFLOPS. FP16 is 59.72 GFLOPS versus 1,248.3 GFLOPS. TDP is 75 W versus 65 W. The bus interface is PCIe 3.0 x16 versus PCIe 3.0 x8. Display outputs are 4x DisplayPort 1.4a versus 1x DisplayPort 1.4a and 2x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a. Dimensions are 201 mm by 111 mm versus 168 mm by 69 mm. Release dates are 2019-06-09 versus 2017-06-11.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro P2200 wins in every measured benchmark category that the database records. It leads in Geekbench OpenCL, Geekbench Vulkan, and has a higher average benchmark score. Its architecture provides more shading units, TMUs, ROPs, memory bandwidth, and FP32 throughput. For any task that relies on these resources, such as 3D rendering, CAD, video editing, or GPU compute, the Quadro P2200 is the clear winner.

The WX 3100 wins in specific architectural attributes rather than measured performance. Its FP16 performance equals its FP32 performance, which is a unique feature that could benefit workloads using half-precision arithmetic. It also consumes less power at 65 W, making it a lower-power option for compact workstations. Its smaller physical footprint, 168 mm by 69 mm, could fit in tighter chassis. Its Vulkan support is version 1.3, which is slightly older than the Quadro P2200's 1.4, but still recent enough for most applications.

In terms of nearest rivals, the Quadro P2200 sits close to the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 v2 (0.7% behind) and the RTX 3050 A Mobile (0.7% behind), while being 1.1% ahead of the AMD FirePro W5170M and 1.5% ahead of the Intel Arc A380. The WX 3100 sits 0.3% ahead of the AMD Radeon R7 250, 0.4% ahead of the Intel Arc A310, 1.2% behind the AMD Radeon 540, and 1.4% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650. These comparisons show that the WX 3100 is competing with entry-level cards from previous generations, while the Quadro P2200 is positioned among mid-range options.

The data implies that the WX 3100 is a legacy product, released earlier and built on an older architecture with fewer resources. The Quadro P2200, despite being end-of-life as well, offers a much more capable platform for modern professional workloads. The only scenario where the WX 3100 might be preferable is if the user specifically needs FP16 throughput, has a strict power limit, or requires a smaller physical card. Otherwise, the Quadro P2200 is the superior choice based on every recorded metric.