AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 vs NVIDIA Quadro 6000 Comparison

# AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 vs NVIDIA Quadro 6000

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 decisively outperforms the NVIDIA Quadro 6000 in the available benchmark data, posting a 14% higher Geekbench OpenCL score despite being a much younger, smaller, and lower-power card. The WX 3200 delivers 11,228 points against the Quadro 6000's 9,846, and it also holds a higher overall GPU percentile rank (50th vs 47th). This is a clear generational victory: the 2019 Polaris-based workstation card beats the 2010 Fermi-based flagship in raw compute throughput, while consuming roughly one-third the power and occupying half the slot width.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable benchmark in the dataset is Geekbench OpenCL, and the result is unambiguous. The Radeon Pro WX 3200 scores 11,228, while the Quadro 6000 scores 9,846, giving AMD a 14% lead. This margin is substantial in workstation terms, where even single-digit percentage differences can translate into noticeably longer render times or slower simulation iterations. The 14% delta is also consistent across the broader competitive landscape: the WX 3200 sits within 0.3% of the GeForce GTX 780M (11,261) and 1.3% above the RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q (11,088), while the Quadro 6000 trades blows with the Quadro M2000M (9,832, +0.1%), FirePro W5000 (9,803, +0.4%), and GeForce GTX 1070 (9,780, +0.7%) — but it falls 1.1% short of the GeForce GTX 870M (9,959).

The win count reflects this dominance: the WX 3200 takes 1 head-to-head victory, while the Quadro 6000 takes 0. In practical terms, this means the WX 3200 completes OpenCL workloads — such as image processing, physics simulations, or general GPU compute tasks — faster than the Quadro 6000 in every measured instance. The data does not show any test where the Quadro 6000 pulls ahead. This is particularly striking given the Quadro 6000's much larger memory bus (384-bit vs 128-bit) and higher memory bandwidth (143.4 GB/s vs 96.00 GB/s), suggesting that the WX 3200's architectural efficiency more than compensates for its narrower memory subsystem.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from fundamentally different eras of GPU design. The Radeon Pro WX 3200 uses the Polaris 23 chip built on GlobalFoundries' 14 nm process, implementing AMD's GCN 4.0 architecture. It packs 2,200 million transistors into a 103 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 21.4 million per square millimeter. The Quadro 6000, by contrast, uses NVIDIA's GF100 chip on TSMC's 40 nm process, implementing the Fermi architecture. It contains 3,100 million transistors spread across a massive 529 mm² die, but its transistor density is just 5.9 million per square millimeter — roughly a quarter of the WX 3200's density.

These process and architecture differences drive the performance gap. The WX 3200 has 640 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs, while the Quadro 6000 has 448 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. The Quadro 6000 actually has more TMUs and ROPs, which explains its higher pixel rate (16.07 GPixel/s vs 20.72 GPixel/s — wait, the WX 3200 is actually higher) and texture rate (32.14 GTexel/s vs 41.44 GTexel/s — again, WX 3200 wins). The WX 3200's FP32 throughput is 1.658 TFLOPS, while the Quadro 6000 manages 1,027.7 GFLOPS (approximately 1.03 TFLOPS). The WX 3200 also supports FP16 at 1.658 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio), while the Quadro 6000 has no FP16 capability listed.

Memory configurations also differ sharply. The WX 3200 offers 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth and 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective) memory clocks. The Quadro 6000 provides 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, with 143.4 GB/s bandwidth and 747 MHz (3 Gbps effective) memory clocks. The Quadro 6000's memory advantage is real — more capacity and 49% more bandwidth — but it does not translate into a compute win. The WX 3200 compensates with higher clocked memory and a far more efficient architecture.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 scores 11,228 on Geekbench OpenCL, which is 14% higher than the NVIDIA Quadro 6000's 9,846.

Q: How do these cards compare in their overall GPU percentile ranks?

A: The WX 3200 ranks at the 50th percentile among all GPUs, while the Quadro 6000 ranks at the 47th percentile.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The WX 3200 has a 65 W TDP and requires a 250 W suggested PSU, while the Quadro 6000 has a 204 W TDP and needs a 550 W suggested PSU.

Q: Which card has more memory bandwidth?

A: The Quadro 6000 has 143.4 GB/s bandwidth on a 384-bit bus, compared to the WX 3200's 96.00 GB/s on a 128-bit bus.

Q: Do both cards support the same APIs?

A: No. The WX 3200 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The Quadro 6000 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6 but has no Vulkan support listed.

Q: What is the release date difference?

A: The WX 3200 was released on 2019-07-01, while the Quadro 6000 was released on 2010-12-09, making the AMD card roughly nine years newer.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 | NVIDIA Quadro 6000 |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | GCN 4.0 | Fermi |

| Process Node | 14 nm (GlobalFoundries) | 40 nm (TSMC) |

| Transistors | 2,200 million | 3,100 million |

| Die Size | 103 mm² | 529 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 21.4M / mm² | 5.9M / mm² |

| Memory Clock | 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective) | 747 MHz (3 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 4 GB GDDR5 | 6 GB GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus | 128 bit | 384 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 96.00 GB/s | 143.4 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 640 | 448 |

| TMUs | 32 | 56 |

| ROPs | 16 | 48 |

| Pixel Rate | 20.72 GPixel/s | 16.07 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 41.44 GTexel/s | 32.14 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 1.658 TFLOPS | 1,027.7 GFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 1.658 TFLOPS (1:1) | Not listed |

| TDP | 65 W | 204 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | 550 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort, 1x S-Video |

| DirectX Support | 12 (12_0) | 12 (11_0) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.3 | Not listed |

| Dimensions | 167 mm (6.6 in) length, 69 mm (2.7 in) height | 248 mm (9.8 in) length, 111 mm (4.4 in) height |

| Release Date | 2019-07-01 | 2010-12-09 |

| Launch MSRP | 199 USD | 4,399 USD |

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 wins on raw compute performance, benchmark score, and efficiency. Its 14% OpenCL lead means it is the better choice for any workload that stresses compute throughput — rendering, simulation, or general GPU-accelerated tasks. It also wins decisively on power efficiency: 65 W TDP versus 204 W, meaning it can be deployed in smaller workstations with lower power budgets. The WX 3200's single-slot design and lack of external power connectors make it far easier to install in dense or compact systems. Its modern display outputs (4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a) support current monitors natively, and its Vulkan 1.3 support makes it compatible with modern cross-platform compute APIs.

The NVIDIA Quadro 6000 wins on memory capacity and bandwidth. Its 6 GB frame buffer versus 4 GB gives it an edge for workloads that hold large datasets in GPU memory, such as certain visualization or machine-learning inference tasks. Its 143.4 GB/s bandwidth and 384-bit bus provide 49% more memory throughput, which could benefit memory-bound operations despite the overall compute deficit. The Quadro 6000 also has more TMUs (56 vs 32) and ROPs (48 vs 16), which theoretically improves texturing and pixel throughput in specific graphics scenarios — though the measured pixel rate (16.07 GPixel/s) and texture rate (32.14 GTexel/s) are both lower than the WX 3200's (20.72 GPixel/s and 41.44 GTexel/s, respectively). The Quadro 6000's PCIe 2.0 x16 interface provides more lanes than the WX 3200's PCIe 3.0 x8, though the newer PCIe 3.0 standard on the AMD card offers higher per-lane bandwidth.

The Verdict

The data is clear: the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 is the superior card for compute performance, efficiency, and modern feature support. It beats the Quadro 6000 by 14% in OpenCL, ranks higher in the overall GPU percentile (50th vs 47th), and does so at a fraction of the power draw (65 W vs 204 W) and physical footprint (single-slot vs dual-slot). For any user prioritizing raw compute speed, lower operating costs, or system integration flexibility, the WX 3200 is the unequivocal choice.

The NVIDIA Quadro 6000 retains a niche for workloads that specifically need its 6 GB memory capacity or 143.4 GB/s bandwidth. If a task requires holding large textures, datasets, or geometry in GPU memory, the Quadro 6000's larger frame buffer could be the deciding factor — but that advantage comes with the caveat that its actual compute throughput is lower, meaning any memory-heavy task that also requires significant processing will be slower overall. Given that the WX 3200 is newer, more efficient, and faster in the only benchmark available, it is the recommended pick for the majority of workstation scenarios. The Quadro 6000 only makes sense for legacy compatibility or very specific memory-capacity constraints, and even then, the 14% compute gap will likely be felt.